:;^:";
         ,.fx:.'\i




■;*(■■ ■,.;t;*,.;.;,<


 
 
/\
 
 
u
-7- /';■ 1...;   \..-ct  ^ j
s/
                   TO THE PUBLIC.   %&ingt,tt,V

  Being advised by Legal and Medical men, that the trial of
William Freeman for the murder of John G. Van Nest was,
in view of  the  extraordinary character of that tragedy, the
mental condition and singular appearance of the prisoner, and
the important questions of medical jurisprudence involved in
the case, justly regarded by the profession as one of the most
remarkable that ever occurred in the United States; and being
urgently desired  to  procure  and publish an accurate report of
the same,  together with an account of the post-mortem exami-
nation by Doctor's  Brigham, McCall,  Briggs,   Dimon, Van
Epps, Fosgate and Hyde, made with reference to his probable
insanity, the publishers of this volume, soon  after his  death,
took measures to obtain such a Report as seemed to be de-
manded, for publication.
  That it might  be free from  suspicion of bias, it was deemed
advisable  that it  should be prepared by some gentleman other
than any  of  the judges or counsel connected with the  trial.
Learning  that it  would be agreeable as well to the judges who
composed  the Court of Oyer and Terminer, as the counsel re-
spectively employed in the case, to have the  report prepared
by Benjamin F. Hall,  Esq.,  a counsellor of this city, that gen-
tleman was  solicited to prepare  the work.   We  believe it has
been executed with fidelity.   Our desire that the volume should
embrace the arguments of Gov. Seward and Attorney General
Van Buren, induced us to delay the publication until a report of
both of them could  be obtained.   We now give  to the public 
iy                    TO THE PUBLIC                      •
the whole testimony and  the speeches of both those  eminent
counsel to the jury.  As it has been our purpose to give to the
learned professions and to  the world an accurate and well exe-
cuted report of one of the most interesting and  extraordinary
criminal trials that ever occurred in our country,  and believing
that such purpose is answered'in the following pages, we com-
mit the volume to the public  with the hope that it will be found
in every respect interesting, truthful and satisfactory.
                                    THE PUBLISHERS.
  VV
boo
f
~^J\m*S
J8tf
,. / 
                             y
             THE   TEIAL
                       OF
                                  \
WILLIAM    FREEMAN.
                          THE CASE.

   William Freeman, the subject of this notice, was born at Auburn, in
 the county of Cayuga, New-York, in the year 1824.  His father was born a
 slave, but became a free man in 1815, by purchase of his  time, under the.
 act for the  gradual aboUtion of slavery in New-York.  He died  in 182.7,
 from disease of the brain, caused, as was supposed, by a fall from the dock
 into the basin at Albany.  Of his brothers and sisters two only survive, and
 one of them has for  twelve years past been  a wandering  lunatic ; one of
 those that have died, a sister, was, for many years immediately preceding her
 death, insane.
   The wife of James, and mother of William, was a native of Berkshire,
 Massachusetts, from which place she was transferred,  as a house servant, to
 Auburn in  1817.  Her father was black, her mother a red woman of the
 Stockbridge tribe, but in whose veins, however,  ran some French blood, as
 was said; so, that subject to that qualification, William was a  quadroon of
 Tartar and African descent, with a visage strongly  marked with the  dis-
 tinctive features of the North American Indian.
   So far as is now recollected  by those who observed him, William indica-
 ted the possession of  capacity equal to that of ordinary colored boys of his
 age, until he attained  the age of twelve or fourteen years, when he began to
 display eccentricities in manners that were attributed  rather to an  extraor-
 dinary penchant for strolling than to any mental defect or depravity.  As
he advanced in years, however, a species of taciturnity seemed to mark his
behavior.  This was observed by his employers, and especially by his mother,
who, though, a poor colored woman, had a care for his habits and welfare.
  From the  best information that can now be obtained, it appears that when
/ 
18        ^                 THE TRIAL OF

William, as he is called, (Hannibal, as he was named,) arrived at the age of
seven or eight years, he was placed in the family of Captain Allen Warden,
then of Auburn, as a servant boy, where he lived about a year.  He was
then transferred to the family of Ethan A. Warden, Esq., where he served
in the same  capacity, until some time in  1833, when he was discharged on
account of an uncontrollable disposition  for play with other colored boys,
which rendered  his services valueless. Not long  after this, his  mother ob-
tained a place for him in the family of Judge Satterlee, of Lyons, in Wayne
county, where it was hoped  that his habits might be corrected.  But no
benefits resulted from removing him from his former associates.   Although
sometimes obedient, he was inclined  to wander and rove, and in respect to
this, exhibited a tact at strategy that was strikingly indicative of his Indian
maternity.
  But notwithstanding his faults, he had a buoyancy of spirit, a playfulness
of manner, and an elasticity of movement, that arrested attention and induced
a strong desire for his retention  as an errand boy and domestic.   The young
Indian,  as he was sometimes called, however, could not be confined to either
kitchen or yard, nor did the rigor of any discipline  tame his  wildness or
repress his inclination to rove.  Nearly every attempt to abridge his liberty
was anticipated  by a nimble  bound over and beyond the  pale designed for
his  imprisonment;  so that all the efforts of Judge  S. to retain him in steady
service  were unavailing.
  These characteristics, then of little moment, have since  become the sub-
jects of medical examination, in  view of the probable effects of his subsequent
imprisonment, as in his veins  coursed the blood of a race that has never been
restrained without difficulty—never incarcerated without mental disaster.
  After leaving the family of Judge S. he lived with and labored for sundry
persons in and  about  Auburn, among whom were  Messrs. Cadwell, Jones,
Seeley, Curtis, Andrus, Smith,  and  Depuy, his  brother-in-law, by most of
whom he was regarded as honest and faithful in the execution of particular
commands,  but  generally unsteady,  and at times intemperate.  For short
periods he served  as a waiter at several hotels and in private families prior
to  1840, but those  periods were always brief.  Although taciturn and morose
at  times, he was ever ready for a frolic or a dance, and according to the
testimony of his sister, "he acted very smart on such  occasions."
   But  so little of popular favor has  been accorded to the negro race' since
the abolition of slavery in New-York, that not much information in detail can
be gathered of one so obscure  as  Freeman was,  prior to his arrest and im-
 prisonment for the offence of another man—for a crime, which it is conceded
 on all  hands, he never committed.  Hence, he can be but faintly traced  as
 he passed along through the vicissitudes of his early life to the occurrence
 which  resulted  in his  imprisonment  on  a charge  of larceny and introduced
 him to public notice as a felon.
    In the spring of 1840, whilst Freeman was living with Depuy  his brother- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                        19
in-law, a Mrs. Martha Godfrey, of the town of Sennett,  some five miles
distant from Auburn, lost from her stable a horse, which she alleged to have
been, and which doubtless was, by some one, taken feloniously.  For  some
cause, Freeman was suspected and arrested, but protested his innocence, and
upon examination before Robert Cook, Esq., a magistrate, he was discharged.
Some weeks  afterward, the horse was found  in the county of Chemung,
whither it had been taken  and sold by a negro, as was alleged.  The de-
scription given was supposed to answer to one Jack Furman, another negro,
who thereupon was arrested, examined, and  committed to jail for want  of
bail, to await an indictment by a grand jury.  But knowing that Freeman
had been once arrested for the theft, Jack took occasion to renew the charge,
and to insist that  he  should  be  arrested again.  This was finally done  in
June, and from that time, with the exception of a few days when Freeman
was absent, until  September  following, both  of them were detained for the
same offence.
  In July, Freeman broke  the lock of his cell, and with another prisoner
escaped from the jail.   His fellow was at once re-taken, but Freeman made
rapid flight  to  the woods, and was not captured until two weeks afterward,
when he was found at  Lyons, where he had formerly lived.  When arrested,
he protested his entire innocence, and excused his escape by the expression
of his fear that Jack  Furman would swear  him into the State Prison.  It
was known to the jailer that  he had offered  to do so upon the condition of
his own release.
  In September he was indicted, as well for breaking jail as for the larceny
charged against him.  He was also, at the same term of court, tried and con-
victed, mainly upon the oath of Jack, who gave his evidence for the people
in exoneration of himself.  Three witnesses only were  sworn on his trial:
Mrs. Godfrey, to the loss and recovery of her horse; Mr. Doty,  a neighbor,
that he saw a negro on the horse the night it was stolen, and Jack, that  he
went with Freeman to the  stable and saw  him take it.  The jury, under
charge of the court, found  him  guilty, whereupon he was sentenced to  be
confined in the State  Prison  at Auburn, at hard labor, for the term of five
years.   Jack received, as the reward of his perjury, a discharge.
  But as it soon became reasonably certain that Freeman was at  another
place all the  night when the  larceny was committed, and as Jack was soon
thereafter convicted for a similar offence, the public mind at once exonera-
ted Freeman from the  felony for which he  had been convicted.  He was
doubtless innocent of the offence.
  The conviction of Freeman, therefore, appears to have been unjust, and to
have had a powerful influence upon his mind when in prison.  He repeatedly
asserted his  innocence to the constables, justice, and jailer, before, and to the
keepers of the prison after,  his conviction,  and vainly urged his  release.
Unlike most negro convicts, he never became in any degree reconciled to his
condition, until he had resisted the authorities of the prison and received a 
20
THE  TRIAL OF
blow, which, to use his own expression, " knocked all the hearing off, so that
it never came back to him again."
  On being reprimanded by the contractor in whose shop he was placed, he
said he had " done nothing worthy of confinement—that Captain Tyler, the
keeper, was going to whip him, and he did not want to be punished when he
did'nt deserve it."  To James E.  Tyler, the  keeper, he made similar com-
plaints, and at all times, when he had the opportunity, he protested his inno-
cence and complained of his imprisonment.  Not doing as much work as he
was deemed capable of performing, he was  ordered to  do more,  under the
penalty of the lash.  This not having the effect desired, he was called up to
be flogged, when a scene occurred that was related by Tyler as follows: " I
called him up and told him I had done talking to him—I was going to punish
him.   I told him to take his clothes off.   I turned to get the cat, and received
a blow on the back part of the head from him.  It started me  a little.  As I
looked around, Bill struck me on the back—I kicked at him and knocked
him partly over—perhaps he fell clear down.  He jumped up, went across
the shop, took up a knife and came at me.  I took up a piece of board lying
on the desk, went  down and met him.   It was a bass wood board, two feet
long, fourteen inches wide and half an inch thick.  It was a board one of the
convicts had laid on  my desk, on which was a count of lumber, planed  on
both sides. When I came in reach of him, I struck  him on the head,
flatwise—split the board, and left a piece in my hand four inches wide."
  He was then punished and sent to his work,  but afterwards appeared
downcast and sad, and, as the witnesses testified, " went about with his head
down."  His hearing was dull before, but heavier afterwards ; and many have
supposed that his auditory organs were then injured,  notwithstanding the
confident opinion of Tyler " that the blow could not have hurt him."  Cer-
tain it is that he was  afterwards very deaf, and that the deafness continued
to increase while he remained in prison;  and upon a  post mortem  exami-
nation it was found that the  drum of his left ear had been broken, and that
his left temporal  bone was carious and diseased.
  Freeman remained in the State Prison until the expiration of his sentence,
but was more stolid and dull  after than before his difficulty with Tyler.   He
had before been allowed to attend the Sunday school,  but  after this occur-
rence that opportunity was, for some reason, denied him. Some of the police
appear to have considered him too dangerous for such a liberty—some, that
by his resistance of authority he had forfeited the privilege—and others that
he was not susceptible of any instruction.  Which  consideration prompted
the denial to him of the advantages of the  Sunday school is not known.  He
never was permitted to go there afterwards.
  After an unsuccessful  effort to exact from him  a prescribed amount of
labor  in the hame shop, he was given up by the  contractor and permitted
to do  miscellaneous work in the yard.  In the fall of 1813 he was employed
in the dye house, where Captain William P. Smith was foreman.  Smith con- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
21
sidered him then " a being of very low, degraded intellect;  hardly above a
brute, and treated him accordingly," (vide his testimony;)  " that he was a
man of very quick passions;  would fly in a moment at any thing he thought
an insult;"  that another convict changed the  position of a pole on which
yarn was hung, for which he fought him, was reported for so doing and was
flogged; that he had greased a pair of shoes and set the  same on a pile of
wood, which another convict caused to fall, when Freeman struck him, and
for which he was also flogged.  After this he went to Captain Smith, crying,
and represented that he  had been flogged  very severely; that a hole had
been cut between his ribs which  he could lay his fingers in.   He also told
Captain Smith that the flogging pained him so at night that he could not
sleep.
  As to his capacity at this time, it appears  from all the witnesses sworn on
his trial, that it was very limited;  that commands had to be repeated several
times before he could understand them sufficiently  to obey them.  Some
represent him as being weak and  child-like ; some thought him  a little shat-
tered, but all were willing to keep him at work at such things  as he had
capacity to execute.  In this condition he remained until the expiration of
his sentence, in September, 1845.
  His mother never saw him during the time he  was in prison, but occa-
sionally sent  some one to see  him, that his condition might  be reported to
her.   This was generally  done by John Depuy, her son-in-law, who says he
saw William five' times during his confinement; that  his mother had heard
that somebody had struck him on  his head and that it was going to kill him,
whereupon he went in to  see him.  He testified on the trial, that he found
Freeman with a knapsack on his back, walking back  and forth in the yard;
" that, he would walk a little way and  turn round."  Depuy considered him
deranged, and so told his wife and mother-in-law on his return.
  On the morning when  Freeman's sentence expired, Depuy went to the
State Prison for him and took him home. Thus ended his imprisonment on
the charge of stealing Mrs. Godfrey's horse.
  During the fall and winter he lived most of the time with his brother-in
law, but  occasionally at the  houses of other colored people.   He was some-
times employed at sawing  wood, but was generally sluggish, stupid and
indolent.  He talked but little, and gave but a confused relation of occurrences
in the prison when he was there.  The injustice of his imprisonment and the
rencontre with Tyler seemed to be uppermost in his mind, and formed about
the only topics of his conversation when he said any thing.   He frequently
inquired for Jack Furman, and  upon being told  by Depuy that he was a
convict in the State Prison, replied, "he had not seen him."   He said he
had been there five years  for nothing, and he wanted pay for it.
  After enquiring for magistrates, he told Depuy that he must go down and
get a warrant for the folks, and that they must pay him; that he could not
make any gain so, and could'nt live.  He then applied to two magistrates, 
22                          THE TRIAL OF
Bostwick and Paine, for warrants against the folks that sent him to prison,
but the request was refused.  He then returned to Depuy's, where he said that
he could'nt do any thing with them;  that he could not get any thing;  would
have to lose it all.  After working about at sundry little jobs of work, from
which he  received but a trifling compensation, he went to board with a
colored  washer-woman named  Mary Ann Newark, at a  place called New
Guinea, about a mile south of the village of Auburn.   She had known him
before he was imprisoned, and had seen him in the street after his discharge,
but she was apparently unnoticed by him.   She took  him to board, that he
might help her carry her baskets of clothes to and from those in the village
for whom  she worked.  Her account of him is, that  he did  not hear very
quick; would put down his ear and want her to speak  louder; that he never
said much, and spoke  only when spoken to; that he never asked any ques-
tions himself, and answered those put to him very briefly.
   Whilst living with her, and between the hours of six and seven o'clock on
the evening of the 12th day of March, 1846, William went away, she knew
not whither, nor for what purpose.
   On the  western border of the Owasco lake, in the town of Fleming, and
about three and a half miles south of the village of Auburn, there lived a
very respectable and worthy farmer, whose name was John  G.  Van Nest.
He was a  man of good education, of considerable wealth—had held various
offices of honor and profit—was extensively known, and highly esteemed by
all who knew him.  He was very exact in all his dealings, correct in his de-
portment, and exemplary in all his varied relations to the society  of which
he was a member, and to the community in which he lived.  His  family
consisted of Mrs. Sarah Van Nest, his wife; Mrs. Phebe Wyckoff, his mother-
in-law ; Julia Van Nest, his daughter; Peter Van Nest and George W. Van
Nest, his sons, the latter about two years old, and  Helen Holmes, a  young
woman who lived with them in the capacity of help;  there was  also at his
house, on  the night of the 12th of March, a Mr. Van Arsdale,—all being re-
spectable and very estimable persons.  Any violence, therefore,  to  such a
family, could not have failed to arouse the community far  around, and to
have caused the  offender to be  condignly punished  if within their reach.
And when popular indignation for a trespass upon the rights, the  property
or the lives of worthy citizens does not overleap the boundaries of that pro-
priety which the law establishes, it betokens well for the character  of the
persons injured, and the virtue, the morals and the peace of society.
   As the  family of Mr. Van Nest were about  retiring to rest on  the  12th
day of March, a tragedy was  enacted at  his dwelling which is without a
parallel in the history of crime ;  an event  that was horrid beyond all des-
cription, dreadful in its character and  shocking to the  community.  Without
the least premonition of, or provocation for the act, John G. Van Nest, Sarah
 Van Nest his wife, and George W., their son, were slain and left  weltering
in their gore; Mrs. Phebe Wyckoff mortally and Van  Arsdale severely 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
23
wounded, by the hand of an  assassin.  The occurrence happened at about
half past nine o'clock, when all the family'had retired to their rooms for the
night, except Mr. Van  Nest, who was  in  his sitting room, and  Mrs.  Van
Nest, who had stepped  into the yard in rear of the dwelling.  At that point
of time, Mrs. Van Nest received a mortal wound inflicted  with a knife,
guided by a negro, and shrieking, ran to the window of the room occupied
by  Helen Holmes, who opened the door in  that  part  of the house, through
which Mrs. Van Nest came in and died.  Hearing the shriek of his wife, Mr.
Van Nest at once opened the door, when he received a fatal stab from the
same hand, and fell without a struggle.  Mrs. Wyckoff, in her attempt to
escape, received a mortal wound as the assassin passed to the stairs ascending
to the chamber.  After stabbing an infant boy who was sleeping near them,
•he  attempted to ascend the stairs, when he encountered Van Arsdale, whom
he  severely wounded.   But after a severe struggle, the assassin was expelled
from the house, and  procuring a horse from the  stable hard by, he mounted,
and made rapid  flight from the scene of desolation and of blood.   That
horse soon failing him, he procured another, with which  he  continued  his
flight to the county of  Oswego, a distance of forty miles, where he was taken
the next day by the officers in pursuit.  He was found to  be William Free-
man.
  The officers returned him, fettered and bound, to the house of Van Nest,
to Avhich the magistrate repaired to take the proof of his identity and guilt,
from the lips of the survivors.  Tidings of the awful affair having, meanwhile,
been  widely spread, the  inhabitants  of the country far around rushed, en
masse, to the scene of slaughter.  After beholding the  lifeless forms of the
father, mother and son, and  at  the same time learning that Mrs. Wyckoff
had died from her wounds at a neighboring house, they were so shocked and
exasperated,  that an irrepressible and tumultuous indignation burst forth
from  every mouth, and nearly overbore  the  authorities who had in charge
the wretched assassin.  The excitement of the occasion  was unprecedented
in this section of the State.  It was thought the course of justice marked out
by the law was too slow for  the punishment  of such  an offender—that the
death of the family of Van Nest must be at once avenged.  The populace sought
his blood, and madly and loudly called for the victim of their fury that they
might tear him to atoms.   The gibbet, rack and  flame  were  each proposed
for his immediate  destruction.   The rope  and the lasso were ready for
snatching him from the officers of the law.  But by a diversion artfully con-
trived by the officers,  they escaped with their prisoner, and  although pur-
sued, succeeded in lodging him in the county jail.
   Such an extraordinary excitement of such an immense concourse of people,
as might have been expected, did not immediately subside.  The crowd dis-
persed only to fan the flame in other quarters. The blood of wives and children
ran cold at the recital, so that whole families, from the prattling child to the
tottering grandsire, spontaneously joined in the popular indignation. 
24
THE TRIAL OF
  A jury in another capital case (that  of Henry Wyatt) having disagreed
about the sanity of a prisoner, that was brought into the excitement and
vehemently discussed in connection with this.  Judges, jurors  and counsel
were  alternately upbraided, reproached and defended.   The  lives of the
people were considered in jeopardy.  The mention of insanity in connection
with Freeman was rebuked as presumptuous, and dangerous to  the safety of
the community.
  Next in the order of events,  came the funeral obsequies over  the bodies of
the slain.  That was  truly a mournful,  a thrilling occasion.  The presence
of the four encoffined dead; the deep and pervading anguish of the mourning
relatives; the mighty concourse of anxious friends and acquaintances m at-
tendance ; all contributed to render it  as extraordinary as  was the event
which had occasioned the exercises.  The sermon was delivered  with great
effect by the Rev.  A. B. Winfield, pastor of the church of which the deceased
were members, from  1 Phillipians, i. 21; concluding with the following pe-
roration :
   "If ever there was a just rebuke upon the falsely so-called  sympathy of
the day, here it is.  Let any man in his senses look at  this horrible sight,
and then think of the spirit with which it was perpetrated, and, unless he
loves the murderer more than his murdered victims, he will, he  must confess,
that the law of God which requires that ' he  that sheddeth man's blood by
man shall his Mood be shed; is  right, is just, is reasonable.^  Is  this  the  way
to prevent murder, by sympathy?  It encourages it.   It steels  the heart and
nerves the arm of the assassin !
   " But capital punishment is said to be barbarous, cruel, savage.  What does
this amount to ?■  Why, that God commands  that which is barbarous, cruel
and savage !  Most daring blasphemy!   But all punishment is  for the good
of the culprit, or else it is tyrannical! The wretch who committed this horrid
deed has been in the school of a State Prison for five years, and yet comes
out a murderer!   Besides,  it is an undeniable fact, that murder has increased
with the increase of this anti-capital punishment spirit.  It  awakens a hope
 in the wretch, that by adroit counsel, law may be perverted, and jurors be-
 wildered or melted by sympathy ; that by judges infected ivith  it, their whole
 charges may be in favor of the  accused; that by the lavishment of money,
 appeals might be multiplied, and, by putting off the trial, witnesses may die.
 Why, none of us are safe under such a false sympathy as this; for the  mur-
 derer is almost certain of being acquitted!   If I shoot a man to prevent him
 breaking into my house and killing my family, these gentlemen will say I did
 right.  But if he  succeeds, and murders my  whole  family, then it would  be
 barbarous to put him to death!   Oh, shame, shame !  I appeal  to this vast
 assembly to maintain the laws of their  country inviolate, and cause the mur-
 derer to be punished."
    However inappropriate such an appeal may have been for the day and
 occasion, it was nevertheless responded to by the excited auditory, and a 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
25
copy thereof solicited for publication.  The request was granted;  the sermon
printed, and thousands thereof gratuitously circulated throughout the body
of the State.  The press announced the murder in glaring, startling capitals,
and did its part in awakening the community to  the awful consequences of
sympathy for such an offender.  Nor was this  excitement local.  As  the
tidings of the  affair went forth in the public prints, the people of the whole
State, in very considerable degree, partook of the feeling that pervaded the
masses in Cayuga.
  Such had been the tragedy; such the excitement; such was the condition
of the public mind, when, at the May term of the Cayuga general sessions,
four indictments for murder were found against Freeman, and presented
by the grand  jury.  That for the murder  of  John G. Van  Nest, being the
one upon which he was tried, was in the words and figures following.
                       THE  INDICTMENT.

 ■' At a court of general sessions of the peace, held at the court house, in
the village of Auburn, in and for the county of Cayuga, on the  eighteenth
day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and forty-
six, before Joseph L. Richardson, Isaac Sisson, Elisha W. Sheldon, Esquires,
and others, their associates, judges and justices, assigned to keep the peace
in the said county of Cayuga, and to hear and determine divers felonies, tres-
passes, and other misdemeanors, in the said county, committed:
  Cayuga County,ss:  The jurors for the people of the Stateof New York,
in and for the body  of the county of Cayuga, to  wit: Samuel S. Coonley,
Ezra Willits, Phineas F. Wilson, AVilliam Beach, Henry II. Cooley, William
Bidwell, James  Congdon, Charles  Paddock, Leonard D.  Harmon, John
O'Hara, John A.  Carter, Charles  Lester, Jacob  Ciiykendall,  Daniel  R.
Rooks,  William  Moore, Jacob  Sharpsteen, Thomas E. Loomis, good and
lawful men of the same county, being then and there  sworn and  charged
upon their oath, present: That William Freeman, late of the town of Auburn,
in the county of Cayuga, laborer, on the twelfth day of March, in the year
of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and forty six, with force and arms,
at the town of Fleming, in the county aforesaid, in and upon  one John  G.
Van Nest,  in the peace of God and the people of the State of New York
then and there being, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought,
and from a premeditated design to effect the death of the said John G. Van
Nest, did make an assault;  and that the said William Freeman, with a certain
knife, of the value of twenty-five cents, which he, the said William Freeman,
in his right hand then and there had and held, the said John  G. Van Nest,
in and upon the breast at the left side of the breast bone, between the third 
26                          THE TRIAL OF

and fourth ribs of him, the said John G. Van Nest, then and there feloniously,
wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, and from a premeditated design to
effect the death of the said John G. Van  Nest, did strike, stab and thrust,
giving to the said John G. Van Nest, then and there, with the knife afore-
said, in and upon the breast at the left side of the breast  bone, between the
third and fourth ribs of him, the said John G. Van Nest, one mortal wound
of the breadth of one inch and of the depth of five inches, of which said mortal
wound the said John G. Van Nest then  and there instantly died.  And so
the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say that the said William
Freeman, the said John G. Van Nest, in  manner and form  aforesaid, felo-
niously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, and from  a premeditated
design to effect the death of the said John G. Van Nest, did kill and murder,
against the peace and dignity of the people of the State of New York.
                                    Lumax  Sherwood, Dist. Att'y.
                   (A true Bill.)
                                    Samuel S. Cooxley, Foreman.
  On the presentation  of the above, with the other indictments against
William Freeman, and on motion of the district attorney, it was ordered by
the said court  of general sessions  that the said  indictments be sent to the,
court of oyer and terminer for trial.
  Henry Wyatt and William Freeman both being in jail on charges  for
capital offences, a commission was issued by the Governor for the holding of
a special court of oyer and terminer by the Hon. Bowen Whiting, and the
county judges of Cayuga, on the  first Monday of June  next thereafter,, at
the court house in Auburn, for the trial of said prisoners.
                      THE  ARRAIGNMENT.

  On the first day of June, 1846, the Hon. Bowen Whiting, with the other
judges composing said commission, convened at the court house in Auburn,
and then and there opened and held a special  court of oyer and terminer.
After the usual proclamations, the sheriff was directed to bring in William
Freeman for arraignment.  The prisoner having been  brought to the bar,
L. Sherwood, Esq.,  district attorney, proceeded  to arraign him upon the
several indictments for murder, whereupon the Hon. William H. Seward
appeared in court and tendered in behalf of the prisoner a plea of insanity,
upon which the district attorney took issue.
   His honor, the presiding judge, then remarked, that as the statute ex-
pressly declared that no insane person  can be tried, the issue which  had
been joined upon the mental condition of the prisoner must be disposed of
before any further proceedings could be had on the indictment.  How that 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
27
issue was to be determined, he was not, without some reflection, prepared
to decide.  A plea of insanity went to the right of the court to try the pri-
soner during the continuance of that disability, if it  in fact existed.   The
court, therefore, must  adopt such a method for determining that issue as
would be satisfactory to the judges composing it.  Until  he consulted with
his brethren, he was unprepared  to announce the method to  be  adopted.
As it was  a matter resting in  the discretion of the court, he would hear
the views of counsel, if they desired to make any suggestions.
   Mr. Sherwood observed, that in his opinion the court might determine the
present sanity of the prisoner, either by a personal inspection and examina-
tion, with or without the aid of physicians, or by a  jury  to be  empanelled
for that purpose.   He was unable to say what method the court would prefer,
or which would be the most satisfactory.  As he had, from observation of
and conversation with the prisoner, satisfied himself that  he was not insane,
it  appeared to him that a similar  examination might  satisfy the conscience
of the court.
   Mr. Seward regarded insanity as a fact  that should be determined as
other questions of fact are required to be, in criminal cases.  In that view
he suggested a trial of the issue by a jury.   It was important to the people
as well as the prisoner,  that such an investigation be made as shall be entirely
satisfactory to the court and to the public.   If the prisoner be insane, as the
plea alleges, he ought not to be required to answer; if he be sane, he should
be tried.  Whilst the examination of the district attorney had convinced
him that Freeman was  sane, his (Mr. Seward's) examination had convinced
him that he was insane.  Others,  with equal advantages for arriving at the
truth, corroborated  his opinion.   If a trial by jury were the right of a sane
man, ought it not to be accorded to one who cannot hear you nor make any
election in  the premises himself?
   The court reserved the question for advisement, and ordered the arraign-
ment to be suspended,  and  the prisoner to be remanded to the county jail.
                  DECISION  OF THE COURT.

  On the twenty-fourth day of the same month, the court announced its
determination  to inform its conscience concerning the insanity of the pri-
soner, by the verdict of a jury, and thereupon directed the Clerk to draw
such jury from the box containing the names of jurors summoned to attend
said court, and to empanel the same for the  trial of that issue.
  Hon. John Van Buren, attorney  general, and Luman Snerwood, Esq., 
28                          THE TRIAL OF

district  attorney,  appeared as counsel for the people;  Hon.  William   .
Seward, David Wright, Christopher Morgan, and Samuel Blatchford, Esqrs.,
took their seats as counsel in behalf of the prisoner.
         THE JURORS  AND THEIR EXAMINATION.

   Ezra Stone was then drawn by the clerk as a juror, and answering,
was thereupon challenged for principal cause by the counsel for the prisoner.
After being sworn to answer, &c, touching his indifference, &c, he testified
as follows: I reside in Cato.  Have not formed any opinign concerning the
sanity of the prisoner.  Have heard the subject spoken of.  Have seen him
in his cell, but have formed no  opinion.  Have no impressions on my mind
either way.
   Question.  Have you not formed and expressed a fixed and deliberate opin-
ion that the prisoner at the bar is guilty of murder ?  Objected to by attorney
general, and objection sustained.
   Q.  Have  you not formed and expressed  an  opinion that the prisoner
ought to be  hanged ?  Objected to by attorney general, and  objection sus-
tained.
   The court overruled the challenge for  principal cause, and thereupon the
prisoner's counsel challenged the juror for favor.   Counsellors Hulbert and
Andrus were appointed triors, before whom the juror was further examined
as follows: I bave  heard of the murders in Fleming.   Saw an  account of
them.  Mr.  Ives, of Weedsport, ^told  me about  them.  Ives told that the
prisoner was a negro, and that his name was Freeman.  It was said there
were others  concerned  with him.  Heard a man, who saw the  bodies, give
the particulars of the transaction.  Think  it likely that an opinion was ex-
pressed.  It was said that there was talk about Lynching him.   There was
considerable excitement.  I have not had doubts  of his guilt; of his having
committed the murders.  Have said that if he was guilty he ought to be
punished.   Have said he ought to be brought to trial and to justice.   I par-
took of the excitement.  I had supposed him sane  until I came here.   I have
heard  it asked whether they would not try to prove him morally insane.
Don't know as I thought he ought to have been Lynched.   I may have said
that it might have been as well if he had been.
   Q. by the triors.   When you testified that you  had no doubt the prisoner
committed the murders, did you mean to intimate an opinion  that he was
capable of committing  murders, or  merely that he had  taken the  lives of
those persons ?
   Answer.  That he took their lives.   I knew nothing of his ability. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       29
   Verdict of triors—" that they find the juror indifferent upon the issue of
 insanity."
   The prisoner's counsel  insisted  that the verdict  should be  whether the
 juror is indifferent between the people and the prisoner.  Whereupon the
 court  remarked  that the verdict of the  triors  was equivalent  to that,  and
 thereupon the triors say, that under such instruction, their verdict is that the
 juror is indifferent.
   The said juror was then challenged peremptorily.  To this the attorney
 general objected.  The court  decided that the prisoner on this issue was not
 entitled to a peremptory challenge.   Ezra Stone was then sworn to try the
 issue.   (1.)
   Simon Hawes was next drawn by the clerk as a juror, and answering,
 was thereupon challenged for principal cause, and he being sworn, testified
 as follows:   I have  seen the prisoner.   Have heard the question of his in-
 sanity several times  spoken of.  I saw him in jail this morning.  Thompson
 and Wood, also jurors, were with me.  There was a man in the cell with the
 prisoner doing something.  Have made up no mind as to his insanity.   Have
 not much of an impression.  Have formed no opinion.
   Q.  Have  you  formed  and expressed an opinion that the prisoner is guilty
 of the murders charged against  him ?   Objected to by attorney general,
 and objection sustained.
   The court then overruled the challenge for principal cause, and thereupon
 the prisoner's counsel challenged the said juror for favor.  Same triors as be-
 fore.  The juror being further  examined, testified:   I have formed an
 opinion that the  prisoner is guilty, if he is the  man he is said  to be;  that
 he is guilty of the murder of  the Van Nest familjr.  If he is the man who
 killed them, he is guilty, of course.  I have formed an opinion  from what I
 have heard and read that he is the man.  This has been my opinion since I
 heard of the affair.  My opinion at present  is as much of a deliberate opinion
 as any other that I have formed from reading and  hearing.   I have read
 accounts of the murder in the newspapers.  I have heard it conversed about
 often,  and have always  expressed  this opinion.  Guess I never expressed
 the opinion that he ought to be hung.  If he is guilty he ought to be hung,
 and  I have formed the opinion that he ought to  be hung.
  Q. by the court.  Have you ever thought about his being insane ?
  A. Yes, I have thought and said he  ought to have a fair trial.  I feel
 indifferent on the question of insanity.
  Q. by district  attorney.  Have you had any means of forming any opin-
 ion whether the prisoner is sane or insane ?
  A. I have not.  My mind is open to a fair consideration of the testimony
upon that  subject.  I did not  take into consideration his responsibility for
his acts, when I said he was guilty of murder.
  His honor, the  presiding judge, then charged the triors that the question 
30
THE TRIAL OF
for them to determine was, whether the juror's mind is in a condition fairly
to try this issue of the sanity or insanity of the prisoner; to try whether the
prisoner shall be tried on the main issue.  He  has expressed a belief that
the prisoner is guilty of the killing which  is charged against him as murder;
yet that is  not the question now on  trial,  and we do not see that an opinion
on that disqualifies a juror upon this issue.  If he has a fixed and deliberate
opinion that the prisoner is guilty of the crime charged, he is not disqualified
as a juror on this issue, if he has not made up his mind as to the sanity or
insanity of the prisoner.  Evidence of his opinion of the prisoner's guilt could
have no influence in deciding  upon  the indifference of the juror only as  it
was evidence of his bias against him, and that if the triors believed that such
opinion was evidence of bias against  the prisoner, they would find the juror
not indifferent.
  Verdict  of jurors—that he was indifferent; the court  deciding  that no
peremptory challenge would be allowed, Simon Hawes was then sworn to
try the issue.  (2.)
  Ezra Moseman was then drawn, but discharged on his own application,
for cause shown on oath.
  Andrews  Preston was next drawn as a juror, and answering, was
thereupon challenged for principal cause, and being sworn, testified:   I have
formed an  opinion  that Freeman took the lives of the Van Nest  family.
Whether it was  legally murder or not, I cannot say.  If he was of sound
mind, I should suppose that it was murder; otherwise, not.   I do not know
but that his mind is  sound.   Have seen him in jail and in court, but had no
conversation with him.  Others had.   From what  I have seen of him and
heard about him, an impression has  been  made  on my mind that he is not
insane.  I  have  no prejudice or bias  against him, and would be willing to
have his insanity tested fairly.  I have not had  the means of forming a de-
cided opinion on that point.
  The court overruled the challenge for principal cause, and the juror was
thereupon challenged to the favor.   Same triors.
  Q.  Have you any doubts as to the accountability of the prisoner ?
  A.  I  think I should have some  reason  to doubt his accountability.   I
suppose him  to be  a  man of very  weak intellect, very indeed.  I should
however, make a distinction  between  imbecility of mind and  insanity.   I
heard of the murders; read most and perhaps all that was published on the
subject.   My mind was not prejudiced by what I read, if I understand the
true definition of that word.  I understand prejudice to mean the jud<rin<*
before hand, without proper examination.   I heard of the attempt to Lynch
the prisoner.  Don't know but I heard from an eye witness, soon after  it
occurred.   I  presume I expressed an  opinion upon the subject then, and
that was in favor of a strict observance of the law.
  The court charged in substance  as before, and triors find the juror not
indifferent. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
31
  John O'Hara was then drawn as a juror, and answering, said that John
G. Van Nest was his brother-in-law.   He was excused.
  Abraham  Gutchess was  next  drawn as a juror, and answering, was
thereupon challenged for principal cause, and being sworn testified:  I have
heard of the  murders,  but never heard any one  say that he was  insane.
Don't know how that is, but my belief is that the  prisoner is sane.  Shall
continue so to believe until the contrary is proved.  Have seen him in court,
but never looked at him with reference to his insanity.   Can't say whether
I ever heard that he was crazy, or that he was not.
  The  court  overruled the challenge for principal cause, whereupon the
prisoner's counsel challenged  the juror for favor.   The juror further testi-
fied :  I have formed no opinion as to prisoner being a murderer.   Think
he killed the  Van Nest family; have no  doubt about that.  Heard  that af-
ter Freeman  was arrested, there was a vote of the people taken to Lynch
him.  Did not hear that a halter was taken to Van Nest's house to hang the
prisoner with.  Never said he ought to  be  hanged;  but have said that if
he was a sane man he ought to be hung.  I always put in that qualification.
The thought  of his insanity entered  my mind when I read the account of
the murder, and I thought that he might  have been or might not have been
insane.  I pondered that in my mind, and I thought whether he was sane
or insane, but I came to no particular conclusion.  The fact itself of  his
committing so many murders, raised a doubt in my mind at first  about  his
sanity.  I cannot say that I came to the conclusion that he was sane.  Don't
know but my impresssion was as much one way as the other; but my present
impression is  that he was sane.
   Q. by attorney general.   Did you ever see the  prisoner until  you came
to court ?
   A. No;  and never except in court. Never spoke to or with him.  Have
had no opportunity for making up an opinion whether he is sane  or insane.
I should  believe him sane until I heard  something to the contrary.  Have
no feeling against him.
   After a charge, in substance as before, the triors found the juror indiffer-
ent.  Abraham Gutchess was then sworn as a juror.   (3.)
   Sheldon  Goodrich was  next  drawn, and not being challenged, was
sworn  as a juror.   (4.)
   Henry Acker was next drawn, and answering, was challenged for prin-
cipal cause, and being sworn, testified as follows:  Have heard it said by
some that Freeman was insane, and by others that he was not.  Have read
about the murder in the Cayuga Tocsin.  That paper described the  murder,
the time, and circumstances of it.   I take that paper.  Never saw  the pri-
soner except in court.  "Can't say that I  have made up my mind.   When  I
heard  it, I  supposed he  was as other  men are, with reasonable faculties for
the commission of crime.  I have some reason to doubt that, as I have heard
it contradicted.   Have  no bias on  my mind at present.  I think from  ap- 
32
THE TRIAL OF
pearance of the prisoner that he  is rather a weak minded  man.  I have
thought he killed the Van Nest  family, and that he was a murderer, unless
he shall be proved insane.   Have talked about it, but don't know as I have
said he murdered the family.  Have said I believed he killed them.  Have
heard of the attempt to Lynch him.  Thought he ought to have the benefit
of law.  Have thought that if he  was guilty he ought to be hung.  I thought
him guilty till I heard of his insanity.   Have no opinion on the subject of
his  insanity, but think if he is insane he ought not to be hung.
  The court overruled the challenge for principal cause, and the counsel for
prisoner then challenged him for favor.  Same triors.
  Prisoner's counsel asks that Mr. Goodrich, he being the first unchallenged
juror, be sworn as a trior.   Objected to by attorney general.   Court denies
request.  Previous testimony read to the triors, and the same charge in sub-
starfce  delivered as before, except that his honor added, that the oath  does
not mean absolute indifference as to the murder, but only indifference as to
the question of present sanity or insanity of the prisoner.  The prisoner may
have been sane then, but insane  now; guilty of murder, yet unfit to be
tried.
  The triors found the juror indifferent.  Henry Acker was then sworn as
a juror to try the issue.  (5.)
  Benjamin Clark was  next  drawn, and answering, was  challenged by
counsel for the people, but the same withdrawn and juror sworn.  (6.)
  Abi.iah  P. Olmsted was next drawn, and answering, was  interrogated
by counsel; not challenged, but  was sworn.   (7.)
  Samuel Bell was next drawn, and answering  to the call, took his seat
as a juror.   (8.)
  Thomas J. Slater was next drawn, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause by prisoner's counsel.  On examination, juror said :  I have
seen the prisoner in court since the commencement of this suit.  Have heard
about him from several persons.  Have expressed an opinion that he is sane,
and that is my present opinion.
  Q. by district attorney.  On what did you form that opinion ?
  A.  From his appearance and his preparation of tools for the butchery.
  The court decide the challenge well  taken.
  Martin J. Van Buren was  next drawn, and answering, was challenged
by  prisoner's counsel for principal  cause.  The juror being sworn, testified:
I have not formed an opinion of  the prisoner's sanity.  Not  hearing any
thing to the contrary, I had supposed him competent to commit murder
until I came here.  Have  thought of it a good deal since.  Can't say that
I should judge correctly, but it looked to me like a very curious circumstance
that a sane man should murder a whole family.
   Challenge withdrawn, and juror sworn.   (9.)
   Cyrus II. Davis was next drawn,  and not being  challenged by either
party, was sworn to try the issue.   (10.) 
                           WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       33

    John E. Krum was next drawn  by the clerk, and answering, was chal-
  lenged  for principal cause; but  the  same, on brief examination, was with-
  drawn.   He was then sworn.   (11.)
    Darwin  Cady  was next drawn, and answering, was challenged for
  principal cause, and being sworn, testified:  There has been a good deal of
  excitement in my neighborhood about this murder.  I have formed  an opin-
  ion that prisoner is guilty.  I saw prisoner stand up to be arraigned, and
  thought from the  way he managed  that he was not very insane. T The cir-
  cumstances of the murder prove that he is not insane,  and that is the bias of
  my opinion.  I should want testimony to remove that opinion.   If he is
  deranged I cannot see it in his eye.   Don't feel exactly towards him as I
  would towards one not accused of crime.
    Set aside by consent of attorney general.
    William Ross  was next drawn, and answering, was challenged for
  principal cause, and having formed an opinion, was set aside.
    John Vosler was next drawn, and answering, was challenged for prin-
 cipal cause by the prisoner's counsel, and after being sworn, testified:  Heard
  the plea of insanity put in.  Have seen prisoner in court.  Was never in the
 jail.  Have heard it remarked that the plea was merely a pretence.  Have
 heard it ridiculed frequently.  Have heard that he was, and also that he was
 not insane.   I have looked at him, but cannot tell whether he is insane or
 not.  I have seen no appearance of  insanity.   My impression is that the
 plea of insanity is groundless.  Think so from his fixing his knife, taking the
 horse, time of night, and all I have heard.  In my mind this man is guilty
 of murder, and that he is responsible for his  acts.  If he sharpened the
 knife, committed the murders, and then took a horse and run away, he ought
 to be responsible.
   The court sustained the challenge.
   James H. Wood was next drawn by the  clerk,  and  answering,  was
 challenged for principal cause by  the counsel for prisoner, and being sworn
 he testified:   I have an opinion that four persons were killed, and that
 whoever did it was a murderer.   Heard that Freeman was arrested for it.
 Have heard very little about it;  have some.  Heard that knife was sharp-
 ened before hand,  and that he went and stabbed all of them; and that he
 then took a horse and cleared, and  got to Fulton.  The impression on my
 mind is  that Freeman was the man, and if the facts  are so I know of no
 reason why he is not accountable.  Think  I have never heard the facts
 contradicted.   Have heard the counsel censured  for putting  in a plea of
 insanity for the prisoner.  I think from the precaution he took, and  the
 escape he made, he is an accountable being, and that  is my mind now.  I
 presume  he is sane.
   The court overruled  the challenge, whereupon  the prisoner's counsel
challenged the juror for favor, and appointed counsellors Hulbert and  An-
drus triors.
                    3 
34
the trial of
  On the preceding evidence to them read, the triors found the juror not
indifferent.
  John Conger was next drawn, and answering, was challenged for prin-
cipal cause, and being sworn, testified:  Have seen the prisoner in court.
No where  else.  Have read part of the facts and circumstances, and have
heard them talked over.  Concluded that he was guilty of murder, if what
I had read and heard was true.  Do not know that the question of sanity
arose  in my mind.   I took it for granted that it was an atrocious murder.
I never heard the  prisoner's sanity questioned until he was brought into
court.  Have looked at him with reference to his sanity.   I was a good deal
disappointed on seeing the man, for I had supposed him an athletic, ferocious
man.   I have not any opinion about his  sanity, yet the bias of my mind is
that he is now responsible, saying nothing about what I have heard here.
See nothing in his appearance to change the impression.  He don't appear,
however, to be a man of any knowledge.
  Challenge withdrawn, and juror sworn to try the issue of insanity.  (12.)
  Court then adjourned for the day.
         TRIAL OF  THE  QUESTION OF INSANITY.

  In court, June 25, 1846.  Present, judges and counsel as yesterday.
  On a call, the jurors decided competent to try the issue upon the plea of
insanity, responded, and entered the box, to wit:
        1.   Ezra Stone,           7.  Abijah P. Olmsted,
        2.   Simon Hawes,         8.  Samuel Bell,
        3.   Abraham Gutchess,   9.  Martin J. Van Buren,
        4.   Sheldon Goodrich,   10.  Cyrus II. Davis,
        5.   Henry Acker,        11.  John E. Krum,
        6.   Benjamin Clark,     12.  John Conger.
  Mr. Wright, for the prisoner, then opened the case to the jury.  Whilst
he was impressed with the belief that the prisoner was insane, he was not
without information that others differed with him in opinion.  The circum-
stances  of the massacre, however, were themselves indicative of insanity
rather than of depravity.  There was such an absence of motive on the part
of the prisoner for the commission of an act so dreadful and revolting, that
the first mention of the case awoke in his mind suspicion of insanity.   With
others, he had been confirmed in that impression after seeing the prisoner,
and learning more of his history and behavior.   He had heard that insanity
was hereditary in his family ; that being predisposed to that disease, some of
his ancestors had become insane for causes apparently trivial; that Freeman
had himself been imprisoned for another's crime, and had been subjected to 
William freeman.
35
 the lash for pretended offences.  He had heard too of the blow which had
 injured his hearing, and he had seen him in his cell, deaf, indifferent to his
 fate, and unconscious of danger.  He had observed  his vacant stare and
 idiotic smile.  Whilst he was shocked at his deeds, he was moved with pity
 for his condition.  He believed him a proper object of sympathy rather than
 of prejudice and indignation.   At the request of Gov. Seward he had been
 assigned by the court as counsel in his behalf.  An unsought responsibility
 hoav rested upon him as counsel; a responsibility that was akin to .that rest-
 ing upon them as jurors.  It was a  responsibility that must be borne in the
 discharge of his duty, without fear, favor, or  the hope of any reward, save
 that, which would arise from seeing justice dispensed and the law vindicated.
 He and they must dispel from their minds every semblance of prejudice, and
 proceed to inquire whether the wretched prisoner at the bar be a'sane or
 insane man.  It was an investigation that would require time, labor,  patience
 and care.  The prisoner's counsel have, in the honest discharge of their duty,
 deemed it just to plead for him  a plea  that he  cannot  understand.   As
 little did he (the prisoner) understand the nature of this investigation or the
 proof to be made.  He is here because the law requires it; not to  dictate a
 defence of which he is  as  ignorant  as the posts which, support the dome
 under which you sit.  What  is done by us, comes from no agency of his,
 but, from the dictates of conscience and the promptings of  humanity.   W"e
 ask, then, your best attention whilst we  spread before you the condition of
 his mind by the testimony of witnesses,  remembering that  human life pro-
 bably hangs upon the issue.
   Ira Curtis was then called as a witness on behalf of the prisoner,  who,
 after being duly sworn, testified:  I reside in  Auburn ;  am fifty-two years
 of age, and by occupation a merchant.  I know the prisoner, and am  deci-
 dedly of opinion that he is  a part  of the  time an  idiot; both idiotic  and
 insane.   My opinion is formed from talking with him.   At one time I would
 think him  insane, at  another  that he was  an idiot.  I first saw him some
 years ago.   I employed him about the Western Exchange ;  the kitchen and
 yard.  If he had any capacity, I was unable to ascertain it.   He was of no
 use to me;  if I sent him for any little thing  five rods, he would be just as
 likely to bring me something else.   He  was a dull, morose, stupid, stubborn
 boy.  I have talked to him in  his cell; saw him first  on first  day  of June
 instant;  went into his cell and found him in a tremor, wonderfully agitated.
 I mentioned to  him that they were going to take him out to hang him.   He
 gave me to understand that they were going to kill him.  I  asked him if he
 knew they  were going to take  him out to try him.    He said he supposed to
 kill him.   I said  no;  that they were to  take him out to have a trial; a fair
 trial.  I said this to allay the fear he was laboring under.
   I asked Freeman if he could read.  He said he  could.  About that time
Mr. Austin, a clergyman of this village, came  into the cell where we were.
He took up a testament that was laying there, opened it, handed it to Free- 
36                         the trial of

man and asked him to read in it.  He undertook to do so, and commenced
by repeating the words, O, Lord, Jesus Christ, Almighty, mercy Moses, and
continued in the same way, but sometimes using words that I could not un-
derstand and which I doubt were to be found  in any language; certainly
not in the English.  He used some proper English words, but others  were
not.  They were words that I never heard before, and probably never shall
hear again.   I took the book from his hand and said to him, " you do not
read right."  He replied that he did.  I looked at the  place where he was
pretending to read, and found it was the chapter beginning with, " In  those
days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness," &c.  I said  again
to him, " you cannot read."  He said, " yes I can."  I said, " you don't read
right."   He said, " yes I do."
  Finding that he could not read in  the Testament, I took from my hat a
leaf of a Bank  Note Detector, and pointed to the word " admirable" that was
upon the leaf, and asked him what it was.  He looked up with  a silly ex-
pression, and said " woman."  I said, No it is'nt.   He said, Yes it is. I then
put the point of my knife  to the word " Thompson,"  for it was Thompson's
Bank Note Detector, and said, " What is that, Bill."   Cook, said he. I then
directed his attention to a capital A, which he called A, and he also called
the letters to E correctly.  Mr. Austin asked me to  tell him to count.  One
or both of us did so request him.  He said he could count, and commenced
counting his fingers.  He  counted to " five"  and hesitated ; and again  when
he got to " eleven" and " thirteen," and at a number  of places.  When he
got to twenty,  he began one, two, three, &c, and kept on to seven, and from
that went to eighty.  Next  he got in  sixty-six  and seventy-two  before I
stopped him.
  During all this  time he was in a tremor from head to foot.  Finding he
could not count correctly, I entered  into a conversation with him, about his
going up to the Lake.   I asked him what he went up  to the Lake for; to
which he replied that  he did not really know what he did go for; as if he
had no particular object in going.  I asked him how far he went.  He an-
swered, quite a piece, or something like that.   I asked him where he stopped,
or if he stopped in any other house.  He said he stopped once at a  house
beyond.  I inquired what for.  He said to get  a drink of water.  I  asked
him  what he went into the other house for.   His answer amounted to this:
that he did not know.   I asked how  he came to kill  those folks.   He said he
did'nt know, or " Oh, I don't  know."  I asked  him if he was after  their
money.   He said, " No; didn't know they had any."  I asked if he knew the
family.   He said, No.   I asked how  he came to kill  that child.  Here he
exhibited some feeling.  He answered, " They say, I know, I killed a child ;
but Mr. Curtis, no, I did'nt; I never killed  a child."  I asked him what he
killed the others for.  " WThy," said he, drawling, " you know I had my work
to do."   I said, nonsense,  don't talk so foolishly; and repeated the question
loud and distinct; to which he answered, " Well, I don't know; can't tell." 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                        37
 I asked him if he knew the man, or had any thing against him.  He said No,
 he didn't know him,  nor know who lived there.  He said he thought it was
 time to begin.  Said he did'nt go in to kill them ; thought it wasn't time  to
 begin  yet.   I asked him if he went in to murder them.  He said " No, I
 thought it wasn't time to begin."  He  spoke about having worked for the
 State five years, and  had not got his pay ; that they had got to pay, or some-
 body had got to pay him.   I felt that  there was no attempt on his part to
 deceive.  I  have no doubt that he was really sincere in what he said.   I
 have no doubt of it.   What I saw of him gave me the impression that he
 was crazy, or was a fool, or both.
  Cross Examination.—When I asked him what he killed those people for,
 he said, You know that I have worked  five years for nothing, and they have
 got to  pay;  or, I have not got my pay for it.   He did not live with me long.
 I did not suspect he  was crazy at that  time;  thought him more  knave than
 fool then; that he was capable of doing better than he did.  When I set
 him at any thing, he would almost always do it wrong.  I take it for granted,
 a person I employ has common sense ; if not I don't employ him; and that
 was my impression about this man. Can't  say how many times I saw him
 after he came from prison.  I have recollection of having seen him once  or
 twice.   Can't recollect any particular  time or place, but am satisfied I was
 in the habit of seeing  him from time  to time; possibly as often as once a
 week.  I knew him by name, and have no doubt that he knew me.  Never
 spoke  to him, or he to me, after he went to prison.  I recollect nothing  of
 him since he left me, except his peculiar cast of countenance.   Never thought
 of asking  myself the question whether there was  any difference in  him.
 Took no notice.  I think he was not deaf when he lived with me first.   I
 never  punished any body that I hired; never punished or reproved him
 when in my employ.  He did not learn to read while he lived with me.   I
 doubt whether he attended any church or any school.  I attend the Univer-
 salist church, and the  Rev. J. M. Austin is our clergyman.  I think his
 education  is  fair, yet I never asked him  whether he was a graduate.   I
 should  think his education was fair and decent.  Have heard him quote
 Greek  and Latin, but can't say as to Hebrew.  I don't understand any lan-
 guage myself but the English, and hardly that.
  I had kept away from Wyatt and the negro until the Monday when this
 court  commenced.   On the Sunday  preceding, I was  told that I would
 probably be called as a witness in  this case, and I determined then to go and
 see him.
  On Monday morning Mr. Austin came  in to my store,  and 1 told  him
 about  my determination.   He said he would meet me  at  Dr.  Robinson's
office and go with me.  One of us named the hour.   When I went, he was
not there, so I kept  on to the jail, where he came ten  or fifteen minutes
after.   It was  neighborhood talk when he was in the State Prison, that he 
38                          THE TRIAL OF

was called crazy.  He was Called Crazy Bill.  I had heard that some called
him crazy before I went to the jail; some said he was a fool.
  My object in going to the jail was to see him, having almost forgotten him.
After seeing him I talked about him,  and  when I heard men say that he
ought to be hung, I would say, you  might  as well hang  a dog.  I did not
know as I was to be  called as a witness as to his state of mind.  I knew I
was to be called  upon to testify as to the facts;  not to any particular thing.
  I afterwards told Mr. Seward of my  interview with the prisoner.  When
I went to the jail I went to find out all I could about Freeman.  While there,
Mr. Austin in a low tone  of voice said to me, " he  can't read; he thinks he
can, but cannot."  That difficulty was all solved when I remembered how
little children read when a book is handed to them before  they have learned
to read.  I did not discover any  change in him.  When he tried to read, he
used a great many strange words-   I  would as soon expect a pig to utter
Greek and Latin or Hebrew, as for him to do it.
  Q.  Did it never occur to you that he was trying to impose on you, to get
up the plea of insanity ?
  A.  It did occur to me.
  Q.  Was it not possible that  with his appearance of insanity he was at-
tempting to play off such a game ?
  A.  The thought vanished in a moment.  There was too much before me.
  Q.  Are you confident that he cannot read at all ?
  A.  I am that he cannot read a sentence, and yet he can say the  alphabet
correctly.
  Q.  From your own knowledge can you say that he cannot read ?
  A.  I cannot say from my own knowledge that he cannot read, except as
1 have before testified.
  Q.  Did you know that a plea of insanity was to be interposed for him ?
  A.  I presumed he would set up insanity or idiocy.
  Q.  Had you known that he was about putting in a plea of insanity, would
it have altered your opinion of his sincerity ?
  A.  I don't think  it would.  I have no doubt of his  sincerity; that he
labored very hard to try  to make us believe that  he knew something, and
did not know any thing.
  Q. What was the condition of his mind when he lived with you ?
  A. He was stubborn and playful, and when told to do one thing he would
do another.
  Q. When he  was  pretending to read in the jail, did it not occur to you
that he might know better ?
  A. The thought occurred to me that he  ought to know better, and might
know better.  I mentioned so to  Mr. Austin, and others afterwards I think.
  Q. Had Mr. Austin visited the jail before ?
  A. I suspect he had, and knew more than I did, and left me to get along
 with the prisoner the best way I  could. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
39
  Q.  Did not Mr. Austin say to you that the prisoner could not read ?
  A.  Why, I said to him that it was strange;  that he certainly could'nt
read; and he smiled, and said,  " I know that, but he thinks he can."
  Q.  Did not the prisoner appear to be in a reflective mood ?
  A.  I had an impression that the prisoner did not think much, any way.
  Q.  Might you not have been deceived as to the prisoner's sincerity ?
  A.  I supposed the prisoner was telling me the truth.
  Q.  Did you  think he  appeared differently from what  he did when he
lived with you ?
  A.  I got the  impression that he was  not a tenth part as big a fool when
he worked for me as when I saw him in jail.
  Q.  Then you consider him a bigger fool than formerly ?
  A.  You have asked me if I  found any change in him.   I got the impres-
sion that he was a fool, and that impression grew stronger the  more I saw
of him.
  Q.  Are you acquainted with the subject of insanity ?
  A.  I don't know any thing about it scientifically.   I have seen many cases
of it.
  Q.  Did  you  not  know that  he could not read before you  gave him the
book?
  A.  No.  I did  not know only  from what he said.   He said he could, and
I got the opinion that he was honest in  thinking so.  When he  said, " they
tell me I killed  the child, but, Mr. Curtis, I certainly did not," I thought he
was telling me what he believed to be the truth.
  Q.  And you think he believed that to be the truth ?
  A.  I think just at that moment he thought he had not  killed the  child;
but I think it likely that he would five minutes after have  told another per-
son a different story.
  Q. Did he not assign a  motive for going to the house of Van Nest and
killing the family ?
  A. He said he had worked five years for nothing, and they must pay him.
I asked him several  times why he  killed the family, before the child was
mentioned.
  Q. Were the words he pretended to read on the page opened to him ?
  A. They were not.
  Q. Did it occur to you that he might have been taught to do this ?
  A. No.
  Direct resumed.—I do'nt believe it is in the power of all in this room
to teach him to carry on a piece of deception for fifteen minutes.  He pointed
to where he pretended to read a part of  the time, and a  part  of the time
he held the book in both hands; he always counted by  his fingers.  His
words were many of them unintelligible.   The rest were mixed up.
  Re-Cross Examination.—The  unintelligible words were between the
others.   His memory did not appear to be good.  He recognized some peo- 
40                          THE TRIAL OF
pie.  He knew me.   AVhen asked if he  knew me, he called me by name.
He could count twenty.
   Q. Does accuracy in counting depend upon memory ?
  A. I don't know whether it does or not.
   Q. Did you test his memory particularly ?
  A. I did not; did not try him to see what he could recollect.
  Martha Godfrey was next called and  sworn as a witness for the pri-
soner, on the plea of insanity interposed  in his behalf.   She testified as fol-
lows :  I reside in Sennett, and have seen the prisoner.  He came to my
house last March, at two o'clock P. M., and before the murder of the Van
Nest family.   He came in and sat down, and wanted to know if this was the
place where a woman had a horse stolen five years ago.  I told him it was.
He then said he had been to prison for stealing it; but that he did not steal
it.  I told  him that was something I did not know any thing about; that he
had been tried and found guilty of it, and sent to prison.  He seemed deaf,
and complained of being  so hard of hearing that he could not hear.  He
wanted me to get very close to him and speak very loud.  One of my neigh-
bors just then came in, and I told him to talk to Freeman, for I could not.
It was Joseph Johnson that came in. He asked Freeman what he wanted.
He did not make much of an answer, but  said he did not know, and sat
awhile.  Mr. Johnson asked whether he  wanted the  horse,  or what he did
want.  He did not make any answer, but sat there quite a while.  I then
asked him if he wanted any thing to eat.  He said he did'nt know.   I how-
ever gave him some  cake  to eat.   Johnson spoke to him  again, asking
him if he wanted the horse.   He sat awhile, looked around, smiled, and said
he didn't want the horse now. lie said he had been to prison for stealing
the horse, but didn't steal it; and  wanted a settlement.  He said he had
been to prison five years.
  I did have a horse stolen five years ago, and was a witness against Freeman
on the  trial for stealing it.   I did  not then know John G. Van Nest, nor
any of his family, nor any of the persons in  his house  when the murder was
committed.  I never heard that any of them were concerned in the trial in
any way.  They were in no way related to me or my family.  I never heard
of them until after the murders were committed.  He remained at my house
about an hour.  The witnesses against Freeman on the trial for stealing my
horse, were Marcus T. Doty, and a negro, named J: ek Furman, I believe.
The trial was in this court house.
   Cross Examination.—Witness testified that Freeman was at her house
at no other  time  that she knew of; that she  never saw him at any  other
time, except at the court house when he was tried.
   Theron Green was then called as a witness in behalf  of the prisoner.
After being sworn, he testified as follows:  I  have  resided in  Auburn for
eight or ten years last past.   I know the prisoner and knew  him  when he
was in the State Prison at Auburn. In  1843  I was an officer in the  State 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
41
Prison, and had charge of him.   I think he was not then in possession of
much intellect.   As to his sanity, I had rather not give an opinion, as I am
not a competent judge of it.   He is  a singular being; the most so of any
person I ever had charge of.  He is  an imbecile sort of person.
  He worked at the forge.  He blew the bellows  at the fire, and did the
striking.   We got along with him as well as could be  expected.  He was a
half pay man; did about a half a man's day's work.  I did  not  look  upon
him as having much accountability for violating the rules of the prison.  I
never punished him.  As a general thing he was slow to move, but would
mind me in his way.  He was stubborn and sulky-  I never discovered any
intercourse between him and other convicts.  His manner then  was about
the same as now.   I never saw much cheerfulness about him.  I once tried
to instruct him in reading, but with rather poor success.  I could not learn
him his A B C's.   I made the remark that I did not like to have a man in
my shop that could not read nor write, but as to him I had failed.
  He violated rules of the shop, for which I would have been compelled to
flog other  prisoners, but did not flog him.  One reason for that was,  that I
did not think it of any use to flog him.  He was an intractable and  rather
singular sort of a thing, any way.  I  should think he had a very small degree
of intellect or reason.  I discovered a change in  him while in prison.  I
don't think him a man that would realize the consequences of killing a per-
son.  He is a reckless fellow, or brute, as you may choose to call him.  He
comes as near a brute as a human being can.
  Cross  Examination.—Had no  opportunity of observing him except
while in the stone shop  in the State Prison, except that I saw  him in his
cell sometimes on Sunday.  I gave him instructions about doing his  work
and about the rules of the prison.  When at work there were  complaints
from the blacksmiths that he did not strike  right.   I have told  him to do
things, and he would go right back to his old place to  work.   He generally
obeyed when I told him to go of an errand, or to get a pail of water, but not
always.
  Q.  Was he lazy when in prison ?
  A.  He  was rather slow.
  Q.  Why was it that he did not do over a half a day's work ?
  A.  His skill and ingenuity as a workman  would not warrant pay for more
than a half a day's work.
  Q.  Was he not lazy as well as slow ?
  A.  I considered him slow, and I guess lazy, too, in his movements.
  Q.  How did you induce him to obey you ?
  A.  I talked with him  about leaving him in his cell.
  Q.  Did he work steadily,  although slowly, when in the shop ?
  A.  Generally he did.  I often found him  asleep in his cell Sundays, and
would wake him up.   Sleeping in the cell in the day time was against the
rules of the prison. 
42
THE TRIAL OF
   Q. Do not colored men frequently violate that rule in the State Pri-
 son?
   A. They are no more likely to violate this rule than others, I think.
   Q. You say you think he has a very small degree  of intellect or reason.
 Did you ever make  any examination for the purpose of ascertaining the
 amount of intellect which he has ?
   A. I never made any particular efforts to ascertain the depth of his in-
 tellect.  I had evidence enough of that before me.
   Q. Was he not regarded as a disorderly convict ?
   A. He was not ugly.  He was a pretty peaceable convict.  He kept snug
 at his work, and minded the rules as a general thing.
   John R. Hopkins was next called, and sworn on the part of the prisoner:
I reside in Auburn, and have been nearly nine years engaged in manufac-
turing.  My knowledge of the prisoner commenced with my knowledge of
the Fleming murders. When he was lodged in jail, I felt interested to in-
quire about his previous history.  I had understood he was a man of very
weak intellect, and  was desirous to ascertain how that was, from  personal
inspection.  I went to his cell and conversed with him, a week or ten days
after committing the murders.   I became satisfied that he is a man of very
weak intellect, indeed.   I endeavored to ascertain what the powers of his
memory were ; if he knew me.   He said he did not.   I could not bring it to
his memory that he  had ever  seen me before.   [Mr. Hopkins continued
and  testified  substantially as upon the trial for themurder.   See  post.]
   William P. Smith was next  sworn, and testified  as follows:  I reside
in Auburn, and have known the prisoner seventeen or eighteen years; and
ever since he was large enough to run about the street.  I did not know his
father, yet I knew several of the Freemans.   Sidney,  the  prisoner's  uncle,
is said to be crazy, and has been ever since he left the  prison, six or seven
 years ago. In the fall of 1843 I was foreman in the carpet factory in the
 State Prison, and Freeman was one of the hands in that shop.  I was told by
 some one there, that Freeman was crazy ; but I never saw any thing in him
 that made me suppose he, was insane.   I took him on another tact.   I con-
 sidered him a being of very low, degraded intellect; hardly above a brute,
 and treated him accordingly.   He was a man of very  quick passions.  He
 would fly  in a moment at any thing he thought an insult, or that crossed
 him in any way.   I recollect that one day he had a pair of shoes setting on
 a pile of wood, which he had been greasing; another man  came by, took  a
 stick of wood, and the pile slid, and his shoes fell.  He took a stick  of wood,
 hit him  a blow, and he was flogged for  it.  Shoes were  nicely done, and by
 him too.   A week or two after that, Freeman got to  fighting with  another
 man about the position of a pole of yarn in the dye shop.  The man reported
 him to the keeper, and he was flogged  for that.  After he  was whipped the
 second time, he came into the  office where I was, crying; said he had been 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
43
flooded very severely ; that a hole had been cut between his ribs, so that he
could lay the end of his fingers in.
  He did not appear to be deaf at the time.  He said the flogging pained
him so in the night that he could not sleep.  He wanted I should get Israel
G. Wood, who, he said, could get him out.   His capacity was very limited.
[Witness further testified,  in substance, as upon the traverse.   See the
trial, post.]
  Warren T. Worden, called and sworn, testified:   I saw the prisoner in
jail, in April last. I went there by invitation'of Dr. Lansingh Briggs.  Some
previous conversation having suggested to me the question whether he was
an accountable being, I had some conversation with him.  Doctor Fosgate
was there at the time, and a great deal of conversation was had there.  I
asked the prisoner about  killing the Van Nest family; I asked him which
door  he entered.   Think  he  told me both doors.   At one time,  he said
he went in at the front door; and at another, at the back door.   I asked
him what he said to Van Nest, when he first went to  the stove.  He said,
nothing.  I asked him what they said to him.  He said Van Nest said to him,
" If you are going to eat my liver, I will eat yours," and he then struck him.
I asked him where he stabbed Mrs. Van Nest.  He said out doors.   I asked
him where he stabbed the old lady.   He did not give any answer.   I asked
him if it was in the house.  He said it was at the gate.  I think he answered
" yes," to the question whether he killed Mrs. Van Nest before he went into
the house.   I asked him why he went away.  He said he  hurt his hand.  I
asked that several times,  and sometimes he said he could not kill any more.
   I also asked him why  he took the horse.  He said he could'nt kill any
more; had hurt his hand.  He then asked  me what  they had sent  him to
the State Prison for, when he was innocent. He showed  physical agitation.
He trembled and shook, and at first I thought he was going to cry.  He did
not, however.  I told him he stole a horse, and that was the reason why he
was imprisoned.  He denied it, and said he didn't steal it.  I was there at
the jail a long time.  To my questions, he usually answered in the affirma-
tive.  I asked him what he was in jail for.   He said he didn't know.  I asked
him if he knew what they were going to do with him.  He said, No.  I then
told him that he would be hung; that they would hang him for killing that
family, and asked him again if he did not know it.  He said, No.
   When I told hini that  he  would be hung, he showed no emotion what-
ever.  I came to the conclusion there that he was incapable of judging  be-
tween right and wrong.
   Cross Examination.—I have not stated all the conversation, nor all he
said.  I spoke  about his wounded wrist, but did not get from him any infor-
mation about it.  It was dressed by Doctor Fosgate, whilst I was there.   He
did not seem to give very intelligent answers.  I thought  his feeling was
not acute.  He was deaf.   He laughed when we laughed, and said, " yes," when
we asked  him any  thing.   Have heard  of agitation other than physical; 
44
THE trial of
mental.  I saw mental  agitation in his conversation.  I am not certain
whether he cried.  His  whole  appearance and conversation  was different
from that of a sane man.  [Witness further testified, in substance, as upon
the traverse.   See post.]
  Lyman Paine, called and sworn on behalf of prisoner, testified:  I am a
magistrate.  On the Saturday previous to the murder, the prisoner came to
my office, opened  the door, advanced four or five feet, stood half a minute,
and then said he wanted a warrant.   I asked him what he wanted a warrant
for.  He advanced nearer to me, and I asked him again.  He said for  the
man who put him  in the  State Prison.  I asked then if he had been  put in
the prison for stealing a horse.  He said he didn't steal it.  I inquired if he
had not been tried and convicted.   He said nothing in reply.  I  then said,
" Then you want a warrant for perjury; for swearing false."  He said Yes.  I
told him in order to get a warrant, he must get at the facts.   He then appeared
to be in a passion; said he had been abused, and that he would  have satis-
faction.   I told him I could not give a warrant.   He stood still  and hung
down his  head ; and then looking up at me, said he must and would have one.
He then put his hands in his pocket, took out two shillings, and  demanded
one.  I told him he had better take  his money ; go away and  attend to his
businesss, or he might get to prison again.   I advised him to get some place
to work.   He said he couldn't, he was so deaf.  Said he had been abused at
the prison, and was deaf.  He left the office in a passion ; slammed the door
very hard, but came back in the afternoon.  He had the same  manner as
before; was very deaf.  I beckoned him to come  near me.  He then  said
he  wanted a warrant for the man and  woman that sent him to prison, and
told me their names—one of which was Mrs. Godfrey.   There was not any
thing at the time  that indicated that he  was insane.  He acted strange, but
I attributed it to deafness and ignorance.
  Charles A. Parsons, called and sworn for  prisoner, testified:  About
a week before  the murder, the prisoner  called at the office of Mr. Seward,
and asked if it was a lawyer's office.  On being told that it was,  he said he
wanted a warrant; a warrant for  the man that sent him to prison. He said
he wanted to get damage.  I directed him to  a justice's office ; but he  did
not seem to understand me.
  Sally Freeman, the mother of the prisoner, was then called and sworn.
She testified as follows:  I live in Auburn.   William, the prisoner, is twenty-
three years of age, or will be in September  next;  was  twenty-one when he
eame out of the prison.  He was in prison five years.  I did not see him whilst
he was in prison ;  after he came out I saw him.  I saw a change in him after
he came out.   He was a different boy from what he was when he went there.
He was very lively before.  I saw nothing different in him, only  he seemed
to be roiled.  Before  he went to prison he was always talking and laughing
When he came out of prison he didn't say any thing, and didn't appear as if he 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
45
knew any thing.  I have never seen him laugh since he  came out; he
smiled once in a while.  He has never complained of any body to me.
   I have never said any thing  to him about his being in prison.   I have
heard of his trying to get work.  I have not seen him  since the murder of
the Van Nest family, until the opening of this court,  when I went  to the
jail with Mr. Morgan, to see him.  He knew me, or appeared to.  I asked
him if he was glad to see me.   To this he made no answer.  He was deaf;
should say he is not in his right mind.  Some of his relatives are deranged.
His Aunt, Jane Brown,  was; and Sidney Freeman, his uncle, is deranged,
and has been twelve years.  William smiled when I went into the jail, just
as he does now.  He did not ask me to come and see him again.
   Cross  Examination.—I am fifty years old, and have three  children
living.  William's  aunt  was raving crazy; but  she  never hurt any one.
She got well before she died.  Sidney Freeman got  crazy  in the prison.
He never hurt any one ; neither of them ever stole any thing when crazy.
Sidney was put in the prison for stealing.   It is said he was put in wrong-
fully.  William lived with Depuy after he was thirteen or fourteen years
old.   I worked out by the week,  and he worked out.  I saw but little of
him.  When he came out of  the prison I was at work at Gen.  Wood's;
I have seen him five or six times, may be a dozen times, since he came out of
prison.
   James  H. Bostwick, called and  sworn as  a  witness for the prisoner,
testified as follows :  I am a justice of the peace, in Auburn.  I have known
Freeman by sight, since  his infancy.  He used to run about our streets like
other black boys.   He was rather a smart boy.  Saw him since he came out
of prison; the first time was in  November last.  At another time he came
into my office, and asked for a  warrant.  I asked for  whom.  He  said for
the persons who had been the means of putting  him into the State Prison ;
that he had  been sent there wrongfully, and wanted pay for his time.  He
was deaf, and held his head down.  [Witness further testified, in substance,
as upon the traverse.  See post.]
   Mary Axn Newark, a witness  on behalf of the prisoner, being  sworn,
testified:  I have lived twenty-six years in Auburn.   I have known Free-
man since he was a little boy.  As far as I can remember, he was a smart
little boy.   Saw him after he came out of the prison, in the winter.   It was
just before he came to my house.  He was in the street, but did not say any
thing.  I saw no more of him until he came to  board with me.  I  had him
to help me carry clothes down into the village.  He did not hear very quick.
He would put down his ear and want me to speak louder.
  I lived in New Guinea, just south of the village of Auburn.  He said he
would come to my house, do chores,  carry my clothes, saw wood, and not
pay money.   He proposed it himself.   I told him he might come, and he did.
He never  had any thing to  say, only as I would ask him to do things.  He
always sat, and never would say any thing.  He  was never in the  house 
46
THE TRIAL OF
 much.  He was at his meals and slept there.  He spoke only when I Avould
 ask him questions, and then he would answer quick-like, yes, or no.   He
 never asked me any questions, only what to do.  He understood me, and
 would do what he was told to do.  He acted queer, but I  thought it might
 be because he was deaf.  He never was in the house much.  He made no
 complaints.  He left my house on Thursday evening, just as the bells Avere
 ringing for meeting.  He said nothing.  It was about six o'clock.  I did not
 see him have any thing in his hands or carry any thing with him.  I did not
 look after him.   Had no idea where he was going.  He was then perfectly
 sober.   I did not see him again until  the officers brought him  down to the
 village.
  Deborah Deity sworn, says :   I live in the village of Auburn.  I knew
 Freeman before he went to prison.  I was  well acquainted with  him.  He
 was a very smart, playful lad, and very quick to understand.   His hearing
 was as good as any boy's.  His disposition was good, as  far as I knew.  I
 knew him in company among young folks.  Have seen him at balls, parties
 and rides.  He acted as sensibly and smart as any body on such  occasions.
 He acted very smart.  His spirits were good.   I never heard him read, and
 believe he could not read.
  After he came out of prison I knew him, and talked with him a number
 of times. I saw a difference in him ; that he did not act as he used to.  He
 never talked unless spoken to.  He couldn't hear.   He Avas deaf.   Some-
 times he would answer me, and sometimes he wouldn't.   I never knew him
to speak of his OAvn accord.  He came to my house about every day, or every
 other day.  I cannot tell any thing about his cheerfulness after he came out
of prison. He was Arery dull.   When spoken to, he would  look up to  you
 and say nothing.   He appeared to be very dull.  He didn't go in company
after he came out of prison. He said they did not treat him well  in prison.
I used to talk Avith him about it.  I used to ask him Avhat made him appear
so dull.  He said he didn't know.  He neA'er said whether he stole the horse.
I asked him how he lost his hearing.   He said they hit him on his head
 with a board, and  it appeared as if the sound went down his
 throat.  (See physician's account of his ear, as found on post mortem
 examination.)  I don't think he is in his right mind.   He don't act as he used
 to.  He used to talk a great deal before he Avent to prison, and now he don't
 seem sensible when you talk to him.
  Cross Examination.—I live below the female seminary, near Mr.  Ab-
 bott's.  My husband's brother married William's sister.   I cannot tell hoAV
 long I have been married. I  don't recollect who married me, nor  Avhere.
 I have been at no balls or rides with Freeman since he came out  of prison.
 I can't tell on Avhat point he has less sense.  I think he has not, because he
 don't act as he used to.
  Dr. Levi Hermance, a witness in behalf of the prisoner, being sworn, tes-
 tified :   I saw Freeman the fore part of last winter.   He sawed wood  for me. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
47
He was very deaf.   I learned from him that he had been to prison, and he
said " they Avouldn't pay him."  He didn't ask Avhether he Could get pay or
not.  I had no particular impression then that he was out of his head.   His
conversation and manner attracted my attention.   I  thought  it sin<mlar.
Had a conversation Avith  him about the wood.   Saw him on the sideAvalk a
day or two after.   He then spoke of their refusing to pay him.  I think he
said " they have sent me to prison, and I wasn't guilty, and they won't pay
me."  This is all the conversation I ever had Avith him until in the jail.  The
impression made by the tAvo conversations Avas that he was deranged.  [Wit-
ness further testified as upon the traverse.  See post.]
  Robert Freeman, SAvorn in behalf of prisoner, testified:  I am not re-
lated to the  prisoner. I became acquainted  with him  eight years  ago this
summer, at the American Hotel.   I was table Avaiter.   He cleaned the knives.
He was rather sIoav, butwas a smart boy.  He appeared to understand well.
He was fond of play, and I had a good many play spells with him.   He did
not appear like the same boy when he came out of prison.
  John Depuy, called and sworn, testified as folloAvs:  I suspect I married
a sister of the prisoner.  I have knoAvn him thirteen years.   There were a*
good many that Avere smarter than him.  He could read some in the spelling
book, but he had but little learning.  He was ahvays lively, active and play-
ful.  He played, wrestled and jumped.   I recollect before he Avent to prison,
that John Thompson was very smart, and that Freeman could throAY him the
best way he could fix it.   I kneAv of his going  to balls.   He was social, lively
and very talkative  before he went to prison.  He was at my house the night
Mrs. Godfrey's horse was stolen.   [Witness further testified in substance as
upon the traverse.   See post.]
  Adam Gray, a witness called and sworn on behalf of the prisoner, testi-
fied :  I have lived in Auburn eighteen years.  I know Freeman.  He Avas
a smart boy; Avas very active, and had a good deal to say.  He is consider-
ably changed since he came out of prison.  He does not appear as lively as
before.  He lived Avith me a part of last Avinter.   He used  to talk about
going away.   He said he didn't knoAV people.   They seemed strange to him.
I have seen him laugh since he came out of prison.  He lived Avith me about
tAvo months.  Slept in a bed in the chamber.   He used to get up nights and
come doAvn stairs.   Said  it was  day-light;  he Avas going  to work.  I heard
him sing in the night and make noises.   I couldn't understand what  he sung.
I have seen him dance in the night Avhen he  got up.   There seems to be a
difference in him since he left prison, as to knoAvledge.
  Cross Examination.—I never saw him drink any ardent spirits while
he  lived Avith me.   I saw him once Avhen I thought he had been drinking.
He Avent out one night and was gone two hours.  Don't know where he went.
Said he was going to work when he left me.   He Avas a boy when  he went
to prison, and a man grown when he came out.  It Avas night Avhen I heard
him dance.  Don't know whether he had been drinking.  Some  colored 
48
THE TRIAL OF
 people dance a good deal, and some do not.  Before he went to prison he
 was very active.  Since he came out I have talked with him about going to
 meeting.  He laughed at it.   Sometimes he would go, and sometimes not.
 He would try to read, but I could not make out what he Avas reading. [Wit-
 ness further testified in substance as upon the traverse.  See post.]
   Ethan A. Warden, called and sworn as a witness on behalf of prisoner,
 testified:  I have knoAvn  Freeman fourteen  years.   He came to live with
 my father, and aftenvards lived with me five or six months.   We considered
 him a bright, active boy.   He used to play a good deal.  We thought he
 understood readily enough.  He used to go to Sabbath school Avhen he lived
 with me.  He could then hear Avell.   We kept him to go of errands, scour
 knives  and forks, and take care of children.  Saw him in the prison.  He
 was very deaf.  I did not say much to him, but thought something  strange
 had come over him.   The next time I saw him was after  he came out of
 prison and a short time before the tragedy at the Lake.  I asked him Iioav he
 did.  He made no ansAver.  After the murder of the Van Nest family, I
 went up to the Lake and saAv him in a Avagon coming to Auburn.  After he
•got to the jail I asked him if he knew me.   He said Yes.   They took him to
 a cell and put irons on him.  He said he recollected being Avith me.  I was
 at the jail again a few days after.  Talked Avith him about the affair at Van
 Nest's.   He  is not as intelligent as he used to be.  He does not appear to
 be a man of sound intellect.  I thought he was but little above the brutes as
 regards right and wrong.  He don't appear to have reason, or power to draw
 inferences.   [Witness  further testified in substance  as upon the traverse.
 See post.]
   Philo H. Perry, called and sworn on the part of the prisoner, testified :
 I have seen the prisoner  and tried to converse  with him.   I  heard  Mr.
 Seward  make the  attempt.  Mr. S. asked  Freeman who the jury Avere, or
 what they were.  He said he didn't know.  Mr. S. asked him what the busi-
 ness of the jury was.  Same ansAver.  He said something about having been
 in prison five years, and about getting his pay for it.  He said something
 which led me to suppose that he  thought the jury a permanent body.  I
 could not come to any satisfactory  conclusion in my own mind hoAV far he
 had any responsibility.  My opinion, so far as I have  any, is that it seemed
 to me as if he must have known he was not doing right, but that he had no
 conception of the enormity of the offence.   Did not seem to have any idea
 that the  result of the trial depended at all on the exertions of his counsel, or
 evidence.  He has scarcely any intellect at all, as far as I can judge.  He
 has a smile very much  indicative of idiocy.   [Witness further testified in
 substance as upon the traverse.  See trial.]
   Dr. Blanchard Fosgate  sworn, and testified :   I am a physician and
 surgeon.  On Monday, the  sixteenth day of March, I was called by the jailor
 to examine the prisoner's arm.  I dressed it.  It had been wounded with a
 knife.   He seemed morose.  Sat still and made  no complaint.  I went up 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
49
 to him to examine it and took hold of it.   He did not stir.   He did not knoAv,
 apparently, that I was there.   I asked if his hand pained him; he made no
 reply.   The Avound Avas in the Avrist, immediately in the joint.  The tendons
 were cutoff; also, the main artery running to the hand.  [Witness further
 testified in substance as upon the traverse.  See trial]
   Dr. Lansingir Briggs, called and  sworn, testified:  I am a physician.
 HaA'e been physician to State Prison.   I have knoAvn Freeman eight or ten
 years.   Always supposed him to be a boy of common intelligence for boys
 of his &ge and condition.   I saAv  him in the latter part of April.  Dr. Fos-
 gate and W. T. Worden Avere present.  My object Avas not then to test the
 condition of his  mind.  I went upon  Dr.  Fosgate's  invitation;  he  was the
 physician.  Dr. Fosgate proceeded to dress his hand.   I examined the Avound
 on  his wrist, and I found he  manifested  very  little  sensibility  as to pain.
 Seemed to be  insensible to any pain or  suffering.  Examined his ankle, on
 which was a heavy chain and iron clasp.   Dr. Fosgate asked him if it  hurt
 him.  He said no;  said it never had.
   Q.  What opinion did you form as to his intellect or accountability ?
   A.  I formed no  opinion as to his accountability.  I came away with the
 impression on  my mind, exceedingly strong, that the boy had become de-
 mented, from Avhat I had known of him previously and had seen that day.
 [Witness further testified in substance as upon the traverse.   See trial.]
   Dr. Charles Van Epps, being called and sworn, testified:  1 reside in
 Auburn.   Have  practiced medicine twenty-one years;  I Avas  acquainted
 with prisoner since he was a  nursing babe.  He  Avas as active and sprightly
 as boys in general.   I practiced in his  mother's  family, but lost recollection
 of him from the time he Avas tAvo or three years old till I saAv him in prison.
 My  opinion of the condition of his mind is, that it Avas dementia, or idiotic
 derangement.  In examining him, I found  that all the answers to questions
 we could get were  yes or no.  The state of his health appeared to be per-
 fectly good.  Tried to have  him read;  he read like a babe.  Would say
 over something like a part of a prayer, that he  might have  been learnt in
 Sabbath school.  We tried to have him count.  He did once  count up as far
 as tAventy-eight, but that seemed an accident more than any thing else.  The
 impression on my mind was more strong, because he had an uncle here in
 town that was deranged.
  Cross Examined.—I saAv him in jail a few days after this court com-
 menced.   I saAv him tAvo consecutive  days, the middle of the first week of
 this court.  The first time I visited him alone, the next Avith Dr. Pitney, the
 next with Captain William P. Smith.   The conA'ersations occurred at both
times.  First, I asked him if  he knew me.   Think he smiled  a  little, and
grunted,  and made no other answer.  Asked him if he felt Avell.   Answer,
Yes.  Whether they used him well.  Answer, Yes.  Whether he was crazy.
Answer, No.
  Q.  On that com'ersation did vou form the opinion that he Avas demented V
                  4 
50                          THE TRIAL OF
  A.  I formed the  opinion then, that his intellect was  very small indeed ;
I mean his intellectual faculties.  Had not sufficient information then to
make up my mind whether he was demented or not.  I went again ;  I think
it was the next day.  Found his pulse to vary both when  sitting and Avhen
standing, without any variations in his countenance.  I asked him  if any
other person had ever advised him to commit the  crime.  He said No.  it
any person had hired him to commit the murder.  Answer, No.   If he had
ever told any body he was going to do it ?   Answer, No.  What he was put
into the jail for ? Answer, Don't know.  Afterwards, seemed to recollect
himself, and said " horse."   Asked him if he thought he would be found out
when he committed this act.   Answer, Yes.  I asked him if he could read.
He answered Yes.  I then opened the book and  gave  it to  him; he then
mumbled over  some words without meaning.   Seemed to be prayer words;
" Jesus Christ," " pray," only two words I recollect distinctly hearing  him
speak.
  Q.  Which of  all the remarks induced you to make up your mind as to
the state of his mind ?
  A.  I made up my mind from his appearance generally, and from  all his
remarks.
  Q.  Can you tell me any one thing that he has said that was not entirely
rational ?
  A.  I find  men in this condition always in  the habit of telling  the truth,
as nearly as  they can  recollect; this is one powerful argument in favor of
his insanity.  When they have committed desperate acts  they glory in them.
  Q.  What are  the symptoms of the disease which you think this man has
got?
  A.  No  one patient would probably have all the  symptoms of the disease.
In dementia, the patient is inclined to be  stupid a considerable portion of
the time;  but considerably sane and correct on some subjects.   If interested,
so  as to arouse their intellect, they will answer correctly; if  not interested
sufficiently to arouse or interest them,  they will seem simple.   If caused by
brutal treatment, calculated to lead to desperate  mania, they will  commit
acts of violence; if caused by cruel treatment, it would excite revenge, and
they would be likely to commit acts of violence, or murder;  if from disap-
pointment, as of love, &c, if you touch upon those points, it seems to destroy
their reasoning faculties.  These individuals, like most other insane persons,
unless grown entirely idiotic, are easily excited, and become violent in their
passions.  I  don't recollect as I ever saw a demented patient angry.  De-
mentia is that form of insanity running into idiocy.
   Q. What do you think the cause is in this case ?
   A. I should think it originated from brutal treatment.  [Witness further
testified in substance as upon the traverse.  See trial.]
   Rev. John  M. Austin, sworn and testified:  I reside in Auburn.  Am
clergyman of  the Universalist church; shall have been here two years in 
        „                 WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       51

October next.  I first knew the prisoner after his confinement in jail.  Saw
him a Aveek or  ten days after he was confined in jail, in the latter  part of
March.   Have  had  several interviews with him in jail; sometimes alone,
sometimes with others.   Don't know that I could  give  a correct narration of
all my conversation, not having expected to be called  upon.
  I put to him a variety of questions about the murder, but many of his
ansAvers were such that I could not understand them.   I inquired repeatedly
why he killed that family.   As soon as that inquiry was put, he would begin
to speak  about being in State Prison; and in a very broken and disjointed
manner undertook to relate something about being put in prison wrongfully.
His language I could not  give at all.  I inquired if  he thought it right to
kill those persons who had no hand in getting him in prison.  Only  answer
I got was something about his being put in  prison, &c.   He told me he went
to see the woman from whom the horse was stolen, and requested pay for
his time in prison.   I can't give his language, for that  was  in a very  broken
and disjointed manner.  Asked him if he  thought it  was  right to kill that
innocent child, who  could not have injured him.   Got no audible reply,
but he hung  his head, and shook it.   I got the idea  that he couldn't give
any intelligent answer.   Asked how he happened to go that particular night.
Reply, " I don't know;  the time had come."  Inquired why he entered that
particular house ; why not some other.  Answer,  " I went along out, and
thought I might begin  there."  Inquired what question Mr. Van Nest put
to him, when he first went into the room ?  Replied,  " He asked me what
I wanted.  I  told him I came in to Avarm my hands."  Inquired if Mr. Van
Nest said any thing more.   Reply was, " He said, if you eat my liver I'll eat
your's."  Inquired how he became deaf.   In a very incoherent reply, I
gathered something like this, " that stones dropped into my ears."  Inquired
if he thought he could  commit such an act without  being punished.  He
replied, " I didn't think any thing about it."   Something was said about work
that he had to do; it was in relation to this killing that he used the  term—
that he had work to do.  He spoke in such a manner that I couldn't draw
any thing definite from it.
  Q.  What is your opinion of his mind ?
  A.  I consider him in a very strange state.  He could not give a reason
for his conduct in this affair.  And also I drew that inference from his re-
mark about eating his liver, &c.  Judging from what I  learned of him, should
not consider him of sound mind.
  Q.  What is your opinion of his intellect ?
  A.  I consider it very feeble indeed.  I should think a child of five or six
years of age had as  much mind, both intellectually and morally.  He has a
sense of some things at times, and at others, not.
  Cross Examination.—I have felt it my duty to visit the prisoner.
  Q.  Have you not been active in aiding counsel to prepare a defence ?
  A. I have taken about the same interest, probably, that many others have. 
52                          THE TRIAL OF

  Q.  Have you not been in frequent consultation with his counsel as to the
manner of getting up a defence ?
  A.  I think at first I asked Mr. Seward if the prisoner would be defended,
and I think he replied, that he Avould.
  Q.  Have you not suggested to Freeman the propriety of his making a
defence -
  A.  I think I inquired of Freeman if he had any lawyer engaged, and he
answered, No.   I then inquired of him if he would like to have Governor
Seward defend him, but he did not seem to understand what I meant.   Af-
ter repeating it several times, and using several different phrases, he seemed
to comprehend, and answered, Yes.   I subsequently stated to Governor S.
what he said.
  Q.  Have you not been about town looking up  witnesses ?
  A.  I have inquired what persons kneAV about Freeman.   Have conversed
with several persons, but have never been about particularly for that pur-
pose.
  Q.  Have you preached on the subject ?
  A.  I don't know that I have.
  Q.  Have you not preached on the subject, generally ?
  A.  Never particularly; never made it a theme of a discourse.
  Q.  Have you not preached on moral insanity within six months ?
  A.  I have not, except, to advert to it incidentally, perhaps, in a discourse.
  Q.  Have you not preached on the subject of capital punishment, lately ?
  A.  Not to make that a subject; but I may have alluded to it; probably
I may have done so.
  Q.  Have you written, in relation to the murder, for the press ?
  A.  I have.   I wrote an article for a religious paper in Utica, some six or
eight  weeks since.  Some copies of that paper are taken here.
  Q.  Was it the drift of that article to show that this man ought not to be
punished ?
  A.  No, sir.
  Q.  Was it the drift of it to show that others are more to blame than he;
that he is irresponsible ?
  A.  I don't know that I said in those articles that he was irresponsible.  I
have  written in regard to the improprieties of others, in this matter, but did
not suggest that he Avas not a fit object for punishment.
  Q.  Have you written for other papers ?
  A.  I have, sir.  I have written for the Auburn Daily Advertiser.
  Q.  At any considerable length ?
  A.  That depends upon our notions of length;  perhaps a column or two.
  Q.  Was it the object of that article to show that the prisoner Avas not to
blame?
  A. I don't know that I have  ever observed that he was not to blame.
   Q.  Was it the object to show that his education had been neglected ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
53
    A. Very likely I may have said so.   I  think  there  is no doubt on that
 point.
    Q. Was it asserted, that those who neglected Ins education were as much
 to blame as himself?
    A. I am not aware of having made such an assertion.
    Q. Was it  asserted that they Avere in some degree accountable for his
 crime ?
    A. I may have inquired if community were not accountable for the  crimes
 of those brought up in their midst.
    Q. Was there a suggestion that the crime was the legitimate effect of the
 indifference of the  community to the colored population ?
    A. I think there was,  for I do think so, in some measure.
    Q. Then you think the community responsible for the crime of Freeman ?
    A.  My opinion  is, that one of the legitimate causes that led to this tragical
 event, is the utter neglect shown to the moral, intellectual and religious in-
 struction of the colored people.   [Witness continued in substance as upon
 the traverse.   See post.]
   Horace Hotchkiss,  called and sworn, testified as follows:  I know the
 prisoner.  I first kneAv him in the  State Prison something over a year aoo.
 I had a class in the Sabbath school in the prison, and he was in my class.  I
 did not have much success in attempting to teach him ; so far as I  remember,
 he knew some letters; but his  knoAvlcdge Avas very slight.' There seemed
 to be a want of intelligence and comprehension.  I tried to learn him to read.
 He did not appear to show any indications of learning any thing.  He Avas
 very dull and stupid.   Have seen  him since, but  have seen no advance in
 capacity.  It was my conviction that he possessed a Ioav intellect.   [Witness
 further testified in substance as upon the traverse.]
   Amariaii Brigham, called and SAvorn, testified as follows :  I am the Su-
 perintendent of the State Lunatic Asylum at Utica.  I have had a  lar«e
 number of insane persons under my observation and charge at different times.
 I saw the accused several weeks ago.   I  think I saw him  the  first Aveek of
 the trial of Henry Wyatt, at this place.  I have seen him six or seven times
 since: once alone, Avhen I spent  considerable time with him.  I  then Avent
 through an examination similar to that Avhich other Avitnesses have testified
 they Avent through  with, in order to ascertain the extent of his capacity and
 the condition of his mental poAvers.   I observed his motions, actions and pe-
 culiarities whilst trying to ascertain Avhether lie. could read or render  any
 account of the transaction for Avhich he is indicted.  I tried him  in various
 ways, and by all the means at command, for the purpose of ascertaining the
condition of his mental faculties, in respect to sanity.
  There are  circumstances  attending this case that render it someAvhat re-
markable.  He has some mind—some intelligence; and yet the  former is
very weak, and the latter very trifling  in amount.   I asked  him  about the
court, the counsel, the jury, and the trial, to ascertain if he  knew Avhat he 
54
THE TRIAL OF
was to be tried for; but I never could get from him a distinct ansAver.   His
answer was sometimes, that he did't know, and sometimes he would say, " a
horse."  I tried to converse with him about his defence.   I asked him what
he could prove in defence of himself.  He said they could prove he was in
prison five years for stealing a horse, and he didn't steal it.   This he twice
repeated, in reply to my questions.   I asked, if he was sorry for the act.   He
sometimes said "No," and sometimes "I don't knoAV," in  reply.  His words
were spoken slowly and someAvhat incoherently.  I asked him if he Avere not
sorry that he killed that innocent little child, that could not hurt him.   Once
he said, " I don't know," and once, " you may say that;" but it was sloAvly
said.   He laughed when I asked about the child.   I asked  him what he  was
laughing at; if he  was not ashamed to laugh.   He replied, " I don't know."
His laugh was not convulsive, but was more than a smile.
  Others, in  my presence, asked him about pay, and showed him money.
I once did the same, and exhibited to him bank bills, silver and gold coin.
He seemed to be animated, in some degree, by the sight of money, and smiled
with a smile more intelligent than ordinarily.  I asked him if the bills exhibi-
ted would pay him.  When shoAvn a dollar or so,  he said  No;  but when I
offered him the whole, he smiled.  I asked him if a  dollar a day, which would
amount to about one thousand dollars, would satisfy him.   He  said it would;
and that  Avas his nearest approach to  an answer as  to what would satisfy him.
  I talked with him about  the deed charged against him, to ascertain the
state of his feelings.   I desired to see if he did not think he was doing Avrong.
He said he did not; that he Avanted  his  pay.   I tried in various ways to as-
certain if he kneAv whether the killing of the persons was wrong.  He uni-
formly answered, No; but never seemed  able to comprehend me.  He said
he was deaf in both ears.  He said his right ear Avas hurt when he was young,
and that  made him deaf in that;  the other had been struck with a board
by a man in  the prison, and a stone was knocked into or out of his ear,
which made that ear deaf. Could not understand him exactly, but gathered
from him the substance of what I have  just stated.  He don't hear even if
you speak loud, unless his attention is called to it.
  My experience among the insane has been very considerable.  I suppose
few men  living have seen so many.   I Avas an officer of the Retreat for the
Insane, at Hartford, ten years ; was principal three years.   I have had charge
of the  Asylum at Utica since it was opened.   I have visited the  largest hos-
pitals in this country and in Europe,  although I do not consider such infor-
mation experience, except in  some peculiar cases like that of Hatfield.  I
asked him questions for the purpose of  seeing what sensibility or feeling he
had.  I asked if he would be afraid to be hung, or would dislike  to be hun".
He smiled, and said " I don't knoAv." I ascertained to my satisfaction that
he had no feeling  nor concern about it.  I asked him if he had ever been
crazy.   He said he went crazy in the prison.  I asked him why he became
so.  He  said they struck him  on the head, and said he  was very crazv.  I 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                        55
asked him if he didn't want to see his mother, his  friends and acquaintances
here.   To all these he answered, No.
  Cross Examination.—He appeared to have memory of  some things.
Memory is sometimes destroyed by insanity, but rarely.  Most of the insane
remember most things, as well as ever, concerning their past lives.  Unless
their minds are entirely  destroyed, they have some memory of transactions
and of their friends.  Some insane persons narrate past transactions, and
repeat them frequently.   I should think that a majority of those now in the
Asylum at Utica have tolerably good memories.
  Q.  How is this man as to memory ?
  A.  In many respects I cannot tell, not knowing what was the truth of the
matters stated by him.  I know he recollected you, (Mr. V. B.)   He knew
me.
  Q.  Was that a circumstance denoting insanity ?
  A.  I did not consider  that a circumstance bearing either way.  I should
think nine-tenths of the inmates of the Asylum would recollect as much.
  Q.  Are you confident  that he recognized you ?
  A.  I feel confident that he recollects my having visited him.
  Q.  How was his attention ?
  A.  I should say very dull, indeed.
  Q.  What do you mean by attention ?
  A.  His observance of  the circumstances around him.
  Q.  Was there any other want of attention than would naturally follow
from deafness ?
  A.  I think there was much more.  If I make comparisons it must be with
other deaf people.
  Q.  Are deaf persons attentive ?
  A.  When alone with an individual they are.  '
  Q.  Did he not attend  to what you were saying ?
  A.  He ne\rer spoke to  me, or asked me any question.  He never attended
to me at all, or to any other person, unless directly questioned.
  Q.  Did you not accompany me, on one  occasion, to see him ?
  A.  I recollect you (Mr. V. B.) and I went just before dinner, and were
in a great hurry.
  Q.  Did he wander then from the subject presented ?
  A.  He did not wander from the subject inquired about to another, but my
impression was, that his attention is momentary and did not pursue the sub-
ject. When his attention was called to subjects in which he is much interested,
he never paid any further attention to them than to answer, yes or no.
  Q.  Suppose you should talk to him half an hour about killing those peo-
ple  in Fleming, would he not attend all the while to you ?
  A.  When we asked him to go on and tell  all  about the  transactions, he
would only answer the questions put.
  Q.  What is he about,  if not attentive ? 
56
THE trial of
  A.  He is attentive to one question long enough to give an answer, and
then his attention appears to be gone.
  Q.  What induces the smile that you mention ?
  A.  Probably his  attention falls off to dreamy imaginings, or something of
the kind, and he then smiles.   He attends only to questions asked, and then
seems to wander.
  Q.  Did you ask him about his treatment in the State Prison ?
  A.  I think I did  not.
  Q.  Did you afford him an opportunity to relate what he kneAV ?
  A.  I tried to have him connect his thoughts, by constant promptings, and
to get from  him a description of matters, but I always failed.  His ansAvers
were, yes, or no.
  Q.  Did that  indicate  insanity ?
  A.  There are instances in which sane men  talk very freely about such a
deed and its enormities.
  Q.  \.Yould a sane man be inclined to relate the facts of the commission of
such a crime ?
  A.  If they undertake, they generally give one.  I should think  a sane
man Avould either refuse, altogether, or go on and state them correctly.
  Q.  Has the prisoner refused at all ?
  A.  I think he has never shown any umvillingness to answer questions, in
his way.
  Q.  What Avas the result of your examination, as to his power of comparison ?
  A.  I woidd make the same remark as I have in regard to his attention.
It is an important faculty, and yet I think it nearly gone.
  Q.  You say that is an important faculty ?
  A.  It is, in order to enable a person to judge.
  Q.  Did he not compare the killing of the child Avith the killing of a man,
when  he spoke of it.
  A.  He seemed to ansAver very indifferently.  I do not say that he is  en-
tirely destitute of the poAver of comparison. I  see only feeble evidence of it.
Tn reference to the  child, I think he manifested some.
  Q.  Well, Doctor, haAre you become satisfied about his sanity ?
  A.  I have not made up my mind decidedly concerning it.   My effort  has
been to keep my mind free from bias until I hear all the proof.
  Q.  Have you not formed an opinion ?
  A.  I have not  formed such an opinion as I  should choose to state at this
stage  of the proceedings.
  Q.  If this man is insane, Avhat is the species of his insanity ?
  A.  That would involve the same thing as giving an opinion.
  Q.  Then you have not formed an opinion ?
   A.  I do not say that I have not formed one,  but I desire to keep my mind
open until I hear all the case, before expressing it.  I think it is due to the
station I hold to withhold my opinion until I hear the Avliole testimony.   I 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
57
see that publicity is given to every thing which takes place here, and I wish
to do no act that will impair my usefulness.
   Q. From the examination you have given this case, if he is insane can
you  not state the form of his insanity ?
   A. I must  answer as before.   There  may be circumstances  developed
that  Avill change my present impression in regard to him.   I must therefore
hold my opinion in reserve until I hear all the testimony in the case.
   Counsel for the  prisoner here rested the examination.
   Mr. Sherwood, the district attorney, then opened the case to the jury on
behalf of the people.  He dwelt at great length upon the  enormity of the crime
for which  the  prisoner was indicted;  the  certainty of his guilt, and the law
as the same existed in Great Britain  and America, in  relation to insanity.
Whilst  it  was the right of the prisoner's counsel to interpose a plea of pre-
sent  insanity for the prisoner at the bar, and their right to give the opinions
of medical men in evidence, he felt called upon to caution the jury against
the extravagant notions upon the subject  which  many  entertained. Whilst
he would  concede to medical men the benefits of their learning, he could not
regard their opinions as controlling, in a case where men  of common obser-
vation could as well  determine a  fact.   He did  not  regard insanity as a
subject that was purely or exclusively medical.  All persons haA'ing a good
perception, a sound judgment, and a discerning eye, could in a majority of
cases as well  determine whether another  is  insane, as  the most expert and
experienced physician.  In this case, the prisoner has displayed an ingenuity
and skill in the manufacture of his weapons for the assault—in selecting the
hour and the place for the depredation—in the assassination of the family of
Van Nest, and in his flight from the scene  made bloody by his hand, that
evinced mental power, as well as depravity.  Every thing connected with
the tragedy indicates the possession of mind then; and  his recollection of
the affair, of his imprisonment in  the State  Prison, his fear of being pun-
ished, and his avaricious desire for pay for lus imprisonment, indicates its
possession now.  His health, in all  respects, except the wound in his hand;
his shrewdness in selecting persons Avith Avhom he most freely converses ;  his
bright and intelligent eye, faculties of which all can judge, repel the idea of
insanity.  His (Mr. S.'s) own examination had satisfied him that the plea of
insanity in this case was groundless,  and had hoped to  have  avoided  the
necessity of a protracted examination of Avitnesses upon a matter that ap-
peared to  him so plain to the minds of all.  The court, hoAvever, had  seen
proper to  submit the question to a jury, and it became his duty, therefore,
to make such  proof as in his judgment Avould satisfy them of the prisoner's
sanity, and that he ought to be tried.  That the  prisoner's mind Avas rude
and uncultivated—that he was a dull, grovelling, morose negro, he Avas pre-
pared to admit; but that he was not a responsible being—that he did not
know that the massacre of the Van Nest family was wrong, and that he does
not feel guilty now, he (Mr. S.) neither believed himself, nor did the people 
58                          THE TRIAL OF
at large for whom he acted.  The defence of insanity was  brought into dis-
repute when interposed in such a case.  It was dangerous to the  public,
when based only upon the singularity of the prisoner's movements, or the
enormity of the crime which he had committed.  That  he  cannot  read, but
thinks  he can, induces one to think him insane.  That he cannot define the
Supreme Being, leads another to  think so;  and because another finds him
taciturn and unwilling to talk, he comes to the same conclusion.   A learned
physician does not find his faculties sufficiently active, his attention sufficiently
profound, or  his comparison sufficiently good to enable him to venture an
opinion that he is sane.   Admitting all this, does it not fall far short  of pro-
ving insanity or of relieving the prisoner from the consequences of his crime ?
Shall such pretences  suffice for a defence that shall screen a murderer, and
such a murderer, from justice ?  If so, the responsibility shall rest upon you
who are empanelled to decide this momentous question.  We shall give you
the history of this man, up to the time when he was brought into court to be
arraigned;  Ave will call medical  men, lawyers and laymen, as to the  sjtate of
his  mind, to  the end that you may have all the facts appertaining to his
present mental condition.   If we show him competent to distinguish between
right and wrong, we shall insist that he is legally sane and answerable to the
law for the horrid crime of murder.
  Nathaniel Lynch, sworn for the people, testified as follows:  I reside
in Sennett.   Know the prisoner, and knew  him sixteen or seventeen  years
ago.  He lived with me a few weeks Avhen he was six or seven years old.   I
then lived in the east end of the village of Auburn.   His mother wanted me
to take him and bring him up.   He was  then very playful, and ran away
every chance he could get. Play appeared to be all he cared for.  I found
his mother was a drinking woman.  He would run away and go home, so I
concluded not to keep him.   Sally Freeman, his  mother, is reputed  to  be
part squaw.  After William left me I saw him but a few times, until  last De-
cember on the side-walks.  I was looking for some one to help drive some
cattle, out  three or four miles, into town.   He had a saw-buck on his arm.
In  going out, in a sleigh, he  told me he had once  lived with me.  I asked
him where he lived ;  had forgotten him.  Just before getting there I bought
a couple of head of cattle, and as there was some dispute about them I took
him to see me pay the money.  We  got the cattle together and drove them
into the village.  He came back in the morning, and worked for me four or
five days.  I paid him three shillings for helping drive the cattle.  He said
that would satisfy him.   The next day he came up I was absent.   Allien I
returned I found him saAving  wood.  He asked me if I did not want to hire
him.  I told him I did.   Next morning he came very early, before daylight.
I heard him when he came.   After he had worked three days and had sawed
nearly all my wood,  I asked him how much wages he wanted.   He  said five
shillings a day.  I told him I could give only four; that was all that  I paid
in  the winter.  He appeared  quite  offended.   He took twelve shillings, 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
59
counted it over, and said it was right.  I think he worked one day after
that, for which I paid him half a dollar.  After he left work, he came up one
day and asked if my cattle had not got away.  He  said he saw some cattle
in Clarksville, which he  thought were mine.  That  was two or three weeks
before he committed the  murder.  I next saw him the first week in June, in
his cell.  I went into the cell and asked him if he knew me.   He said, Yes.
I asked him when he  lived with me.  He said when he was quite a small
boy.
  I then asked him about the murder, and who he killed first.  He said the
man.   I asked him who  he  killed next.   He said he saw a woman  coming
in, and he stabbed her.  I asked him who he  stabbed next.  He said he saw
a person lying on the  bed as he came in, and stabbed it.  I asked him who
he stabbed next.  He said  he went up to the head of  the stairs, and met a
man, and stabbed him.  I asked him where.   He pointed to his OAvn breast
and said, " Somewhere about here."   I asked him what he did then.  He
said the man  threw a candlestick and hit. him; then his feet slipped a little;
the man  got the candlestick, hit him  again, and he went clear down to the
bottom of the stairs.  I  asked what he did  then.  He said he thought  he
would  stab him again, but  did not know but it was enough.   He said the
man got a broom-stick, and  that he went into the hall and then he broke his
knife.  A woman followed  him and he stabbed her.   He gave a different
relation at other times.  He said he stabbed the old lady with the knife in
a club.  I asked him how he could kill the little child.   He said he thought
he would kill all there was  in the house.  I have not, in what I have seen,
discovered that he is  insane.  My opinion is, that  he  is sane, but of weak
intellect.  [Witness further testified as upon the traverse.  See post.]
   Thomas R. Townsend, called  and sworn, testified:  I was chaplain of
the Prison three and  a  half years; from '40 to '43.   During that time I
knew  the prisoner.   My  impression is  that  be was in Sabbath  School.
Think his teacher told me his prospect of learning  was very small.  I had
conversations with him.  He was usually taciturn; talked a little;  answered
questions readily, and threw the burthen  of'Conversation mainly upon me.
Saw him in jail first week of trial of Wyatt;  had a  short conversation with
him there, by questions  and answers.   I  asked him but few  questions.  I
discovered a difference,  from my previous acquaintance with  him.   His in-
creased deafness, brevity of his answers, not the same  freedom of remark as
formerly, and some questions he answered in reference to the outrage; he
answered that he had  been  unjustly imprisoned.
   Cross Examination.—My  visits were made to the  cells in prison.  I
went in and asked him  if he knew me.  He said  he  did.  Can't say, but
think  I inquired whether  they had  injured him.  He  said No.   Said he
wanted his pay.  I found him more deaf and taciturn than before.  Don't
think he asked me any questions.  [Witness further testified, in substance,
as upon the traverse.  See  post.] 
60
THE TRIAL OF
  Aaron Demon, called and sworn, testified:   I reside in Auburn ;  have
resided here twenty-three or four years.  I know  the  prisoner.   I am an
uncle to him, by marriage.  He used to make his home  with me, before he
went to prison, off and on for a year  or so.   He was rather  a Avild  boy;
would not stay long in a place.
  Cross Examination.—I am forty-five, 6th day of December.  Prisoner
must be a very little over tAventy-tAvo years old.   He was an active, lively,
wild boy; loved play.   He was quick to understand as other boys.  When
he went to  prison he Avas only about sixteen  or seventeen years of age.
When he came out of State Prison he was very  hard of hearing, and did
not want to talk.  [Witness further testified, in substance, as upon the tra-
verse.   See  post.]
  Israel G. Wood, called and sworn, testified:  I live in Auburn.  Re-
collect the time when Freeman was convicted for  larceny, and sent to State
Prison.  I kept the  jail.  I have  known him from a child.   He  was not
very smart;  about as he is noAv, with the exception of his being deaf.  Be-
fore he was eonA'icted, he was in jail four or five months. He  never  was a
great talker, or I never heard him talk a great deal; would answer questions.
He broke a lock, and let himself and another  prisoner out.  The other one
was caught.   Freeman got away;  was gone tAvo or three days.  I found him.
at Lyons, in jail, and brought him back.  Coming home, I  asked  him how
he got aAvay. He told me he kept to the woods; came to Cayuga lake; said
he got a boat.  Asked him how he come to cut up such a caper.   He feigned
himself sick  that morning, so that he didn't go out.  Cried, and said he was
sick.  I supposed he. was.  He afterwards  said he  was not sick.   I  said I
didn't knoAv but he would have to go to State Prison.  He said he didn't
know but the d—d nigger,  John Furman, would  SAvear him into prison.
Said John or Jack was the guilty one.   I have  known him since  he came
out of prison.  I have been a good many times out and in jail.  About a
week ago  Bostwick Avas in the jail when I  went there.  I  asked  him how
long he Avas in prison.  He said five years.   Asked him how long he was in
jail.   Said four months.   I said-1 discovered no difference from Avhat he was
before in jail, except his deafness.  I never thought him insane, till this af-
fair ; that was one object in my going to see him.  I could see no difference,
only that he was hard of hearing.
  Cross Examined.—I did all I could, and said all I could, to prevent  his
being Lynched;  I might have said he  ought to have been Lynched, in con-
nection Avith some other com-ersation.  I recollect seeing him before he was
five years old ; saw  him before he  could walk, in neighborhood of Watson's
brewery.  I can't tell only as I see him around, Avhether he had any more
or less intellect, till  he came to jail.  Talked with  him more  than at any
other time.  Can't tell any conversation with him in jail, only to tell him to
go work.  Since I knew him, before he went to prison, and  while he was in
jail, he  always held his head  down;  never knew him to hold his  head  up 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
61
and look a man in the face.  I don't know as I ever knew him to ask ques-
tions ; might have asked about his work.  I humored him.   He was a good
fellow to work.   [Witnes further testified in substance as upon the traverse.
See trial.]
  Thomas F. Munroe, called and sworn for the people, testified as follows;
I have resided  in Auburn twenty-four years.  I knew  him when a boy;
was with the constables when he was arrested for stealing the horse.  Free-
man denied stealing the horse himself.   He  was then fifteen or sixteen years
old.  He then had a doAvn-cast look.  He was deaf then, but not so deaf as
now.  I recollect 'that he was an ugly boy and threw stones at  Avhite boys.
  I am the police officer of the village of Auburn.   The next morning after
the murder I was requested to go to John Depuy's.  I asked Depuy A\rhere
Bill was.  He said he had not been seen since he threatened to kill him.
He then asked me what caper Bill had been cutting up.  I told him I wanted
him for a witness.  I told him so that I might not alarm him, and that, if pos-
sible, I might arrest the prisoner.   I never heard that he Avas crazy till since
the murder.  My opinion is  I never saw any insanity in him.  I think if he
is insane most of the negroes in Auburn are.
  Cross Examination.—I don't know as  I ever said Freeman ought to be
Lynched. I have said that if they had  hung him, it would have saved the
County a great deal  of expense.  I might have said that it would have been
better if he had been hung or  killed.  That was  since  the  manufacture of
craziness in this county.
  Q.  Have you not said that he ought to have been Lynched ?   *
  A.  If I did it was in reference to the course taken by a certain set of men
in relation to it.
  Q.  HaAre you not said that counsel ought to be tarred and feathered  for
defending him ?
  A.  I might have said they deserved it for the course  they have  taken in
his defence.
  Q.  Have you not made that or a similar declaration, and that, too, fre-
quently ?
  A.  I probably have said considerable about it, and somebody may have
reported me.
  Q.  I desire an answer to my question if you can favor me ?
  A.  I can't recollect what I have said. I  am opposed to  the  course pur-
sued because I  supposed all the testimony about his derangement was manu-
factured.   [Witness further testified  in substance, as upon the traverse.
See post.]
  Aretus A. Sabin, called and sAvorn for the people, testified as follows:
I knew the prisoner fifteen years ago.  He then lived with Captain Warden.
He was a wild boy and would  run away.  I next knew him in the prison.
I was an officer there, in the  cooper's  shop.  I saw Freeman filing in the
hame shop.  Never heard or said  that he was crazy then.  I don't know
ft 
 62                        THE trial of

 that he was deaf in the prison.  [Witness continued as upon  the traverse.
 See post.]
   Abraham  A. Vanderiieyden,  sworn for the people, says:  I have
 been acquainted with the prisoner since he was a boy.  I arrested him  for
 stealing Mrs. Godfrey's horse.  He always insisted that he did not steal  the
 horse.   Two or three weeks afterwards the horse was found,  and one Jack
 Furman was arrested.  Jack said Bill stole the horse.  I saw him in  State
 Prison several times, and have seen him since  he came out.  I think he  ap-
 pears different from what he did before he went in.   It is harder to converse
 with him; his head hangs down and you have  to talk loud".  I did not know
 that he Avas deaf before.  He  answers questions put by  me.  He  evaded
 questions in relation to the murder.
  I met him at Baldwinsville, and assisted in bringing him to Auburn under
 arrest for the murder of the Van  Nest family.   I asked him how he  got his
hand cut; asked twice before he answered.  He said by stabbing.  I, with
 others, asked him how in the world he came to commit such a deed.   He
said he did'nt want to say any thing about it.
  When the room was cleared so that but one person besides myself was with
him, I said that he might as well tell me  about the matter.  I asked him
how he came to commit the murder.  He  said, "you know there  is no law
for me."  I asked what  he meant by that.  He said,  " they ought  to pay
me."  I asked  him how he come to kill the child.  He said  he didn't know
it was a child.  I then asked him  how he left.   He said he took a horse.  I
then asked him Avhere he rode the horse.   He  said he rode to New Guinea.
 I asked Avhat he did with him.  He said the horse fell and he left him there.
 He would answer questions, but would never  lead on.  He made no con-
fession, except as stated.  My opinion is that he is not crazy.   [Witness
 continued in substance as upon the traverse.   See post.]
  Stephen S. Austin, sworn for the people,  testified :  I  know Freeman.
 He was a mischievous, cunning kind of a darkey, rather still and down-cast.
 When  he was  in jail, before he went to State Prison, I did not know that
he was deaf.  He didn't speak unless  spoken to.  He would turn up his eye
instead of his head.  I  have seen him in the  streets since he came out of
prison.  I can't see any difference except in color.   I think he is of a lighter
color than before he went to prison. He has grown.  I have seen him seve-
ral times, and it never occurred to me that he  was crazy.
  Cross Examination.—I heard him answer questions in jail, when W.
 T. Worden, Esq., was there.  He answered questions put to him; he did
not ask any; he generally answered yes or no.  There was this difference;
before  he went to prison, he asked questions;  in jail, he did not.   I don't
think Bill is a fool.  I think he knows  as much  as either of my dogs.  I don't
recollect that I ever said he was a fool.  I said he was not worth the powder
and  shot to shoot him.   I  said, at the time, things that I didn't believe, to
keep the mob from killing him.
« 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
63
  William Holmes, sworn for the people, testified:   I am a contractor in
the State Prison, in the hame shop.  Freeman was in our shop; he worked
at filing iron.   He was an ordinary workman : fine jobs were put in the
hands of other men; he was in the  shop  nearly two years; he generally
spoke monosyllables.   They learn by comparison, and work by sample laid
before them.   He had  difficulty with James E. Tyler, the keeper.   I  took
occasion to reprimand  him.  Freeman  said that the keeper  was going to
whip him, and he had done nothing worthy of confinement.   He frequently
alluded to the fact that he had not  committed the  crime;  that he  did not
want to work ; that he was deriving no benefit from his labor.  I have never
spoken to him since he left the prison.  He always had a down-cast counte-
nance, and turned up his eyes when he  spoke.
  Cross Examination.—I had the entire direction of the hame shop.  The
wages averaged about twenty-five cents a day.   There is a  great difference
in men.   I inquired why he should conduct so as to occasion himself trouble.
He replied, that Tyler was going  to whip him; that he didn't feel disposed
to suffer punishment when he didn't deserve it.   I would not swear whether
I have heard him use the words " feel disposed."  He said he didn't want to
stay there and work for nothing.  He said he was accused of  stealing  a
horse ; but he  didn't commit the crime.  When he was first brought into the
prison, I  said it was a pity so young a boy should be brought to prison for
horse-stealing.  He said he didn't  commit the act;  they swore false against
him.
  I was at Van Nest's on the day  of the prisoner's arrest.  I made a propo-
sition there to leaA'e him to the hands of justice.
  Q.  Was it not proposed by you to Lynch him ?
  A. Not by me.  I proposed to leave him to the law; but there was  a
proposition to make a different disposition of him.
  Q.  Was there not great excitement there ?
  A.  There was.
  Q.  Did you not participate in the excitement ?
  A.  Why, I was there, and there was  great excitement and indignation at
the result of the Wyatt trial.
  Q.  Did the assemblage pass a resolution to hang the prisoner on the spot ?
  A.  My son said they had passed a vote to hang him, and the friend who
was with me said I had better go and try to stop it.
  Q.  Did you lend your aid to stop it ?
  A.  I stepped up to a gentleman  standing on the steps,  who I supposed
might have influence, and  urged him to  put a stop to it.  He said if I didn't
come there to  assist, that I had no business on the ground.  He treated me
with considerable indignation.
  Q.  Was the person whom you  addressed engaged in the effort to hang
the prisoner ?
9 
64                         THE TRIAL OF

   A.  He said he came for that purpose, and meant to see justice done be-
fore he went home.
   Q.  Did you do any thing further toward quieting the excitement ?
   A.  I told him if any mischief was done to the negro he would place him-
self in the same predicament of the negro—amenable to the laAV; " but," he
replied, " we have no law; we have  tried it once ; justice is denied us; we
will take  the law into our own hands."  I told him I had learned just before
I left Auburn, that the judge had determined to call  a special  court to try
Wyatt and this negro.
   Q.  Was there an effort made at Van Nest's house to kill the prisoner ?
   A.  When Esquire Bostwick came to the door to take the prisoner out, I
asked him to state the fact, to  appease the  multitude, that a special court
Avould he held.  The magistrate stated to the crowd that there Avas reason to
believe that  others Avere implicated, and perhaps white people.   As the pris-
oner was  led out, there Avas a cry of " kill  the negro;" " take him away;"
and a rush was made upon the officers who had him in charge.
   Q.  Did not this indicate a determination  to execute the prisoner, had the
crowd been able to have rescued him from the officers ?
   A.  There were a good many respectable persons there, Avhom I thought
were anxious to have him executed on the spot.
   Re-Examination.—Q.  Did the crowd assign any reasons for doing so,
other than those stated ?
   A.  The result of the Wyatt trial was the reason  uniformly assigned.  It
was said that justice had been denied, and the community would not consent
to have their wives and children butchered.
   Q.  Do you know that the defence in Wyatt's case was insanity ?
   A.  I do;  and the result was, that the jury could not agree.  No verdict
was brought in.
   Q.  Has he since been tried ?
   A.  He has, and has been convicted for murder.
   James E. Tyler, sAvorn for the people, testified:   I Avas a keeper in the
hame shop, in the State Prison, and knew Freeman there.  He. came under
my charge in NoA-ember, 1841.   I soon  discovered that he didn't  do quite
as much work as he ought to.   I told him he was capable of doing as much
work as other men of his size and experience, and he must do a reasonable
day's work, and if he did not I should punish him.  I talked to him at dif-
ferent times, about two months after he came in.  Finding that talking did
not have  the desired effect, I called him up to flog liim.  Sometimes he  said
he did all he could, and sometimes he  said he was sent there  wrongfully.
He may  have made other excuses.
   I called him up and told Mm I had done talking to him;  I was  going to
punish him.   I told him to take his clothes off.   I turned to get the cat,  and
received  a blow on the back part of the head  from him.  It started me a
• 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       65
little.  As I looked around, Bill struck me  on the back.  I kicked  at him,
and knocked him partly over;  perhaps he fell clear doAvn.  He jumped up,
went across the shop, took up a knife and came at me.  I took up a piece of
board lying on the desk, went down and met him.   It was a basswood board,
two feet long, fourteen inches Avide, and half an inch thick.  It was a board
one of the convicts had laid on my desk, on which was a count of lumber,
planed on both sides.  When  I came in reach of him, I struck him on the
head, flatAvise; split the  board, and left a piece in my hand four inches wide.
(See ante, page 20.)  He was  then approaching me with a knife.  I struck
him on the Avrist and knocked  the knife out of his hand.   I struck him five
or six times across the buttocks with the board.  I punished him and sent
him to his work.   I had no further difficulty  aa ith him.  I struck no other
blow on the head.   I think the bloAv could not have hurt him.  My impres-
sion is that the blow was upon his forehead, but may have been partly on
the left side.  He worked Avell after that.  He held his head down and was
rather down-cast.  I never noticed any thing remarkable about his eye.  Pie
looked then as he does now.  He made but feAv ansAvers, but answered per-
tinently and short.  I saw him two months ago in jail, and asked him if he
kneAv me.  He said he  couldn't hear me.   He  Avas hard of hearing, but I
saw no difference after he was struck.  I think he could not have been hurt
by the  blow.  I think it struck him on the fore part of his head.  I never
saw any thing to induce me to  think he was insane.
  Cross Examination.—Convicts do not talk much in the prison.  They
are required to speak only when spoken to, unless it is necessary to their
work.  It Avas the general conduct of Freeman that induced me to think he
was not insane.  I didn't consider him as intelligent a man as the generality
of men in the prison.  He Avas not as quick as most men.  I noticed no stu-
pidity about him.
  Benjamin Van Keuren, sworn for the people, testified:  I Avas foreman
in the hame shop  while Freeman was there.  He  filed iron for plating.  Hi;
was a middling kind of a Avorkman, not the best, nor the poorest.   He went
into the yard from our shop.  The filing requires some judgment, and some
practice.   I had  no conversation with him, only to  give  him work and to
take it away.  I noticed his manner and appearance.   I cannot see much
difference in his manner.   He Avas partially deaf.  I recollect when James
E. Tyler,  the keeper, punished him.  He was  not more deaf after that, only
as deafness groAvs on a person.   I think it greAv some on him.  I saw Tyler
when he split the  board  on Freeman's head.  I shouldn't think such a bloAv
injured him.  The board was  only about tAvo  feet long, twelve or fourteen
inches wide, and  from a half  to three quarters of an inch thick.   I think
Tyler struck him twice  on the hand. I did not see him strike Tyler.   I
first saw Tyler making for Freeman, with his board.   He was seized by con-
victs.   Tyler told the men to let go of him;  told Freeman to sit down.  He
sat  there an hour or more, and then Tyler  punished him.   There is a good
                  5 
66                         THE TRIAL OF

deal of noise in that shop.   The machinery and bogus make a  good deal of
noise.  After punishment he behaved a good deal as before.  He was some-
times obstinate.  I could not see any difference.  Have seen him since.   I
have never surmised that he was crazy.
   Cross Examination.—I never discovered  any change in his deafness.
I suppose  he merely grew deaf.  I have seen him in the street since, and
spoke to him, but can't say whether he heard me.   I think he is a little deaf.
I can't say whether he is more deaf than he Avas Avhen in prison.  The last
time I heard him speak was Avhen he was in the jail.  I did not talk with
him.  He  was  asked a question, when he said he was deaf and couldn't hear.
Mr. Holmes spoke to him.   He  put his hand to his ear and said he Avas so
deaf he couldn't hear.   Then Holmes spoke very loud.   He made the same
reply.  He would have heard in the  State  Prison  when  spoken to as he
spoke.  My opinion Avas that he heard the first time  and was feigning deaf-
ness.
   Q.  Would not such  a bloAv as was  struck by Tyler injure an ordinary
person, in  your opinion ?                         -,
   A.  I should think not.
   Q.  Would not such a blow upon  your head, with a  board two feet long,
injure you ?
   A.  A board two feet long, over my head, would only raise the grit a little.
   Q.  Would it not cause pain in the head ?
   A.  I don't think it would knock my brains out,  nor kill me.
   Q.  Did you ever receive such a Hoav ?
   A.  I don't know as I was ever struck over the head  Avith a board of that
description ; but I think it Avould not hurt me at all.
   Q.  If the blow did not cause the deafness, do you  know what did ?
   A.  I don't.  He was deaf when I first became acquainted Avith him.
   Q.  Are you one of the  persons present at or near the house of John G.
Van Nest, deceased, when the vote was taken to hang the prisoner ?
   A.  I am.
   Q.  Did you vote in that assembly, either way ?
   A.  I don't recollect.
   Q.  Did you not say he ought to be hung, or use words to that effect ?
   A. I  was up at  the house when  the vote Avas taken  to hang him, and I
presume  I said  something.   I  think  very  likely I said  he  ought to  be
Lynched.
   Re-Examination.—Q.  Hoav, and  under Avhat circumstances, did you
make that remark ?
   Question objected to and overruled.
   Q. What were you there for ?
   A. I went up there, with others, to see the dead bodies.
   Q. Were you excited at seeing the dead bodies ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
67
   A. I probably was.  They were among the most respectable people in
 the county.
   Q. When you said he ought to be Lynched, did you think that the pri-
 soner could not be brought to punishment in the ordinary Avay ?
   A. I did.
   Q. Was there any other reason for saying so ?
   A. There was.
   Q. Had you  other reasons besides seeing the dead bodies and being ex-
 eited ?
   A. Yes.
   Q. What was your reason for thinking that Freeman heard when in jail ?
   A. His manner of treating what Mr. Holmes and myself said.
   Q. Was the cell dark ?
   A. It was rather dark; there was light enough.   It was light enough to
 see Holmes' lips.
   Cross Examination.—Holmes and myself both talked some when we
 were in the jail.
   Q. In what tone of voice did you speak ?
   A. We spoke low, and the prisoner laughed.
   Q. Did he laugh aloud, or only smile ?
   A. He laughed out so that we could hear him.
   Q. Was that  all there was  in his  manner that indicated that he  heard
 you ?
   A. That was all there was in his manner.
   Re-Direct Examination.—We conversed together in his  presence
 about Freeman.
   Q. What did  you and Holmes say ?
   Objected to but allowed.
   A. Holmes said  to me,  after speaking loud, " Bill begins  to look old,
 doesn't he ?"  I told him his beard was long; that he hadn't been shaved
 since he had been there.  Bill laughed out so that we heard it.  Holmes
 said, " Bill, you  are a hard  case."  He laughed at that.   That was all that
 was said.
   Q.  Hoav far were you from the prisoner when you and Holmes  made
those remarks ?
   A.  It was eight or ten feet.
   David Mills, sworn for the people, testified:   I was foreman in the dye
shop when  Freeman was in the State Prison.  I knew him there.  He car-
ried  off yarn to the shop; was  a  good boy to work, but was partially deaf.
I have noticed his expressions to-day.   I don't discover any material altera-
tion in his countenance.  He looks paler than he did.  I  never discovered
any thing that indicated insanity.   [Witness further testified in substance as
upon the traArerse.   See post]
  Lewis Markham, sworn for the people, testified:  I reside in Auburn, 
68
THE  TRIAL OF
 and have known the prisoner since he was a lad.  I knew him in the prison
 when I was relief keeper in the spinning and cabinet shops.   I have had no
 conversation with him since he came out.  I do not discover any change in
 his countenance or appearance.
   Asa  Spencer, sworn for the people, testified :  I never saw the prisoner
 until I saw him in  court.  Heard  a conversation  between Vanderheyden
 and Depuy, when Freeman Avas arrested and brought into town.  The ques-
 tion was asked, whether they would make  Freeman out to be insane.  De-
 puy said he Avas no more insane than he was, but said he was ugly.  Depuy
 said Bill would do Avell enough if they wouldn't give him liquor; that liquor
 would make him ugly and crazy.
  Dr. David Dimon, sAvorn for the people,  testified  as follows:  I am a
physician, and reside in Auburn. I have seen the prisoner in the jail several
times.  I went the first time to gratify my curiosity, but subsequently I went
at request, for the purpose of ascertaining the state of  his mind.  I have
visited him some half a dozen times.  Sometimes I remained  there fifteen
minutes; at other times half an hour  or an hour.  The first time I saw him
was the first Aveek after his arrest.  I saw him in the early part of this month,
and have been there Avithin ten days past.  I have talked with him about
the events of his past life, and particularly about the murder.  The conver-
sation was conducted by questions and ansAvers.   From the  examination of
the prisoner I  could not discover any thing which I should call insanity.
  Cross Examination.—Q.  What would you call insanity, Doctor ?
  A.  Some derangement of the intellectual faculties, or of the passions, either
general  or partial.
  Q.  What do you call a derangement ?
  A.  An alteration  from a natural or healthy state.
  Q.  What do you call the intellectual  faculties ?
  A.  The faculties by Avhich we reason, compare and judge.
  Q.  What do you call the affections and passions ?
  A.  They are called the motive poAvers, or faculties.
  Q.  What are the  intellectual faculties ?
  A.  Comparison, judgment, reflection.
  Q.  What is comparison ?
  A.  By comparison Ave compare tAvo or more things with each other.
  Q.  What is judgment ?
  A.  Judgment enables  us  to  choose  betAveen tAvo or more things, after
comparison has done its work.
  Q.  What is reflection ?
  A.  The comparison and judgment bestowed upon a subject.
  Q.  Where do you find this faculty  of judgment described ?
  A.  I have not given it from any author Avhich I  can name.
  Q.  Is there  any such faculty as the will ?
  A.  I don't know as the will could hardly be called a faculty. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       69
   Q.  What is it?
   A.  The will is a  power; a- determination of the mind to do something.
 I wish to avoid going into a metaphysical discussion.
   Q.  What kind of a power is the will, physical or mental ?
   A.  It belongs  to the mental powers.
   Q.  What is the difference between the mental powers and  the intellec-
 tual faculties ?
   A. I don't make any difference.
   Q.  Then you  do call the will an intellectual faculty ?
   A.  It does  belong to the faculties of the mind.  I don't think it is very
 properly called a faculty; a good many things go to make up the will.
   Q.  Where does it operate from ?
   A. I should be glad to avoid  any metaphysical discussion about the will.
 I am not now prepared to go into  it.  The will is an operation of the mind.
 If the passions and affections are in action, they determine the individual to
 do something, and that is called the will.
   Q.  Is the will passive, then ?
   A.  I cannot say that it is passive.  I should call it active.  The intellect
 directs the determination to do something; and that determination is the will.
   Q.  But what part do the passions perform ?
   A.  The Avill is an operation of the mind;  the passions and affections de-
 termine the act.  The will is the result.
   Q. What has judgment to do with the will ?
   A. It directs the will.  It takes both the judgment and the will to choose.
   Q. What is reason ?
   A. Reason is an exercise of the intellectual faculties.
   Q. Is reason a faculty of the mind ?
   A. I should not call it a faculty.  It embraces several faculties—memory,
 comparison, judgment, and some others, all form the reason.
   Q. Have you any  experience in the treatment of the insane ?
   A. I have not.  I have seen many in the Alms House at Philadelphia.
   Q. Have you seen persons that you would  not know to be  insane from
 observation ?
   A. Yes, and I have seeh those  that I should know to be insane, without
 being told.
   Q. Have you ever been called upon  before to determine a question of
insanity ?
   A. I never have been except in this instance.
   Q. Did you ever discover insanity  in any one Avho was not before known
to  be insane ?
  A. I think I can say that I have.
  Q. Where?
  A. In the State Prison; a convict
  Q. What was his name ? 
70
THE TRIAL OF
    A. I do not knoAv his name.
    Q. When did you make that discovery ?
    A. Some  two or three  years  ago, when my brother was the physician
 there.   I Avent in with him to ascertain whether a convict was insane.
    Q. Then you had been told of the case before you went ?
    A. My brother  had told me of the case, and wanted me  to see whether
 he Avas sane or insane.
    Q. How did you find him ?                                   v
   A. I found him insane—general insanity.  The only question was, Avhether
 he was feigning it.
   Q. What was the species of that insanity ?
   A. I can give no further account of it except that it was a case of general
 insanity.
   Q. What Avas the result of that case ?
   A. I never heard of. him  afterAvards.
   Q. Have you ever treated  a case of insanity professionally ?
   A. I have not.  I have seen cases of melancholy which I have treated as
 the first stage of insanity.
   Q. Hoav does melancholy affect the mind ?
   A. It affects  the disposition, conduct and habits, but does not necessarily
 derange the intellectual faculties.
   Q. Do you consider melancholy insanity ?
   A. I should regard any state of melancholy'an incipient stage of insanitA-.
   Q. Is not the mind more or less diseased in a  case of settled melancholy ?
   A. The mind is diseased, yet some people compare, judge, recollect and
 imagine Avell, notAvithstanding.
   Q. Will they not do all things that a sane person  -will do ?
   A. Yes.
   Q. Hoav, then, do you recognize it as insanity ?
   A. Because insanity frequently commences so.
   Q. Did you say to Doctors  Briggs and Fosgate, after visiting the prisoner
 in the jail, that you now thought him insane ?
   A. I never did.say so to  either of them.  . I have  had but one  opinion
 about the prisoner's sanity.                    *•*
   Q. Are all the prisoner's intellectual faculties  in order ?
   A. All that he possesses.  I cannot discover that any of them are deranged.
   Q. Do  you believe in an insanity that disturbs  the  moral powers* or
faculties ?
  A.  Yes; and without any appreciable disturbance of the other faculties.
  Q.  '•Then you admit that moral insanity may exist ?
  A.  I admit the principle of moral insanity as a disease of the brain.
  Q.  Are Freeman's moral powers in a healthful state ?
  A.  I suppose that they are as they were by nature;  that  is my opinion 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       71
  Q.  Do you believe his passions and feelings to be in all respects healthy ?
  A.  I think they are not diseased.  I presume he is more depraved than
he Avas;  that  it has grown with his growth and  strengthened  with  his
strength.
  Q.  Please to state your grounds for that conclusion ?  '
  A.  I made  tAvo inquiries; first, whether he is in* possession of reason;
secondly, whether that reason is impaired by some partial insanity.
  Q.  What physical appearance would you look to ?
  A.  In the maniac there is a wild, glassy expression of the eye, and gene-
rally a paleness.  There are expressions and looks which persons of expe-
rience can detect.
  Q.  Have you ever visited the Asylum at Utica ?
  A.  I have not.
  Q.  Do maniacs smile ?
  A.  They do.   The smile of the maniac is very peculiar and unmeaning.
  Q.  Is  not the smile of the prisoner peculiar ?               v
  A.  It  is somewhat so.
  Q.  What is the degree  of the prisoner's intelligence ?
 t A.  It  is small even for a negro.   It is difficult to tell the degree of his in-
tellect, he is so Aery ignorant.      .  '•
  Q.  Can  you compare it to any thing ?
  A.  I should think he had not as much  intellect as an ordinary child of
fourteen  years of age.  In some respects he would hardly compare  with
children  three or four years.                            '
  Q.  With a child "of  what age would you compare him in respect to
knowledge ?
  A.  His knowledge Avould compare^ with a child three or four years old.
  Re-Examination.—Q. Have you any doubt noAv as to his sanity ?
  A.  No.   Some things haye come up on this trial  that appeared singular,
yet they have been explained by subsequent testimony.
  Q.  Do you mean to say that his mind is as a child,  or that his  informa-
tion is only like that of a child ?
  A.  I mean to say that upon some subjects his information is as limited as
that of a child.  It is impossible for  me to compare the native strength of
his intellect with a child of any age.
  Silas Baker, sAvorn for the people, testified: I am  keeper in the carpet
shor>in the State Prisom  Have knoAvn the prisoner since August, 1843. He
Avas employed in the dye house pretty much all the time whilst in prison, af-
ter I  first knew him.  His general conduct Avas good.  I don't discover any
perceptible alteration in him.  He had some  peculiarities in rollingjhis eye
and carrying his head, as he  now does.   When in the prison I conversed
with him about the prison and the rules to be observed there.  I  had occa-
sion to punish him tAvice, once for striking another convict Avith a club.  On
asking him why he did it, he said, he Avould not have the convict meddle 
72
THE TRIAL OF
with his things.  It appears that he had greased a pair of boots, and one
Aikin,in moving wood on which they were placed, had knocked them down.
I punished him and he promised to do better.  The other punishment was
for something growing out of the hanging out some yarn.  I never discovered
any  thing that I supposed to be insanity, except his disposition  to seek
revenge for some fancied or real  injury.  He never sought  revenge, as I
know of, except on those two occasions.,  [Witness further testified as upon
the traverse.   See trial.]
  Joseph Morris, sAvorn, testified: I am a blacksmith, in Auburn.  About
a week before the murders Freeman came to my shop  and asked me if I
could make him a knife.  I asked Avhat kind of a knife he  wanted made.  He
picked up an iron and tried to describe it.  I then described to him a stick-
ing knife for killing hogs, Avith an edge on both sides.  He said that was not
what  he wanted.  I then  told him to whittle out a pattern.  He went out
and came back in fifteen or  twenty minutes with a pattern, (being the one
here produced.)  I inquired  what he wanted  the knife for.  He asked what
I should charge for it.   I asked him if he wanted it made of cast steel.  He
said yes, he wanted it made out of good cast steel. I told him I should charge
him four shillings.  He said he thought  I could afford to do it for two shil-
lings.  I then asked him Avhat he was going to do with it.  He made no re-
ply.   I then said, "you are going to kill some  body, ain't you?"  He said it
WAS  NONE  OF MY BUSINESS, SO  LONG AS  I GOT MY PAY FOR IT.   He
asked me again if I couldn't make it for two shillings.  He  said that was
enough.  I told him I shouldn't make it  short of four, and he  said he would
give  me the four if I would grind it and put a handle on it.   I said I couldn't
do that, and he went away, but  came again on the Saturday following.   I
was busy, and I don't  know  as I then spoke  to him.  I did not make  the
knife.  I discovered nothing that made me  think he was crazy.  He  ap-
peared to be deaf, and it was very difficult to make him hear.   I thought him
keener than many men about making a bargain.  He left the  pattern at my
shop.
  Cross Examination.  Witness says : He came to my shop between two
and four o'clock in the afternoon.  Don't recollect Iioav the conversation
began.  He did not call me by name, but asked,^" can you make a knife ?"
I found he Avas deaf, and I talked loud to him—louder than I noAv do.  When
I asked what kind of a knife he wanted, he tried to describe it out with his
fingers, and shoAved me that he wanted one with two edges.  He picked up
a piece of iron and tried to describe it on that.  I told him he  had better go
to the carpenter's shop and whittle it out.  He Avent, and after beinw «one
about half an hour he came back with his model.  I asked four shillings for
making such a knife.  He said he thought I could afford to make it for two.
I told him I couldn't.   He  said he  would give me  four if  I would put a
handle on and grind it, which I refused  to do.
  His reply was, Avhen I asked him if he wasn't going to kill some body with 
                         WILLIAM FREEMAN.                  "    73

the knife, that, " It's none of your business if you get your pay for it."   On
Saturday he stayed there half an hour, but said nothing to any body.   On
Thursday he was there an hour I should think.  I asked a man by the name
of Smith, who was in there, if he knew him.  He said he didn't.        4
  Re-Examination.  When I asked him if he wasn't going to kill some
body, I was joking.  I did not suppose he was in fact going to kill any body.
  George W. Hyatt, sworn for the people, testified as follows:  I am a
blacksmith, and live in Auburn.  I saw Freeman, for the first time, on Mon-
day of the week when the murders were committed.  He came to my shop.
My journeyman informed me that the prisoner wanted a knife. I then went
to my desk and took out three or  four, which  I showed him.  He selected
one and asked what I charged for it.  I told him two and sixpence or three
shillings.  He asked if I wouldn't let him have it for one and sixpence.  I
told him I could not afford it, but finally let him have it for that price.  At
his request I finally put on a handle.  The knife now in court is that knife.
I helped him grind the knife.  The next time I saw him it was at the coro-
ner's inquest at Van Nest's.  The notch was not broken out at the time.  I
discovered no insanity in him then. •
  Cross Examination.  He came to my shop at nine or ten o'clock in the
morning.  The knife bought by him was  made out  of a file.  He appeared
to be hard of hearing.  I did  not know him, but supposed he was a poor man
with a family ;  and  I let him him have the knife at that price, and put a
handle on it, as a matter of charity.   He handed me twenty-five cents when
he paid me.   On the  same day, in  the afternoon,  he  Avas in my shop  and
wanted a rivet put in a jack-knife.   He then asked  what I would charge.  I
told him six-pence.  He  said that was too much; three was enough.  I told
him I would make the riA'et,  and he might put  it in.  He might  have been
there twenty minutes at that time.   He paid me three cents, said nothing
more, and Avalked out.  I have seen the prisoner in  jail.  Saw him three or
four weeks afterwards.  I went to the grates and undertook to converse with
him, but he took no notice of me.  I spoke again and beckoned to him.   He
leaned forward and said he was deaf and couldn't hear.  I tried two or three
times to make him notice me, and  asked him if he knew me.  He  said he
couldn't hear.  He looked downcast.
  Robert Simpson, sworn for the people, testified: The prisoner came to
my chair and turning shop a  day or two previous to the murders.  He  had
a large butcher knife with him when he came the first time.   The day after
he came again. He then had a large hickory  club or cane, three or three
and a half feet in length.   The knife produced is the knife he had the first
day.  He asked me to grind the knife. I told him I  hadn't time, but I would
put the belt on the wheel and he might grind it.  I did so and noticed how
he ground it.   He then went  up to the bench and whetted it.  He then laid
down three cents on the bench, which he took from  his wallet, and went out
with the knife.  The knife was ground edging  both ways.  He came again 
 I 4                         THE TRIAL OF

 to the shop the following morning.  He went across the shop and took up a bit.
 I nodded assent, and he went to boring a hole in the end of his hickory club.
 He placed the stick in a vice, and was  engaged in boring it ten or fifteen
 minutes.  When he was boring it his face Avas towards me; when he was
 fitting it his back Avas towards me.  I asked no questions, nor did I see what
 he was  fitting into the stick.  He  Avas  there from ten to thirty minutes.   I
 think it was the  day previous to the murder, but it might have been the se-
 cond day morning before.  I saw nothing only the club.  The second day he
 bored the club with a longer bit.   He then worked at fitting  something into
 it, and then went out, after which  I saAv nothing more of him.  I saw no in-
 sanity in him.
   Cross Examination.—I had seen the prisoner before  that time, but
 had no acquaintance with him.  Mary Ann Newark's  dwelling  Avas but  a
 short  distance off; not to exceed eighty or a hundredrods.   Freeman came
 to the shop the first time just before dinner.  It was after dinner when I saw
 him.  After he whet the knife I took it.   I handed  it to him again, when
 he laid it down ; took out his wallet, and from it took  three  cents which he
 laid doAvn on  the bench.
   Harry Lamkin was then sworn for the people, and testified:  I keep a
 tavern in Port Byron in this county.   About  a fortnight before the Van
 Nest murders the prisoner  came to my house with three other black fellows,
 on Sunday; one of them was called Dick.  They drove up, put their horses
 under my shed, came in, and Freeman called for four glasses of beer, which
 they drank.  Soon after this Dick asked Freeman if he had  paid.  He said
 he had.  Freeman then gaA'e the white man a shilling for bringing up the
 horses.  They then left. I have also seen the prisoner since he has been in
jail.   When at my house he appeared to be in conversation with the rest of
 his company,  although he did not talk as much  as the others.  He did not
 act crazy.  I saw no evidence of insanity in him then, any more than I now
 see in the people around here.
   Cross Examination.—The prisoner was in my bar-room an hour and a
 half.  When  they were about to go, he said, " boys, I guess  we had better
 go home."  I don't remember any thing else that he said.  The darkies were
 talking together.  I did not suppose any of them were  deaf.  I didn't see
 any crazy actions.
   Q.  What Avould you consider crazy actions?
   A.  I should consider a man  clawing around, acting simple, and asking a
 great many questions, and  laughing at foolish things, crazy.
   Q.  Have you ever seen any crazy persons ?
   A.  I saw a man by the name of Owen Razee, near Sherwood's Corners,
 and have seen fellows on the canal kind o'crazy.
   Q.  Did you ever see a crazy person who did not talk at all ?
   A.  I neA'er did.
   Q.  I understand you to say Freeman talked but little Avhen  at your house ? 
                         WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       75
                                         i
  A.  He did not talk as much as the rest.  I recollected of his saying, " boys,
I guess we had better go home."
  Q.  Do you recollect of his proposing any thing else that day ?
  A.  I don't, only when he called for beer he said, " give us some beer.';
  Q.  Do you pretend to say that he paid for the beer ?
  A.  I won't say certainly that he paid for it, but I suppose he  did.
  Alvah Fuller, called and sworn for the people, testified as folloAvs:   I
live in Auburn and knoAv the prisoner; have  seen him  since he has been
confined in jail.  I saw him in this court house in February last, during the
time of Wyatt's trial.  He was standing on the seat  yonder in  the corner,
when I saw him.  I told him to get off" the seat which he Avas standing on.
He didn't get down.  I then took him off and shook him.  I saAv him on the
seat with his feet more than once. I should think I saw him in the court
room two or three days running.  I was then  assisting the sheriff at the jail
and at the court house.  About the middle of March the prisoner Avas brought
to the jail for the murders.   I talked with him, but  he only ansAvered such
questions as I put to him.  He sometimes asked me for tobacco.  He seemed
to hear at one time better than at others.   He eat well  in jail.   He  never
complained about sleeping.  His Tiealth appeared to be good.  I don't see
any difference in him from the time I first  saw him till now.  I noticed that
he did not answer people who came there to see him as readily as he did me.
I never myself thought him insane.
   Cross Examination.—He once told me  that his wrist pained him.  He
had a cut on his wrist.   The night after he was brought to the jail I went in
and asked him if he wanted blankets.   He said yes.  I took him in some.
He appeared deaf.  I took in his breakfast the next morning and asked him
if he  wanted something to eat.   He then said yes.   Once he spoke and said
there wasn't any water in the cup.  Tavo or three days after he was brought
to the jail he  complained again of his wrist, and said the bandage was
ti<*ht  I asked if his wrist pained him.   He  said it  was a little sore.  He
said the doctors told him that the irons Avere so heavy that they might make
a sore, and he might have Ins leg taken off, and that it might kill him.  I
asked him if he was afraid to die.  He  said he wanted to liAie a little longer.
   Daniel Andrus,  called for the people, and being sworn, testified:  I
reside in Auburn, and have about thirteen years.  I am a counsellor at law,
and am in practice here.   I  have known the prisoner since he lived with
Cadwell.  He drove Cadwell's team.   Cadwell was the agent of Van Buren,
 Corning & Co., for whom I did business in those days.   The boy once drove
team to plough my garden.  He also drew wood for me.  After he was dis-
charged from the State Prison he came to my office.  I asked him  if he
wanted any thing.  He said, No; that he only came to see me.  I asked him
how he fared while in prison.  He said sometimes very well; but sometimes
he had bad  meat to eat.  He  complained of the keepers, and said they
abused him very much; that they whipped him when he didn't deserve it. 
 76                        THE TRIAL OF

 He then asked me if I had any work for him to  do.  During the trial of
 Henry  Wyatt for murder, I saw him in  the court  house  several times.
 Sometimes he was in one part of the house and sometimes in another.
 Some part of the time  he was in the second row of seats.   I  saw him here
 several  days.  Robert Freeman, a colored man, living with me, was here
 with him several days.  He was a pretty hard boy when  he  lived at Cad-
 well's.   He was rather small, but was pretty good at his business when act-
 ing under directions.  I see no difference in him only in his size and his
 deafness.  He carries his head on  one side.  I see  no difference in his
 eye.  I  have not seen any thing in him to induce me to believe that he is
 insane.
  Cross Examination.—He was an active boy when he worked for me.
When he ploughed for me he only drove the horses ; I held the plough.  I
presume I told him how to drive the horses.  He ploughed for me about an
hour.  He was a  sprightly, but a hard boy,  and sometimes quarrelsome.
I have had but little  chance to form an  opinion of his capacity since
he  came from prison, but in what  I  have seen  of him, I  discovered no
change.
  Walter G. Simpson, called and sworn for the people, testified:  I re-
side in Auburn and know the  prisoner.  I knew him when he lived at Cad-
well's.   He was rather a singular boy in many respects.   He had a singular
cast of countenance and singular expression  with  his eyes.  [Witness  fur-
ther testified in substance as upon the traverse.  See trial.]
  George B. Chase, sworn for the people, testified:   I reside in Auburn
and know the prisoner. I had a contract with the State  for convict labor
in the business of cutting stone, when he was in the  prison, and he was one
of my men part of the time.   In 1842 he worked  at blowing and striking.
 That work he could do well enough, when he had a mind to.   He was not al-
ways of a mind to do well, however.  He sometimes helped load and unload
 stone. He generally behaved well, although he would sometimes get careless,
 and the blacksmith would complain to Mr. Green, the keeper of the shop, who
would often threaten to punish him.   I would intercede  for him and  beg
 him off.   Did so several times. I never heard him called crazy, nor never
 saw any thing that made me think him crazy.  I have seen him in jail, and
 have noticed him in court, and do not perceive any change in him.
  Nathaniel Hersey, sworn for the people, testified:  I live in Auburn.
 I got acquainted  with  the prisoner nine years ago. Have seen him about
 the village since his release from the State Prison.  I saw him the day be-
 fore the Van Nest  family was murdered.  I saw three knives in his posses-
 sion about a week before the  murders, a large butcher knife ground__also
 an  old butcher—also a straight knife.   Had them  done up in a paper.  He
 showed  me the new one.   I had some conversation with him.  John De  Puy
 was in the grocery.  Freeman heard him say something about him, when he
 called me out of doors, where he said to me that he'd been round where they 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
77
were talking about him.  He wished they would let him alone.  He said he
wanted to get some liquor, but John had been telling folks not to give it to
him.  He said he meant to kill John because he took his money away from
him, and wouldn't let him have it  He said when  he was at work at Port
Byron John went down to get  his money, and he had  to let him have it.
He said when he did work John took his wages up, and would  not let him
have  any.  He told me that he had found Van Nest's  folks.  I asked him
who they were.  He said the widow woman that put him into prison.  He
said he meant to kill her because she put him into prison wrongfully.  I did
not tell John what he said.
  Q.  Why didn't you mention it ?
  Objected to.  The court  decided that the witness is at liberty to answer
it or not, as he chooses.
  A.  I did mention it the same  night to Mr.  Stephen  Titus, Avho keeps a
boarding house in town.   I  told him about it a week before the murders.
  Cross Examination.   The prisoner was a lively, smart boy.  He did
not talk a great deal.  He  laughed and played when he had any body to
play with.  He was good natured, q\iick to understand.  He talked right
off, like  other folks. I have not the least  idea he was underwitted.  He
didn't hear as well when he came out of prison as before he went, but ap-
peared to understand when he did hear.   He said he  lost his  hearing by
their rapping him on the head.
  Peter W. Williamson, sworn for the people, testified:  I resided in
Fleming at the time the  Van Nest family were murdered.  I was  at the
house of John G. Van Nest from five or six o'clock until half past nine o'clock
on the evening of Thursday, the twelfth day of March, being the night when
the murders were committed.  When I went there Mrs. Van Nest and Mrs.
Wyckoff' were  gone out a visiting.  Mi'.  Van Nest,  Van  Arsdale, Miss
Holmes and the three children were at home.  Mrs. Wyckoff and Mrs. Van
Nest  came home soon, and all had left the  room when  I left except Van
Nest and Van Arsdale.  All the  rest had retired for the night except Mrs.
Van Nest, who had gone through the back kitchen out the door.  It  was
about half past nine o'clock  when I left there for home.  When about  a hun-
dred rods from the house I heard the dog  bark, and  some  one halloo, or
shriek.   I went on  fifteen or twenty rods further, when I heard, as  I sup-
posed, four or five voices shrieking.  I then made my way home as fast as I
could conveniently walk.  When I got a  little north  of the Sand  Beach
meeting house, I heard some one coming behind me on horseback.   When
he passed me his left leg brushed my right arm.   It was a negro on  horse-
back.   When he got a rod or  two past me I recognized the horse,  by his
gait, as belonging to Mrs.Wyckoff.  I saw something hanging on his left side
which I supposed to be a club.   I supposed he had a Webster coat on, gray
or of  some lightish  color.  There was a bright moon-light  when he passed
me.   I was then about a half a mile from home.  After the negro passed me 
78
THE TRIAL OF
 the thought occurred that he had been there and stolen the horse.   When I
 arrived home I mentioned what I had seen, and what I mistrusted had  ta-
 ken place, and concluded to  get up my horse and ride over and notify Mr.
 Van Nest of the circumstance.   I did so, and as I approached  the house I
 saw a light at the front gate, from which I inferred that they were already
 apprized of the matter.  As I advanced nearer to the  light, I saAv a Mr.
 Farmer and  the muzzle of a rifle pointed at me.  He, however, recognized
 me before I did  him, and inquired of me  how  I had  learned the neAvs so
 soon.  I told him I had  heard no news, but that suspicion had drawn  me
 there.   He then told me  that Van Nest and his wife were  killed, and the
 family stabbed.  [Witness further testified  in  substance, as upon the tra-
 verse.   See the trial for murder.]
  Edavin Tuttle, sworn for the people, testified: I know the prisoner  by
 sight  Saw him in BroAvn's grocery the day the murder was committed.  He
 bought some  soap there.   He asked for and got three cents worth of soap.
 He gave me a six-pence;  I returned him the change.   I noticed nothing in-
 dicating insanity.
  James Amos, sworn for the people, testified:  I reside in Oswego County.
 I saw the prisoner on the thirteenth of March last, about tAvo o'clock in the
 afternoon, at  Pennell's  Mills.  When I first  saw him he was coming out of
 Gregg's tavern, and was going towards  the shed.  By the time  I got there,
 he Avas coming out of the shed Avith a light gray mare, with  a sursingle and
 blanket on.   He asked  me if I wanted to trade horses.  I answered no.   He
 asked if I wanted to buy one.  I replied in  the negative, and he said  no
more to me then.  He offered to sell him for eighty dollars to Mr. Corning.
 [Witness  further testified in substance as upon the  traverse.  See his tes-
 timony.]
  Dr. Leander B. Bigelow, sworn for the people, testified as follows: I
 am a physician and surgeon, and at present I am physician and surgeon to
 the State Prison, at Auburn.  I knew the Freeman family, but have no dis-
 tinct recollection of the prisoner, until 1845. He visited the hospital but
twice whilst I had charge of it  I recollect that in February, 1845, he came
 to the prison hospital, and complained to me of ear ache.  He was prescribed
 for and he left.   He came in again in July, and complained of  costiveness.
 I gave  him a cathartic  and he left.   These were the only times he com-
 plained of illness to me.   I Avent to the prison in January, 1844, and left in
 September, 1845.  I have no distinct recollection of his appearance, but re-
 member that  he Avas deaf.   Since he has been in the jail I have visited him,
 at request, several times, in company Avith others.  When others were pre-
 sent, he seemed confused,  and I consequently visited him alone.  I examined
 him with care, and at considerable length, committing my questions and his
 answers to writing.   The first visit I made him, for this purpose, was in the
 evening of the twenty-fourth day of June.   [Witness further testified at very
 great length, detailing  minutely the questions put, and the answers given, 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
79
the state of his pulse, his general health, as upon the  traverse, and  conclu-
ding with the opinion, that the prisoner is a " dull, morose,  depraved, de-
graded negro, but not insane."   See the trial.]
  Dr. Jedediah Darrow, sworn for the people, testified:  I am a physi-
cian, and have been forty-four years.  For ten or tAvelve years my principal
attention Avas diverted from my profession.  After being  subpoenaed to at-
tend on this trial, I visited Freeman in his cell, to form an opinion as to his
saneness of mind.  I asked him a number of questions and  received answers.
Was in the cell from twenty to thirty minutes.   Doctors Bigelow and Hyde
were present at the time, and as they proposed to me that I should ask ques-
tions, I was engaged in talking nearly all the time I Avas there.   I discovered
nothing that looked to me like a shade of insanity. [Witness further testi-
fied as upon the traverse.   See trial.]
  Dr.  Sylvester Willard, sworn for the people, testified: I have prac-
ticed medicine twenty-three years.  I have been six or eight times to see
the prisoner in the jail.  I engaged his attention, and  requested  him to tell
me all  about the matter for which he was imprisoned.  I  began  by saying,
" Bill did you kill them ?"  He answered, " yes."  I asked, " what did you
kill them Avith ?"  He said, " well, I killed them with a butcher knife."  I
asked,  " where did you get your knife V"  He  said, " why, I bought it—I
bought  two."  I asked, 'l what did you give for  them ?"   He said, " I gave
one and six-pence for one."  (I don't remember as to the other.)   I asked
him what he did with his  knife after he bought  it.  He said  a man helped
him to grind it.   [Witness testified at great length, detailing the  particulars
of his examination and concluding with an  opinion that the prisoner is not
insane, in substance as upon the traverse.  See his testimony on the  tra-
verse.]
  Dr.  Joseph Clary, called and sworn for the  people,  testified:  I am a
physician.   Have been in practice thirty-five years.  I have visited the pri-
soner, with others, three times, for the purpose of examination; the first time
with Mr. Morgan and Dr. Pitney, the second time with Dr. Willard and Mr.
Austin, and the third time with the Rev. Mr.  Anderson.  I had some con-
versation with him each time, and heard conversation that I did not partici-
pate in.  I inquired into the  state of his health, examined  his  pulse, also his
tongue, and inquired respecting his appetite.  I have seen so little of insanity
that I don't know as I ought to express an opinion.  I am not prepared to
call him an insane man, or to say positively that he is sane. I have not that
clear conviction  which .removes all doubt or hesitation.   I think, hoAvever,
that he has none of the varieties of insanity that I am acquainted with.
  Dr.  Charles A. Hyde, sworn for the people,  testified: I am a physi-
cian.   Have been in practice twelve or thirteen years. I have  visited the
prisoner in the jail twice, for the purpose of examination.   I went with Doc-
tors Willard,  Dimon, Darrow, Pitney and Ilermance.  I saw  nothing to
make me think he >vas insane.   I had not seen him before going to the jail. 
80
THE TRIAL OF
From seeing him only twice, it would be difficult to say that he was insane.
I was rather of the opinion that he was not.
  John P. Hulbert, sworn for  the people, testified:  I am a counsellor at
law, and was in court during a portion of the trial of Henry Wyatt, in Feb-
ruary last, for  murder.  I am confident that I saw Freeman in court  more
than once during that trial.  I think on several days.  I saw him when he
was brought to the jail.  Have seen him in the jail since.  He said but little.
Dr. Fosgate was dressing his wounded hand.   My attention Avas not called
to his insanity then, but only to his deafness.  I saw nothing like insanity
about him.  I have read considerable on the subject of insanity.  I give my
opinion, however, from what I saw.
  Benjamin F. Hall, sworn in behalf of the people, testified:   I reside in
Auburn.   Have seen the prisoner several times since his discharge from the
State Prison, but never observed him particularly until the day he was
brought into town for  the killing of the Van Nest family.  I have seen him
but once since, except in court.  That was on the morning of last Thursday.
Whilst I was at the jail, Dr. Thomas  Spencer, of Geneva, came there, as he
said, for the purpose of making an examination of  the prisoner.  At his re-
quest I accompanied him to the cell Avhere the prisoner was confined, and
endeavored to  converse with him.  The Doctor desired me  to question him
concerning matters within  his comprehension,  where I  might be able to de-
termine whether he ansAvered  correctly.  I did so, and took a note of my
interrogatories and his answers.  [Witness further testified in substance as
upon the traverse, recounting the dialogue with the prisoner, and concluding
with the statement that he appeared  to have some mind, although of a very
low order; that the interview Avas insufficient to test his sanity; but in the
slight examination so made, he did not discover any such derangement of
mind  as constituted any form of insanity that he was acquainted with.  See
his testimony at length on the traverse.]
  Alonzo Taylor, sworn in behalf of the people, testified:  I reside in
the town of Cato.  I arrested Freeman at Gregg's tavern, in Oswego county,
on the charge of murder.  He was at his supper when  I arrested him.  He
was there in detention at the time.  When accused of  the murder there he
knew nothing about it.  I then told him he did  know about it.   I said " You
black rascal, you  do knoAv  about it"  He looked up at me, rolled up his
eyes and  grinned.  I raised my cane at him.  Some one said, don't strike
him.  I spoke to him again  and alleged the murder, and asked him how he
came to kill that innocent  child.   He said he didn't know any thing about
it.  I then took my chains out of my pocket.  Some one said I'd better stop
till he had done eating.  I waited at the back of his chair eight or ten min-
utes.  After he finished his supper I told him to stand up.  He was then
searched thoroughly.  We found but one penny in his  pocket.   I then told
him to sit down.   He did so, and I ironed him.  After that a couple of men
wanted to take him into another room; thought they  could get something 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
81
  out of him.  After they had  been there awhile, word, came  to  me that the
  negro wanted to be protected.  I then went in.  He said to me," I want to
  be protected.   I don't want to be kicked and cuffed around in this way."  I
  said " I guess  they have not hurt you."   He  said, " Yes they have."  On
  our way to Phoenix, I said to him, " Bill, how could you kill that poor inno-
  cent child."  He said, " I didn't know it was a child."  I had Burrington's        *'
  horse with me.  I brought the horse to Phcenix, and gave it up to the owner.
  I asked him what he had done with the horse he stole.  He  said, " They've
  got it."  When he spoke about their  kicking and cuffing him, I asked what
  they had  been doing it for.   George Parker replied, that  they wanted to
  warm up his ear-wax so as to make him hear better.   I could not make him
  answer, nor get any thing out of him. [Witness further testified as upon
  the traverse.  See trial.]
    Cornelius  Van Arsdale, sworn for the people, testified:  I was at
  Van Nest's at the time of the murder.  Williamson was there in the evening,
  but left at about half past nine o'clock. When he left I retired up stairs to
  bed.  After I had been in bed about  five minutes, I heard a woman scream.
  I raised up in  bed, but  seeing no one I laid down  again.  In less than a
  minute I heard Mr. Van Nest speak  to some one and ask what he wanted.
  Next I heard something heavy fall on the floor.  I then  got up and put on
  my pantaloons.  Whilst doing so,  I  heard  scuffling in the  hall below.   I
  then stooped over to put on my stockings, when I heard the stair door open
  and heard some one ask if there was a man up there.  As I raised up I saw
 a negro coming up stairs with a butcher knife in his hand.   He came so near
 that the point of the blade was but about eighteen inches from me.   The
 knife presented is the one found there.  He stabbed me in the breast.  It
 struck on the breast bone and glanced off to the left side.  I pushed him off,
 took his candlestick out of his hand and threw it at him, and he fell from
 the top of the stairs to the bottom.  I followed him down and seized a broom-
 stick at the bottom of the stairs, with which I struck him several  times.  He
 escaped as fast as he could out the front door.  I then shut the door.  I then
 discovered the front hall door was open. Mrs. Y\ryckoff was just then going
 off the steps.  I called to her, but she went towards the gate where she again
 met the negro and had a scuffle with him, but after getting through the gate
 she  went south  and he Avent north.  [Witness further testified in substance
 as upon the traverse.  See trial.]
  Helen Holmes, sworn for the people, testified:   I was at the house of
 John G. Van Nest the night when he and his wife and child were murdered.
 I had retired to  bed in the north-west bed room.  Julia slept with me, Peter
 with Mrs. Wyckoff, and George W. in the sitting room with his parents.
 The first alarm I had was a scream from Mrs. Van Nest out doors, and the
bark of the dog.   I raised the window and asked what was the matter.  She
came to the window and said, " Some one is here and going to kill us all;"
she  was stabbed and expected we were all going to be killed.  She went 
82
THE TRIAL OF
round to the front side of the house, and I went and opened  the hall door
and let  her in.  She went into my bed room and laid down upon the bed.
We told Mrs. Wyckoff, and she got up and went out into the hall.   I soon
heard a scuffle there.  I waited until I heard a noise  up stairs, and I then
went out into the sitting room.  I went for Mr. Van Nest,  and found him
near the kitchen door on the floor, dead.   I then shut the back door of the
kitchen and went into the sitting room, where I saw the prisoner looking in
at the window.  Don't  think he saw me.  He then kicked the door open
but did  not come in. I don't think he saw me then.  There was a  candle
in the kitchen;  not in this part of the house.   The negro had something in
his hand when looking in at the window, and  I thought it was a gun.  Mr.
Van Arsdale told me not to stand before the window.  He went around the
house and then came back;  went to  the  gate, and then  went north.  I
watched him until he got near the barn yard gate.  [Witness further testi-
fied as  upon the traverse, and identified  the  prisoner as the  negro.  See
trial.]
   Edwin P. Hoskins, sworn for the people,  testified:   I am under sheriff
of this county.  I arrived at the house  of the deceased about four o'clock in
the morning.  Found a knife that looks like this, in the door yard, between
the door and the gate, about fifteen feet from the door steps.   I have seen
the prisoner in court and two or three times in jail.  The day after he was
brought in I had a short conversation with him.  He had on a Webster coat
and dark pantaloons.
   Augustus Pettibone, sworn for the  people, testified:   I am sheriff of
this county.  I reside in the jail building, and have seen the prisoner every
two or three days since he was brought there, but have not had much con-
versation with him.   His health appears  to have been good; his appetite
has been good and he has seemed to be well  and hearty.  I do not know
how he  has slept.  Have heard no noise at night except one night when we
forgot to give him his bed.   He made some noise then.   I brought him from
Van Nest's house in a covered carriage.   I saw him when  the dead bodies
were shown to  him. It didn't  seem to make any impression on him.  I
halted with him at the  bed side to see if it would have any effect on him,
but it did not produce any emotion.  [Witness further testified as upon the
traverse.  See trial.]
   Joseph Quincy, sworn for the people, testified:  I keep a barber's shop
in Auburn.  Am partially acquainted  with the prisoner; kneAv him before
the murder.  He was at my shop twice; the  last time was  just before  the
week of the murders.  He asked  me to shave him.  I told him I did  not
shave colored men.  He said he wanted his whiskers shaved off.  I told him
I could not shave him, nor did he shave himself at my shop.  He had little
whiskers on the side of his face at the time.
   Dr.  Thomas Spencer, sworn for the people,  testified:  I am a phy-
sician and surgeon.  Have been in practice a little over thirty years.   Have 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
83
 been solicited to examine  the prisoner in respect to the condition of his
 mind.  Since the commencement of this court I have examined him at dif-
 ferent times;  can't tell the number, but from eight to a dozen times.  Have
 not had a  great deal of conversation with him.  When in the jail there al-
 ways have been  others with me.  Have asked him questions and prompted
 questions for others to ask.  I have made some memoranda of them, which I
 now have  before me.  I have felt his pulse from time to time when he was
 lying, sitting and standing.   I once  found him asleep, with pulse at sixty-
 seven.  After rising it was at one hundred and fifteen.  I once before found
 it at sixty-seven.  Eighty-six has occurred two or three times when he was
 standing.   I found no deviation from his usual health, except nervousness,
 occasioned by his confinement.   The variableness of his pulse was not the
 least indication of insanity.  [The witness testified at great length on both
 his direct  and cross examination, as to the examinations  made, his deduc-
 tions therefrom, and his views of insanity, in  substance as upon the trial for
 murder.  He was confident that the prisoner was not insane.   See his testi-
 mony on the trial.]
   Stephen Titus, sworn for the people, was interrogated by the attorney
 general as follows :
   Q. Did you hear the testimony of the witness Hersey ?
   A. I believe I did.
   Q. Did he  tell you before the murder of the Van  Nest family that he in-
 tended to kill  them ?
   Mr. Seward  objected to this interrogatory, as calling for information
 which, if  given,  would not be admissible evidence.   After argument, the
 court overruled the question, and the witness left the stand.
   Mr. Van Buren then announced that so far as he was advised he was
 prepared to rest the case for the present, but in doing so he wished to reserve
 the right to call other witnesses if it should become necessary.
   Mr.  Seward hoped that the  attorney general Avould proceed with his
 defence to this plea  until his proof was all out.  He (Mr. S.) held the affir-
 mative Of the  issue, but did not wish to reply to the evidence of the people
 until he could reply to all the testimony to be given by them on this issue.
   Mr. Van Buren remarked that his associate  informed him that there
 were other witnesses for the people not then in court, which  it would be
 necessary  and proper to examine.  He was  aware of the rule on the subject,
 but in a capital case he would submit whether it were not to be so construed
 as most to conduce to the administration of the law and the  ends of public
justice.  He wished to examine witnesses in relation  to the stealing and the
 stabbing of the horse.
   The court desired to hear all the testimony in the case, but wished to
 observe the rules applicable to such trials.  They were unwilling to dictate
 counsel  in a case  involving human life, yet they hoped the trial might pro-
 ceed in order.   It might be proper to hear testimony after a  party had rested,
 under some circumstances. 
84
THE TRIAL OF
   Mr. Van Buren then said the people rested; Avhereupon the counsel for
 the prisoner called, as a witness,
   Dr. John McCall, who being sworn, testified as folloAvs:  I am a phy-
 sician, and am now President of the Medical Society of the  State of New
 York.  I have practiced medicine about thirty-five years.   I have made
 several examinations of the prisoner in the jail.
   Q.  Please state what occurred, and the result of your examination ?
   To this the attorney general  objected.  The question put sought for fur-
 ther facts bearing upon this issue;  facts not in reply to the people's testimony,
 nor under any rule admissible, after the prisoner's counsel, holding the affir-
 mative as they do, have once rested their case.  An argument involving the
 rules at nisi prius, the importance of this case to the prisoner, the difficulty
 of procuring Avitnesses from a distance, and the understanding of counsel as to
 the intimation of the court Avhen the prisoner's counsel rested, was entered
 into by the counsel on both  sides, in  which it was stated that the witness
 had been in  attendance for several days prior to the time Avhen the prison-
 er's counsel  rested, but was called home by sickness in his family, and for
 that reason only he was not present Avhen the prisoner's testimony was closed.
   The court, after conferring together, announced as a decision that the
 testimony, as to the preliminary facts, except as to the  stolen horse, on both
 sides, must be held to be closed.
   To this the counsel for the prisoner excepted.
   The district attorney, by permission of the court, then proceeded to call
 witnesses to testify in relation to the horse, and thereupon called
  William  H. Brooks, who, after being sworn, testified:   I was at the
 house of the deceased the same night he was murdered.  Went for a physi-
 cian  to Auburn.   SaAv  on my way Mrs. Wyckoff's horse, a little beyond
 New Guinea.  He was lying down.  Had a halter on.  The horse was taken
 back by Harrison Mastin. The horse was stabbed on one side, back of fore
 shoulder.  I was at home and in bed when Mrs. Wyckoff came to my house
 the night of the murder.  She had a night gown and stockings on, and a
 butcher knife in her hand.
  Harrison Mastin was next sworn for the people, and testified:  I re-
 collect  the night of the murder, and Mrs.  Wyckoff's horse.  I found it  I
lived at the foot of the Owasco Lake at the time.  Mr. Williamson came to
my house about half past ten o'clock that night, and told me what had  hap-
pened.   I came down towards  Auburn, and  found  Mrs. Wyckoff's horse
near New Guinea.   He was just getting up.  I looked at him and then came
to Auburn, and when I went back I took him home.  There was blood on
the halter.  There was mud on the horse.  Horse was old and seemed to he
tired.   I think he fell, near the sluice way, from the appearance of the ground.
  The  counsel for the people then rested the case.
  Mr.  Seward then raised the question of the examination of Dr. McCall,
in respect to his knowledge of the prisoner which he derived from his  exa- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
85
 minations before his return to Utica.   He alleged that it Avas conceded that
 the Doctor  had been in  attendance for a number of days as a witness, but
 from intelligence of sickness in his family he had been compelled to return
 home,  and thus happened  to be absent when the counsel for the prisoner
 rested  the  case.  If not so conceded, he desired  to shoAv the  same by the
 testimony of the witness himself, to the end that the fact might be entered
 in the case.'  He was of opinion that his testimony was important to the
 prisoner, and believed that justice would be subserved by his  examination
 noAv.  When the attorney general was  urging  his right to examine other
 witnesses in case he should deem it necessary, he expressed the opinion that
 the rule should be so exercised as to be most conducive  to the proper ad-
 ministration of the law and the ends of public justice.   That argument then
 availed.  How much stronger is its force when it comes in behalf of the
 prisoner, who is pennyless and in chains, without either the poAver or the
 knowledge to obtain witnesses for himself or to retain them in court a single
 hour.  If ever there was occasion for  judicial  discretion, or the merciful
 construction of any rules, he (Mr. S.) submitted that the present was a case
 demanding its exercise.
   The court adhered to their former decision.
   Mr. Seavard then requested the court either to note the fact or allow
 proof that Dr. McCall was in attendance until Saturday last; that the court
 adjourned on  that day at three o'clock in the afternoon;  that witness went
 home,  where  he was detained by the sickness of his  family until  Tuesday
 morning.
   The  court intimated that a note to that effect would be  made in the min-
 utes of the trial.
   Dr.  JonN McCall was then re-called, and interrogated concerning the
 prisoner, as follows:
   Q. Have you visited the prisoner in his cell to-day, yesterday, or the day
 before  ?
   To this the attorney general objected.   The question came Avithin the de-
 cision already made by the court, and he insisted that it should be observed
 by the  counsel.   It was objectionable, also, because the testimony for the
 people had closed in respect to the main  facts, and he was umvilling to have
 any new matter thrust into the case.
   The  court, after'consultation, decided that the witness might testify to any
 facts that transpired at any interview at  which the witnesses for the people
 were present, but not as to any facts that took place at any other time.
   To this decision the prisoner's counsel  excepted.
   Q.  Were you present at any interview with the prisoner when Dr. Brig-
 ham was present ?
  To this the attorney general objected, and animadverted upon the prison-
er's counsel.
  Mr.  Seward appreciated the decision already made by the court, and 
86
THE TRIAL of
the animadversions of the attorney general.  He was disposed, nevertheless,
to put the question, and to urge the court to permit an answer.  Dr. Brig-
ham had  already testified about an interview with the prisoner when Dr.
McCall was present, and he desired that Dr. McCall might be permitted to
testify of that interview, and what there transpired.  He urged it for an in-
sane man, who was unable to communicate to his counsel a single word in re-
lation to his defence.   To testify of that interview was  not new matter, but
Avas admissible under wholesome rules, both of evidence and propriety.
  The court overruled the question, and the prisoner's  counsel excepted to
the decision.
  Q.  In your opinion is the prisoner sane or insane ?
  Objected to by the attorney general, on the ground  that the Avitness has
neither heard all the  testimony, nor testified of such an examination as  laid
the foundation for the expression of his opinion.
  The court say the witness may answer.
  A.  The prisoner, in my opinion, is insane.
  Q.  Is your mind fully satisfied upon that subject ?
  A.  As to the fact of insanity, it is.
  Q.  How long have you been acquainted with the prisoner ?
  Objected to by the attorney general, and objection overruled.
  A.  I first saw the prisoner when I was up here  at the trial of Wyatt.
  Q.  On Avhat is your opinion founded ?
  A.  On his appearance.
  Q.  Have you heard most of the evidence ?
  A.  I heard most of the physicians, and a part of Mrs.  Godfrey's testimony.
I haAre some indistinct recollection of  Green's  testimony.   I also  heard the
witnesses Hopkins, Smith, Worden, Paine, Austin, De Puy,  Gray, Perry
and Sally Freeman testify.   I heard no testimony on Monday or  Tuesday.
Heard most of the  testimony yesterday.
  Q.  Does the  testimony you have heard corroborate or strengthen  that
opinion ?
  Objected to, and the court say that witness must not express an opinion
from the evidence, he not having heard all of it.
  A.  My opinion is  founded on the appearance of the  prisoner.   From his
appearance I have no doubt  of his insanity; that his mind  is impaired.
  Mr. Van Buren  here moved the court to  strike out all the testimony of
this witness, except that part relating to his personal appearance.   After ar-
gument on both sides, the motion Avas granted.
   Cross Examination.  I have not only examined the prisoner with care,
but have watched his movements, and  the expression of his countenance.
   Q.  What is there in his countenance that indicates insanity ?
   A.  The whole expression of his face is indicative of idiotism,' dullness of
understanding,  or want of comprehension. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
87
  Q.  What part of his face ?
  A.  The whole of it.
  Q.  Is there any single or particular feature that you should say indicated
insanity ?
  A.  The movement of the muscles indicate it, and, also, his idiotic laugh—
both show a Avant of perfect understanding.
  Q.  Is there  any thing else that you  consider  remarkable in his counte-
nance ?
  A.  There are some striking features.
  Q.  Please to name them ?
  A.  His countenance manifests perfect indifference as to what is going on.
  The court say the witness must confine himself to the personal appearance
of the	prisoner.			
Q.	Is there any thing else ?			
A.	His deportment indicates it.			
Q.	Any thing else in his countenance ?			
A.	Yes ; the contortions of it.			
Q.	Any thing else ?			
A.	Why, I think of nothing now.	I am	circumscribed within	very nar-
row limits in my testimony, being confined to personal appearances alone.
If I could speak of other symptoms I could answer more fully and satisfacto-
rily.  He has a peculiarity of posture in sitting and standing.
  Q.  What is the peculiarity of his sitting that indicates insanity ?
  A.  The inclination of his body forward, and maintaining that  position
most of the time.
  Q.  What is there peculiar in his standing ?
  A.  That of standing with his body inclined  forward, with his head down-
ward, and Avith his arms  not hanging easily and naturally by his sides, as is
usual in those perfectly sane.
  Q.  Have you  any cases of insanity in your mind where similar indica-
tions exist ?
  A.  The same position I have often observed in  patients in the  Lunatic
Asylum,  at Utica.
  Q.  What other peculiarity do you see in his appearance ?
  A.  I have already mentioned that his whole manner was indicative of un-
soundness of mind.
  Q.  What have you seen about the personal  appearance of the prisoner in
court, besides what'you have stated,  that indicates insanity ?
  A.  I don't know  as I can state any thing further.
  Q.  What kind of insanity does the external appearance of the prisoner
indicate ?
  A.  It indicates an unsound condition of some of the intellectual powers.
There is  no manifestation of the moral feelings that I have been able to dis-
cover. 
88
THE  TRIAL OF
   Q.  What other deficiency to you observe ?
   A.  There is no manifestation  of understanding, or that he fully compre-
hends his present condition.
   Q.  Which of his intellectual powers does his appearance show him to be
deficient in ?
   A.  I have not been able to discover a perfect development of any of his
intellectual faculties.
   Q.  Which have you discovered particularly ?
   A.  He is deficient in understanding and reflection.
   Q.  How do you determine that ?
   A.  From his not appearing to understand what is going on  around him,
and particularly on this trial.  I see no evidence of his possessing the power
of reflection, or of reasoning upon consequences.
   Q.  What is the ordinary evidence of reason and reflection, if the subject
keeps still ?
   A.  If I should see an individual, as I have  seen the prisoner, for several
days, sitting in court where his life is involved, manifesting no emotion, but
a perfect indifference;  in that I should see evidence of a want of perfect un-
derstanding and of feeling.
   Q.  From looking  at the prisoner in court,  what kind of insanity do you
think he has ?
   A.  He comes nearer dementia than any other form.
   Q.  What do you mean by dementia ?
   A.  I mean  by that term the mental condition of a man who has had the
exercise of all the powers of  his  mind, but that they have become impaired,
in consequence  of which  some  of his intellectual faculties or his feelings
have become deranged.
   Q.  Do you recollect of any other case of dementia ?
   A.  I have seen several.
   Q.  May not the prisoner have some other kind of insanity ?
   A.  I should be inclined to think he had that instead of any other.
   Q.  What are the symptoms of dementia ?
   A.  Feebleness of understanding, unsoundness of judgment, and an im-
pairment or derangement of the  moral feelings.   The symptoms vary  in dif-
ferent cases.
   Q. Are  there any other symptoms ?
   A. There are, doubtless, other symptoms;  a demented person may be un-
 der a delusion.
   Q. Is drooling a symptom ?
   A. I don't know as running at the mouth is, necessarily, a symptom of de-
 mentia.
   Q.  Is forgetfulness a symptom ?
   A.  It may be in some, and not in others. -
   Q.  Is it not generally a symptom ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
89
  A.  I have known demented persons to recollect some things very well.
  Q.  Is it not an ordinary symptom ?
  A.  I think it is not an ordinary symptom.
  Q.  Is it a frequent symptom ?
  A.  It is not a sure symptom.
  Q.  But is it not a frequent symptom of that form of insanity ?
  A.  I think not; but it is a symptom I have sometimes seen.
  Q.  Then it is not a sure symptom?
  A.  I have met with it often in cases of dementia.  I mean partial forget-
fulness.   Perfect forgetfulness is a rare case.
  Q.  Is incoherence an ordinary symptom of dementia ?
  A.  Upon  all subjects it is not  Upon some it  undoubtedly is.  If you
mean by it an inability to go on with a train of well connected facts, I can say
it occurs as a symptom.
  Q.  What do you mean by incoherence ?
  A.  I mean a wandering from one subject to another.
  Q.  Then is it not an ordinary symptom ?
  A.  To a certain degree it is a symptom of dementia.  In most cases it pro-
bably occurs.
  Q.  Is dementia most common in old or young people ?
  A.  As a general rule it is most common in old people.  It depends upon
circumstances, however.
  Q.  What is the difference between dementia and idiocy ?
  A.  By natural idiocy I understand  an innate or fundamental defect in
the understanding from birth.  By dementia I  mean that form of  insanity
which occurs in a person who had been once sane in mind.
  Q.  Well, what would you call idiocy in opposition to that  ?
  A.  In natural idiocy the  person never had a perfect understanding.  In
dementia there is more understanding—the intellect,  however,  is  not de-
faced, as in idiocy.
  Q.  Has not the idiot some understanding ?
  A.  He may understand when he is hungry.  He has memory,  and might
understand his own name.  His five external senses you will  find as good as
Lord Bacon's, perhaps.  But the countenance indicates no intelligence.
  Q. What is the  difference in  the countenance  between a natural  idiot
and a demented person ?
  A.  In demented persons there may be  some indications of intelligence.
It depends upon the degree.  There is a shade of  difference between their
smile and that of the idiot.  In the idiot there is a manifestation of the want
of understanding.
  Q. Well, what is the smile ?
  A. The smile is idiotic.
  Q. Then is there not a resemblance ? 
90
THE TRIAL OF
   A. There is a good deal of resemblance in the smile of a demented and
an idiotic person, and yet there is a shade of difference.
   Q. What is that shade of difference ?
   A. It would be in the expression and in the design.
   Q. Well, can you not describe that difference ?
   A. The principal difference, perhaps, would be in the design.   The idiot
would laugh out without knowing Avhat he was laughing at.
   Q. Would it not be difficult for you to say  whether he kneAV what he was
laughing at ?
   A. It Avould, sir.
   Q. What is the difference in the  movements of the prisoner from that of a
natural idiot ?
   A. I have seen but little of his movements.
   Q. In that little what difference do you discover.
   A. I can't say there is any; yet his mode of standing is not such as peo-
ple generally of sound minds adopt.
   Q. Is there any difference in his position ?  (The prisoner is directed to
stand up in his place.)
   A. There might be no difference in his standing, now, than if he were an
idiot.  He inclines forward, with eyes downward, and he remains a long
time fixed in one position.  I haA-e seen idiots do the same.
   Q. Is that position indicative of idiocy ?
   A. Idiots very often assume that  position.   It is vrith idiots and demented
persons as with sane persons: they vary their positions.
   Q. Well, is there not a difference in the contour of the insane as well as
of sane people ?
   A. There is.  I never saw two perfectly alike.
   Q. What induces you to think this man a demented instead of an idiotic
person ?
   A. I am induced to think a natural idiot would not have sat here as quietly
as this man has, and behaved himself with  as much  propriety.
   Q. Do you think he has behaved himself with propriety ?
   A. I have not seen any impropriety; by which I mean  that  he has  been
quiet—made no noise nor disturbance.
   Q. Is his posture, when sitting, different from that of an idiot ?
   A. I suppose a natural idiot Avould not have sat so quietly in court as this
man has, for so  many days.
   Q. What do  you think an idiot would haA-e  done ?
   A. He would have made a noise,  I think, and created some  disturbance.
I do not know what else he might have done.
   Q. Suppose him to be utterly reckless of the  consequences  of this trial,
then is there any thing in his attitude that is remarkable ?
   A. I can hardly conceive a sane  man to be in  that condition.  I have
never known a  case of the kind. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
91
  Q.  Can you not conceive of such a being ?
  A.  Not a being that I should call a man.
  Q.  Have you not seen a man bereft of all moral sense ?
  A.  Not perfectly bereft of all moral sense, unless this man be one.
  Q.  Suppose him hard of hearing ?
  A.  Although he might not hear he would manifest some  desire to know
what was going on.
  Q.  If a man were so deaf as not to know what was going on, would it be
remarkable if he were inattentive ?
  A.  It would be remarkable that he remained in that position without en-
deavoring to know what was going on.
  Q.  Does he not stoop forward as if giving attention and  trying to hear ?
  A.  I said that I had  noticed his stooping forward.
  Q.  Is there any thing singular  in that ?
  A.  Nothing singular in his stooping forward, but I think  it singular that
he remains so long in that position, and holds his arms as  he does.
  Q.  If you should be  told that both of his arms were wounded, would that
make any difference in your opinion ?
  A.  It would; yet he would not then hold them as he does.  It would de-
pend  somewhat as to where they were wounded.
  Q.  Have you examined him in court to see where he is Avounded ?
  A.  I have out, but not in court.
  Q.  You have spoken of his smile.  Do you know that he smiles without a
cause ?
  A.  I don't know that he  smiles without any cause.  I have said that his
smile  was indicative of unsoundness  of mind.
  Q.  Can you not give the reason ?
  A.  I can.  If he possessed a perfect understanding of the relation he sus-
tains  here, and had a perfect moral sense, he would not smile as he does.
  Q.  Suppose  he had  a perfect understanding, would  he then be a sane
man?
  A.  I suppose perfect sanity requires the healthful exercise of all the fa-
culties.
  Q.  Suppose he had the possession of all his faculties, and saw a court and
jury engaged six days  in trying  him, and very eminent counsel  engaged
in endeavoring to prove him to be insane, would it be remarkable that he
should smile ?
  A.  I think it would be, that he should smile as much as he does.
  Re-Examination.—On the morning of the second day of July, to which
the court had been adjourned, the witness  was interrogated by the counsel
for the prisoner, as follows:
  Q.  Suppose you had found the prisoner unable to read, and yet believing
that he could, would you regard that fact as  bearing upon  the question of
his sanity ? 
92
THE TRIAL OF
    A. I should regard it as one indication of insanity.
    Q. Suppose that when he pretended to read he was told he could not
 read, but insisted that he did read, how Avould that bear upon the question ?
    A. I should regard that, also, as indicative of unsoundness.
    Q. Suppose he knew his letters and thought he  could read, and when
 shown the word " Thompson" he called it " Cook," and when shown the word
 " admirable" he called it " woman ?"
   A.  I should regard that, also, as evidence of insanity.
   Q.  Suppose a man at the age of twenty-two, brought up in this country,
 who can count twenty-eight, and then passes to the mention of other num-
 bers, irregularly ?
   A.  I should regard that, also, as evidence of unsoundness.
   Q.  Suppose he should be asked how much twice  three was, and he  an-
 swered " sixty-four ?"
   A.  In the same light; as one proof of an insane mind.
   Q.  Suppose him to have committed  the butchery of four persons, and
 when asked why he did it, he should answer, " I had my work to do ?"
   A.  That would be evidence of the same character.
   Q.  If asked why he did not begin at another house, he answered, " I did
 not think it time to begin yet ?"
   A.  The same.
   Q.  If he said he had  been unjustly sent to prison  for five  years, and he
 knew the persons whom he had slain had no connection with  the affair ?
   A.  I should regard that  as evidence of delusion;  a misjudging; the  as-
 sumption of false facts.
   Q.  Is delusion  a symptom of insanity ?
   A.  It is a prominent trait of an insane mind.
   Q.   Suppose a person in childhood to have been smart, playful, lively and
 active, and to have possessed his hearing; to have been at sixteen confined
 in a State Prison five years, to come out dull, stupid and ignorant; to speak
 generally only in answer to questions, and then only by yes or no, or in the
 simplest  form; unable to take up a narrative and  relate it  without being
 prompted by leading questions, what would it indicate ?
  A.  I should regard it as evidence of insanity.
   Q.  Suppose a person  who had been sent  to the State Prison five years
 ago, should go to the party  upon whose evidence he had been convicted,
 and thereupon being asked  what he wanted, should  say he did not know;
should eat there, and afterwards kill four other  persons ?
  A  I should regard that, also, as evidence of unsoundness.
  Q.  Suppose a person  who had slaughtered four persons who had not in
any way injured him, should answer, in respect to the deed, that he thought
he was doing right ?
  A.  That would be an  evidence of unsoundness.
  Q.  Suppose such a person to be in jail for such an  act, and when asked 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
93
 what he expected would become of him, he should answer that he expected
 to go to heaven because he was good, what would that indicate ?
   A.  It would indicate a delusion.
   Q.  Suppose a person under indictment for murder should say that he
 meant to kill all he could ?
   A.  I should regard it in the same  view.
     .  Suppose you found such a person on trial for his life, remaining three
 entire days Avithout making one word of inquiry as to the cause, so deaf he
 could not hear a word, sound asleep  after going out of court ?
   A.  That, also, I should regard as  evidence of insanity.
   Q.  Suppose you found his pulse variable, and  ranging from sixty-seven
 to one hundred and fifteen, what would that indicate ?
   A. It would be an indication of insanity.
   Q.  Suppose he had an aunt Avho had died of insanity, and an uncle living
 who had been ten years insane, would the knowledge of the fact strengthen
 your convictions of insanity that were occasioned by his appearance ?
   A.  I should regard it as a corroboration, as  insanity is often hereditary.
   Q. If he should say his hearing was knocked  off and went doAvn his
 throat, what would you infer from that ?
   A. I should regard that as evidence of delusion.
   Q. If the person having been in prison  five  years and discharged by ex-
 piration  of sentence, should, upon breaking his knife, say he was to be taken
 back five years for that offence, what would that indicate ?
   A. It would indicate unsoundness of mind.
   Q. If he should get up in  the night, talk about his wrongs, sing,  dance
 and go through a mummery as if trying to read, what would that indicate ?
   A. I should regard such actions as evidence of unsoundness.
   Q. If he had slaughtered four persons within three miles of this town ;
 should then make flight on horses to  a place where he Avas well known; then
 desist from further flight; offer to sell his horse, and be entirely unconcerned
 about being taken, what bearing would that have on the question ?
   A. I should regard that as evidence of unsoundness.
   Q. Suppose that when arrested and charged with the crime of murder by
 the officers, he quietly proceeded to finish  his supper ?
  A. That would at least be very unnatural.
   Q. If he had received a severe wound on his wrist  by which a tendon
had been cut off, and were chained with a heavy iron  on his ankles that
pressed very unequally, and yet made no complaint of it, what would such
a condition indicate ?
  A.  If would be very unnatural, and would indicate unsoundness.
  Q.  Suppose he lived a mile from his sister's house, and should frequently
run there with great violence ; when there he should speak to no person ;
but after staying a minute or tAvo, turn and run back to the  place  whence
he started, Avhat would such freaks indicate ? 
94
THE TRIAL OF
  A.  They would indicate aberrations of mind.
  Q.  If he killed, for revenge, a family in no wise connected with the cause
of his injury, would that circumstance have any influence on the question ?
  A.  It would.  I should think it very unnatural,  and that it was an evi-
dence of unsoundness.   [Witness was further examined by Mr. Seward and
cross examined by Mr. Van Buren at great length, on the subject of insanity,
his theory concerning it and  the  grounds of his opinion of the prisoner's
mind, but the remainder of his testimony was in substance the same as upon
the traverse.   See trial.]
  Dr. Charles B. Coventry,  sworn for the prisoner, testified as follows:
I am a physician, and reside  at Utica.   Am the  professor of medical juris-
prudence  at Geneva College.  I  visited the prisoner in the jail,  yesterday,
when Dr. BigeloAv was there.  I made such an examination of him as, to-
gether with that  made in my presence by Dr. Bigelow, satisfied me that his
mind was  impaired.
  Q.  In your  opinion is the  prisoner sane or insane ?
  A.  It is my opinion that he is  insane.
  Cross Examination.—Dr. Bigelow has testified to much that took place
at the examination of the prisoner.  So far as he went in his account of it
I think his statement was correct.  Dr. B. also asked the prisoner whether
a trial was not going on in the court house.  He said he did not know.   He
said he thought he saw some  person sworn.  Dr. B. asked the prisoner what
compensation he would accept for his claim while in the State Prison.   He
said he  didn't  know.   He was  then shown my gold watch by Dr. Bigelow,
and asked if he would accept that.   He ansAvered No.   He was then asked
if he would take a thousand  dollars.   He answered No.  He  was asked if
he stopped at  any other house  except Van  Nest's.   He said  he did, at  the
house this side.  He was asked why he did  not go in.  He replied that  the
door was fast.  I recollect of nothing more that was said which was not re-
lated by Dr. Bigelow.
  Q.  Are you aware that it is a very common notion among  convicts that
they are entitled to pay for  their services whilst in prison, particularly if
innocent ?
  A.  I Avas not, before coming here as a witness to  attend this trial.  Mr.
Townsend and Dr. Bigelow have so testified, I believe.
  Q.  Was there any remark of his that indicated insanity except that about
pay?
  A.  There were several that were indicative of weakness of intellect, but
the delusion about pay was the prominent one.
  Q.  Do you remember any other remark indicating delusion ?
  A.  I do not remember any,  unless in connection with the desire for pay.
  Q.  Was not that examination a very unsatisfactory one to form an opin-
ion from ?
  A. No, sir, I think not. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
95
  Q.  How do you define insanity ?
  A.  It is not capable of any short, concise definition  that would embrace
all  species of insanity.   Insanity, strictly speaking, is  a symptom of a de-
ranged function of the brain, or some portion of it.  In all cases there is a
defect, either original or the effect of disease.
  Q.  Which of these defects occurs in the prisoner ?
  A.  Perhaps I shall be better understood if I give you the divisions.  Ori-
ginal defects of the brain constitute idiocy, and are most frequently accompa-
nied with a malformation of the head.   This is one form of insanity.   The
second  form  is where the brain is not originally defective, but imperfectly
developed.  This constitutes imbecility.  The third form is Avhere the intel-
lect was originally perfect, but where from disease or other cause the functions
of the brain are destroyed.   This constitutes dementia.   The fourth form of
insanity is mania.  This is  accompanied Avith an exalted state of the brain.
Mania may be divided into  general  mania, intellectual mania, and moral
mania.  Intellectual and moral mania  may be divided into general mania
and partial mania.
  Q.  Having given the divisions of insanity, under what head do you class
the prisoner ?
  A.  His appears to be a mixed case of dementia and  partial mania.
  Q.  Do you think yourself competent to detect dementia without knowing
the previous condition of the patient ?
  A.  I cannot speak positively, without knowing his former history, as to
whether the case is one of dementia or imbecility.
  Q.  From your brief examinations would it be safe to infer that the pri-
soner has dementia and partial  mania, without knowing his former mental
condition ?
  A.  It would be safe to infer that he has dementia or imbecility.
  Q.  On what authority do you give your classification of insanity ?
  A.  Guy's Medical Jurisprudence.
  Q.  In a case of imbecility from an imperfectly developed brain, can you
say whether it arises from a neglected education or from disease ?
  A.  I cannot, in all cases.
  Q.  Is incoherence  a common symptom of dementia ?
  A.  It cannot be said to be a common,  but it is a frequent attendant of
dementia.
  Q.  Is a defective memory a common symptom ?
  A.  It is a frequent, but not a common one.
  Q.  Is an apparent inability to give attention to a subject a common symp-
tom?
  A. It is.
  Q.  Were you aware, at the time you  made your examination, that the
prisoner was deaf or partially so ?
  A.  I was, sir. 
96
THE TRIAL OF
  Q.  Is dementia most common to the young or old ?
  A.  It is most common in old persons.
  Q.  Is drooling a common symptom of dementia ?
  A.  It is not   It sometimes happens, however.
  Q.  Have you  read the tragedy of Lear ?
  A.  I have, but not recently.
  Q.  What kind of insanity was his ?
  A.  I should think he had  general mania, and,  at the time I read it, it
struck me as a good description.
  Q.  Are you able to say how  long Freeman has been afflicted with de-
mentia ?
  A.  I have no data for determining that, yet I think it has become perma-
nent.
  Q.  Can you give  any other symptom  of dementia than what  you have
mentioned ?
  A.  His inability to carry on a  regular conversation is a symptom.
  Q.  May not that arise from other causes than insanity ?
  A.  Not to the extent that it exists in the prisoner.
  Q.  Suppose his powers of speech were  defective, might he not have the
same difficulty ?
  A.  No, sir.
  Q.  Suppose he were dumb ?                           *
  A.  If he A?ere dumb and possessed ordinary faculties, the difficulty would
not be so great as it is with him now.
  Q.  Suppose him to be desirous of concealing from you his real condition ?
  A.  It is not possible, with  his willingness to answer, for him to practice
concealment successfully.
  Q.  But suppose  him to be unwilling ?
  A.  It is not possible, from the manner  he gave his answers, that he was
unwilling.
  Q.  But if he were unwilling would not  a similar effect be produced ?
  A.  I think not.  If he were unAvilling to  give a narration of events, but
had the ability to do so, the same appearance could not be exhibited.
  Q.  Is he not reluctant to answer.  Have you not testified that he did not
converse freely ?
  A.  When isolated questions were put he answered readily, which would
not be the case if there was an attempt at  concealment.
  Q.  How differently would he act if he Avere unwilling to answer V
  A.  There would be a hesitancy before he answered if he were  unwilling
to answer.  He answers such questions as he  comprehends, whether for or
against him.
  Q.  What else  was there in his appearance that indicated dementia ?
  A.  His general appearance led me to suspect it.
  Q.  Is it a frequent attendant of dementia that the patient talks to himself? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
97
   A.  I should think it Avas rather common.
   Q.  Doctor, please to state to the^ jury what there is in the prisoner's
 appearance from Avhich you judge he has dementia ?
   A.  His want of attention to what is going on around him ; the manner in
 which he sits there noAv, and  as he bends over, and the Avhole expression of
 his face, denote it.
   Q.  What part of it ?
   A.  The Avhole of it.
   Q.  But is there not some feature in particular that you can mention ?
   A.  I cannot specify any particular feature or expression that indicates it,
 but an observing man, familiar with insanity, may discoA'er it in the ex-
 pression of all the features of his face.
   Q.  If  not familiar  with dementia, could he, in  your  opinion, detect
 it?
   A.  Not as readily, nor could he form so accurate an opinion.
   Q.  Should you think a man, not a physician, could detect this disease in
 the prisoner ?
   A.  If familiar with dementia he could;  if not, he would be less likely to
 recognize it
   Re-Examination.—I have been in the profession tAventy years.  For
 many years I have made the subject of insanity my study.  I am one of the
 managers of the  Lunatic Asylum at  Utica, and have been since its organi-
 zation.
   Q. Have you any doubt  that the prisoner is insane ?
   A. I cannot say that I have.  I have not seen any thing to raise a doubt
 of it in my mind.
   Q. Is there any thing in  the designing and contriving with secrecy a
 homicide, inconsistent Avith  insanity ?
   A. There is not.
   Q. Do insane persons often design and plan homicides Avith deliberation,
 and execute such plan ?
   A.  They do, frequently,  when they are laboring under a  delusion.
   Q.  Suppose the prisoner to have  planned the homicide of four persons,
 prepared the instruments for that purpose, and escaped ?
   A.  That of itself would not form any basis for an opinion as to sanity or
 insanity, except in connection with the causes of the homicide.
   Q.  Suppose the homicide to haA-e been of persons who had not offended
 him, and the motives those which this prisoner has expressed in his exami-
 nations ?
  A.  The homicide in that case Avould be the legitimate consequence of the
delusion under which he labored, and in that view, it Avould be evidence of
insanity.  [This Avitness further testified in substance as upon the traverse.
 See trial.]
                   7 
98
THE TRIAL OF
  Dr. Amariah Brigham, re-called for the prisoner, testified as follows:
  Q.  Will you state your opinion and the grounds of it, as to the sanity of
the prisoner ?
  A.  When I was on the stand before, I stated Avhat my opportunities had
been of seeing the prisoner.  I then Avithheld any opinion in  the case,  for
the reason that I had not then heard, but desired to hear, all the testimony
concerning him  before  expressing one.  I have  now heard, I suppose, all
the testimony in the case, and am called  upon to give my opinion derived
from  both  my observation of the  prisoner, and the testimony concerning
him.  In answer to the  question, I would say that it is my opinion that the
prisoner at the bar is insane.
  In arriving at this conclusion, the first  point to be settled is, whether he
is feigning  insanity.   I am of the opinion that he is not, nor  have I heard
any witness express an  opinion that he is feigning it.   There  is  some little
difficulty in the case from the want of facts concerning his history, and also
on  account of his color.  In a white  person, I think  one who has lived for
years with insane people,  can, from the countenance,  detect insanity, al-
though  the person might be sitting  entirely still, and  yet I might not be
able to tell in what the evidence consisted.
  I see a deranged man there, (pointing to one Daniel  Smith, an insane
person, who was sitting in the court room at the time.)   I saw him  across
the court room the other day, and  knew  from his looks  that he was insane.
(Here the attorney  general interrupted  the witness, and called up before
the jury the insane person referred  to.  The witness then  continued:)  I
observed, that I could distinguish a white person Avhom I had never seen
before, as being  insane, and yet not  be able to describe the indications by
which I detected it.   It is  a difficulty to  be  encountered, in this case, that
the prisoner is a colored man.  I cannot, and  I presume others cannot, judge
of insanity from the  countenances of colored men as well as from those  of
white men.  There is, oftentimes, a peculiar pallor about insane persons that
is indicative of insanity, and yet it cannot be described.  The only testimony
in this case touching this feature, is  that the prisoner is paler than he for-
merly was.  In regard to the history of this  man, although there have been
a great many facts presented, there seems to be but few from which to judge
of his whole life.   He seems never to have had a home.   Not even his pa-
rent is able to throw much light on the history of his mind.  Very little was
known of him whilst he was in prison.   By the  rules, no conversation was
held with him that indicated much  concerning his mental condition whilst
there; and but little was known of him  after he came  out, except that he
was seen about the streets and sometimes employed to perform small jobs of
work.  We are left to judge, in his case, therefore, from a small number of
facts; yet these have carried conviction to my mind that he  is deranged.
   In  the case before us, there have been  in operation the most common and
exciting causes of this disease.  The prisoner was predisposed to  it by bis 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       99
  parentage.  He has had an aunt and now has an uncle insane.   These, to
  me, are very important facts; not because all who have insane ancestors will
  become insane, but because they are liable to become so from causes which
  would not operate  on others not so predisposed to it.  It is estimated that
  about one half of the insane have, or have had, insane ancestors, or have had
  insanity in their families ; and it is exceedingly apt to spread in families in
  which it has once appeared.
    The prisoner seems to have been an active youth, with perhaps not quite
  as good an intellect as the majority of  colored persons of his age, yet pas-
  sionate, obstinate, and I  suppose somewhat ugly.  He seems to have been
  left to the indulgence of his passions, without education, or mental, moral
  or religious culture.  This I regard as one of the predisposing causes of in-
  sanity.  The indulgence of the  passions soon forms  a  character that can
  brook no control, subjects them to violent emotions, and thus lays the foun-
  dation of insanity in the  passions and  affections.  It is in this light that the
  neglect of moral culture is regarded as one of the most predisposing causes
  of derangement.
    At a very early age  he was confined in  the State Prison, where he had
  various troubles, and was thought by some to be a singular being, and, as
  some expressed it, a brute.   He was disobedient, and for his disobedience
  was punished severely.  He got into a violent passion for very trivial causes;
  was apparently ready to kill a fellow convict for moving his shoes, and acted
  in the manner I have  been accustomed to see crazy people  act.   In the
  prison he seems to have become deaf.   Deafness, however, is not of itself a
  symptom of insanity, yet  it  is often  a concomitant, and  their  combination
 forms incurable insanity.  When combined, I have never known  a patient
  to recover.  The reason, probably, is that the same cause which destroys
  the hearing, or affects the auditory nerve, extends also to the brain itself.
   He then came out of prison, and so far as I could gather from all the tes-
 timony, he was changed.   He was a  lively, active, sociable lad when he
 entered the prison, but was taciturn, dull  and stupid when he came out, and
 as his mother expressed it, " he wasn't the same boy;  he acted as if he didn't
 know any thing."   This I regard as a characteristic of insanity.   So com-
 mon is this  change of character in insanity, that many regard it as necessary
 to  the definition of the term.  A prolonged  change of character, without
 any evident external cause, is given, in many works on insanity, as a charac-
 teristic ;  and the cases are almost innumerable where  such changes have
 come within my own observation.  A mother loses her child, or a man meets
 with a reverse of fortune, or has something which has created great anxiety
 of mind ; and soon after, it is perceived that his character is changed ; not
 but that he  knows people  as well  as before, and talks with them; not but
 that he has  memory; but  he has become  sad, gloomy and unsociable, and
without that interest in  things which he  formerly had.   This state often
exists for weeks and months unperceived, unless by intimate friends, until 
100
THE TRIAL OF
Bome delusion, or other evidence of insanity, is observable, or some outbreak
occurs.  Then all notice what had been generally unobserved before—that
a change  had taken  place, and that the person  was insane.   In this way
insanity very commonly commences.  The change of character and of the
moral qualities often  precedes any perceptible derangement of the intellect
In the case at the bar I think this change of character has been  proved.
  I have observed, that we knew but very little of him whilst he was in the
State  Prison.  Some of the witnesses, hoAvever, noticed the change.  Dr.
Ilermance, in conversing  Avith  him, thought him deranged.  Then he had
disturbed nights; often was up in the night, and was noisy.  Than that, I
know of no better evidence of insanity.  So confident am I that sleeplessness
is a characteristic of  insanity, that I have spoken of it in a published article
on insanity as one of its most indubitable symptoms; and that article, I no-
tice, has  been extensively copied and quoted.   I can  attest its truth from
my OAvn experience and observation of the insane.   It is true, that  in some
cases insane persons  sleep well, but, in general, the insane  haAre paroxysms
and are apt to get up nights.  I cannot account for the conduct of the pri-
soner, in this respect, on  any other supposition  than  that it was the conse-
quence of disease, of which I have testified.
   His going  to a magistrate for a warrant, without any definite notion for
whom; declaring that he would have  one, after he had been  told that it
could not be  issued;  his tender of tAventy-five cents; his getting into a pas-
sion in  the office of the  magistrate; his inability to  give  any connected
account of the injury of Avhich he complained, and  for which he wanted the
process,—all indicate an unnatural, if not irrational, condition of mind.  We
next come to the act itself, for which he has been arrested and indicted.   It
was a dreadful tragedy, and yet, as bloody as it was,  and as deplorable as
it may be, I cannot but regard it as the result of insanity.   I cannot believe
that a sane  man, in the  full exercise  of his intellect  and  moral  feelings,
could do  such an act, unless the provocation was very great, or the motive
very  powerful and strong.   Similar cases have occurred in lunatic  asylums,
but I am  not aAvare that  history records any case of the  kind happening
elseAvhere.   Quite recently, a man killed two patients at the Baltimore Hos-
pital, and Avas endeavoring to massacre the whole of them.  He was so well
 as to  be  about, when the sudden paroxysms came on him.  And the manner
 of his doing it;  the  shedding of so much blood;  the killing more than could
 have been necessary for any supposable purpose, and the celerity with which
 it was done, all were regarded as evidence of insanity.  I hftve always ob-
 served that the insane act much quicker than the sane.  They will tear their
 clothes into inch pieces, destroy their beds, and break their bedsteads in a
 period of time so short, that one  could not suppose it possible for them to
 have done it.
    In the case  of Griffith, in  Chenango county, for killing, the  witnesses
 expressed their astonishment at the quickness with which the deed was done. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      101
Here, in the case at the bar, the prisoner must have entered the house, went
into different rooms, had some scuffles, killed four persons, looked into va-
rious windows, stolen a horse, and rode it half a mile before Williamson had
walked that distance.  It seems as if he had planned and designed it, made
preparation for its  accomplishment, indicating the possession of mind that
some think incompatible with insanity.  Every day's observation, however,
convinces me that it ought not to be so regarded.  The insane are as adroit
in planning and scheming to get away, or in accomplisluag  their purpose, as
the sane.   The case of Hadfield, for shooting the King, is in point.   He had
made a full and careful preparation,  had  obtained his pistols, and delibe-
rately went to the theatre expressly to  shoot the King.   So with a patient at
the Asylum at Utica, Avho had  killed  her father, and intended to kill her
mother.   She prepared every thing beforehand.   I might refer to many
other cases, but the mention of these will illustrate my idea.
   That the prisoner undertook to escape, seems to many to be inconsistent
with insanity.  Yet, Avhen I see patients every day doing wrong and adroitly
contriving to conceal it; when I know that they have done the act;  Avhen I
know numerous cases where such insane persons try to escape after having
committed heinous offences, I do not think it ought to be so regarded.
   A man by the name of Thomas Sanderson, from Chautauque, now in the
Asylum, known by many to be insane, was left with a young man threshing
in a barn.  Whilst  there, he killed the young man, by stabbing him more
than one hundred times with a pitchfork.   He then took up the  boards and
buried him under the floor, then took a horse and fled, but was overtaken
by an officer, and after a struggle, in Avhich the officer was wounded, he was
arrested.   He is now in my charge, at the Lunatic Asylum.   Since he has
been there, he  has attempted to cut  the throat of a patient.   He eats by
himself.   We dare not trust him  where  there are any instruments  with
which  he can do any  injury to others.   Rabello, in the State Prison of
Connecticut, Avhose case has been published, is another instance.   He killed
a boy,  and then  ran off.   These cases show, that, in the attempt to escape,
there is nothing incompatible with insanity.
   Since  the arrest  of the prisoner at the  bar, there have  been various at-
tempts made to ascertain whether he is insane.  To many, the fact that he
remembers, that he gives a rational account of many things, and  repeats
them several times,  carries the conviction that he is sane.  That appears to
be evidence to  some that  he has reason enough left to control  his actions.
But to my mind that does not carry  such  a  conviction.   Living, as I do,
with those Avho  exhibit as much intellect as  any person in this assembly;
whom I daily employ to write letters,  to paint  portraits, to play  on  musical
instruments, to compose and deliver orations, Avhich would  do credit to men
of learning and general intelligence ;  and Avhen I know these people are as
deranged on certain subjects as any person ever Avas, the  fact that  the pri- 
102
THE TRIAL OF
soner
      remembers and repeats, does not carry conviction to my mind that he
is sane.  But the prisoner does not  either remember or repeat well.  He is
dull, and stupid, and ignorant, and has but little intellect of any kind.  And
I think every one must have been  struck with the fact, that all who have
examined him have found it necessary to come down to simple questions m
their examinations; to putting  questions which Ave would not think of put-
ting to a man Ave considered sane.  Such questions  as " will you settle  for
this watch," as put by Dr. Bigelow,  and by others who have testified on this
trial.   Such questions  seem to  indicate, that the persons interrogating  the
prisoner considered him a mere child in intellect.
  I agree with Dr. Spencer, that his pulse furnishes no evidence one way or
the other.  AVhilst many insane persons have a very rapid pulse, that of oth-
ers is too slow for ordinary health.   The rapid  changes, however, from sixty-
seven to one hundred  and twenty,  betoken something not exactly healthy.
It indicates that nervous irritability alluded to by the doctor, which we  see
among the insane.  It is not itself insanity; yet nervous irritability is akin
to it, as a disease of the nervous system is insanity.   The prisoner never asks
a question, except for  food, for tobacco, or about his wound. He  has  not
asked for or about his mother,  nor  about  any  other  person.   Unless I sup-
pose him bereft, by disease, of all those feelings, hopes and fears which every
one in a natural state possesses, I know not how to explain this.  It is, how-
ever, so characteristic of cases of this kind, that it adds  to my conviction of
his insanity.  Kline, who killed a Avoman in New York, and  was sent to  the
Asylum above two years ago, always answers readily, but never asks a ques-
tion on any subject whateA-er.
  The prisoner seems entirely indifferent to his fate, and yet has strong ani-
mal appetites—he asks for tobacco, yet apparently cares nothing for his trial.
His total  indifference I cannot account for on any other supposition than
that  it  is  the  consequence of  his  disease.  His counting and  reading is
another circumstance worthy of notice; not,  however, because  he cannot
count or read, but for  the reason that when he counts beyond twenty-eight
he appears just as confident that he is counting right above  that number as
beloAv it.  The same thing has been noticed of his reading ; and the surprise
is that he does not knoAV  that he cannot  read.  A child may do this;  but
when it gets older, although it may practice it, it knoAvs it  is not reading..
The prisoner's insensibility to pain has  been mentioned by the medical gen-
tleman who dressed his Avounded arm.   On dressing it, Dr. Fosgate has  ob-
served that he exhibited no feeling—that he seemed to pay no attention to it.
Although many insane persons are sensible to pain, others are not.   We put
setons  into their neck, and perform other operations upon them, and they
perform them on  themselves.  When  the wounds  are  being dressed they
show no suffering.  I had a female patient at the  Asylum  who Avould  not
eat.  We  fed her with a stomach tube.   To resist us she sewed up her mouth 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
103
 strongly.   I cut the stitches out, but when doing it she exhibited no  more
 feeling than if I had been at work on a piece of leather.   And yet the lips,
 in health, are very sensitive to pain.
   The external appearance of the prisoner in his cell, and as he sits at the bar,
 carries the same conviction to my mind that it does to the minds of Doctors
 McCall and Coventry.  His total indifference—his abject and demented ap-
 pearance, and his peculiar laugh, Avhich all must have seen, although no one
 could imitate it, which comes on when nothing is going on that he appears to
 notice, are indicative of mental disease-   In the jail, when inquired of about
 the offence which he had  committed,  he laughed ; and when I asked him if
 he was not ashamed of himself, he  laughed again. In court I  have observed
 it when there was nothing to excite it, so far as I could discover, and yet I
 have observed him very attentively. Some have thought it not  a little strange
 that he should smile under the circumstances in which he is now placed, and
 yet they do not recognize it as an indication of a diseased mind.  Now, when
 I see this every day, in demented  persons at  the Lunatic Asylum, and par-
 ticularly on the  Sabbath, when  clergymen are  preaching to  us, I conclude
 that it results from disease.   I know nothing in physiology or  pathology that
 accounts for it, and yet I am in the habit of seeing it, although I have never
 heard it explained.
   Such is a hasty review of  the case, and although  I  have not alluded to
 many things that have  gone to strengthen my convictions of  his insanity, I
 have mentioned enough to indicate the reasons which influence my opinion.
 On the evidence  given here, concerning  him, before his commission of the
 offence for which he is indicted, I have no hesitation in  pronouncing him
 insane, and on such evidence should have admitted him to the Asylum as a
 patient.  [The witness further continued at considerable length, in substance
 the same as he testified upon the traverse, and, after concluding,  was  cross
 examined by Mr.  Van Buren, on which he testified as follows:]
   Cross Examination.  On my direct  examination I observed  that there
 were certain indications and features of insanity  in crazy people that I per-
 ceived, yet was unable  to describe to a jury.  I stated that as a  matter of
 opinion.  When I saw Smith in the court  room the other day,  I had no pre-
 vious information that he Avas insane, nor did  he perform any  act, whatever,
 that was indicative of mental disease ; yet when I discovered him sitting there
 I thought him deranged, but could not describe to this jury the expression
 of his countenance that convinced  me that he was so.  I think I  first s&av
 him four or five days ago, and about  that time I took occasion to speak to
 him.   Upon asking his name he informed me that it Avas Smith.  After I
 first saw him, and before I spoke to him, I think I asked some  one if he was
 not crazy.  I think  it was Mr. Day that I inquired  of; it may have been
 some  other one, but, Avhoever it was,  ansAvered me that he was insane.  I
was, hoAvever, as  confident before  as I Avas after I asked  the  question, that
he Avas cr.azy.  Upon inquiry, I obtained  a partial history of  him before I 
104
THE TRIAL OF
went up to speak with him.  1 was informed that he had been confined in
the State Prison, and that he came out insane.
  Q.  Was not Smith pointed out to  you as a crazy man during the trial of
Wyatt?
  A.  I have no recollection of it.
  Q.  Do you know Mr. Cannon, the constable ?
  A.  I have seen him about this court.
  Q.  Did he not point him out to you ?
  A.  I have no recollection  of it, and think it cannot be true that he did.
  Q.  Do you know Dr.  Dickinson, of this place ?
  A. I do not.
  Q.  Did not he or Mr. Holmes point him out to you during Wyatt's trial ?
  A.  They did not.  Several persons, however, have  spoken to me about
him.
  Q.  May you not be mistaken  about that ?
  A.  I may be; yet I think I saw him this week for the first time.
  Q.  You say persons have  spoken to you about him.  Did they not point
him out to you ?
  A. I have  recollection that persons spoke to me about  him, and that I
went and talked to him,  but  I had seen him before.
  Q.  Was it at all difficult to detect his insanity ?
  A.  It was not, in that person.
  Q.  Then why did you mention his case in that connection on your direct
examination ?
  A. I was mentioning the difficulty of detecting insanity in colored people,
because I had not seen so many that were insane.
  Q.  But Smith is not a colored man ?
  A.  Certainly not.   But I  meant to convey the idea that if he had been I
might not have so easily  detected his insanity.
  Q.  Why cannot an external appearance in a black man be discovered ?
  A.  They may be discovered; but the emotions and feelings are not so
easily discovered as in white people.
  Q.  Would there have been any different expression in the eye of Smith
had he been a black man ?
  A.  I do  not know as there would.
  Q.  Is not the eye, of all others, the feature Avhich is most indicative of the
condition and operation of the mind ?
  A.  I think not.   The muscles of the face indicate most.
  Q.  Is that a feature ?
  A.  They move the features and portray the emotions.
  Q.  Can  you name any other  feature by which you perceived that Smith
was insane ?
   A.  I cannot.  It was his whole countenance.
   Q.  Can you name any feature that denotes insanity more than the eye ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
105
  A.  Yes; the muscles of his face, as I before stated.
  Q.  But you say they move the features.   I inquire whether you can name
any one feature that denotes it more than the eye ?
  A.  No one feature distinguishes insanity.  It is the play of them that gives
the expression.
  Q.  What constitutes the features ?
  A.  The muscles of  the face.   They cause the expression and show the
operation  of the mind.
  Q.  Has not the nose an expression ?
  A.  Neither the nose or ears are expressive of insanity.
  Q.  Can you safely answer that no other feature denotes insanity ?
  A.  Nothing but the play or repose of the muscles of the face.
  Q.  Does any one of them denote insanity ?
  A.  I do not know that any one of them does ;  but  the  cheeks, the eye-
lids, the whole countenance does.
   Q.  When you speak of the whole countenance do you include the cheeks
and eyelids ?
   A.  I should, as forming a part of it.
   Q.  Do you think of any other features besides the cheeks and eyelids ?
   A.  Yes; the play of the muscles which gives  expression to the mouth.
   Q.  Can the mouth alone indicate insanity ?
   A.  I think it cannot, alone.
   Q. You stated that you had not full and satisfactory information concern-
ing the history of the prisoner: do you think it the duty of the people or the
prisoner to prove that ?
   A. I had no idea about it, and did not know that that was a question for
me to decide.
   Q. Do  you think that sufficient facts  have been shown by the people to
 show him sane, or not sufficient by the  prisoner's counsel to  show him in-
 sane ?
   A. I did not mean that there were not enough to show him insane;  but
 if more had been shown  we should have more evidence  of his  insanity; that
 it was singular so little had been learned of his history.
   Q.  So far as you are  aware of your own feelings, have you been actuated
 by a desire to find him sane or insane ?
   A.  At first I had no desire nor feeling, except that which I suppose every
 one had, that such an outrage should be punished.  But my first interview
 with the  prisoner satisfied me that he was insane, and I could not but have   \
 a desire that he might be acquitted on that ground; still, I have endeavored
 to keep that feeling in entire subjection.
    Q. In hearing the evidence in this case, do you think you have paid the
 same attention to evidence showing sanity as  you have to  that showing in.:
 sanity ?
    A. I think I have. 
106
THE TRIAL OF
   Q. And given the same weight to it ?
   A. I could not say that;  as the evidence given of mind and memory did
 not have as much weight with  me as some of the other testimony.  I was
 surprised that more evidence of mind was not given.   I think I have given
 the same weight to the evidence that should go to estabHsh sanity as I have
 to that Avhich should go to estabHsh insanity.   I have endeavored, in my tes-
 timony, to take a common sense view of the case.
   Q. You told the jury in a  way that might have confused  them, that you
 discovered a paleness about this man ?
   A. No;  I adverted to such a statement by other witnesses.
   Q. Did you not say that his paleness was indicative of his insanity ?
   A. I stated that pallor in certain cases was indicative of insanity.  I thought
 the testimony in respect to the paleness of this prisoner was entitled to but
 little weight.
   Q. Did you not convey the idea that it was an invariable symptom ?
   A. I did not mean to say that it was an invariable symptom, but that it
 was usual.
   Q. Did you not say that it was a striking characteristic, or convey  a simi-
 lar idea?
   A. I did not mean to say that it was striking, but that in many cases there
 exists an unusual and peculiar pallor about insane persons.
   Q. Then you attach no great importance to that symptom in the case at
the bar ?
   A. I do  mean to attach some importance to the fact that this person is
 paler than before he went to prison.
   Q. If the jury should think it natural  for him to become paler  in  jail,
 would you attach any consequence to that ?
   A.  My judgment is that negroes do not  become paler in the shade.
   Q. WThy?
   A.  Because they are not  colored from being in the  sun.
   Q. Do they differ from the Avhites in that respect ?
   A.  I mean to say that colored persons  do not  become white from being
shut up in jail.
   Q. Have you not noticed changes in the color of black persons ?
   A.  I have  often attended  upon black people, but never noticed much
 change of color in them.
   Q.  Are you not aware that white persons grow darker in a  warm climate ?
   A.  I am; that they grow dark under a hot southern sun.
   Q.  Do you not think that if you wished to refer these phenomena to na-
 tural, rather than to unnatural causes, that it might have occurred  to you
 that  the prisoner might have grown paler by confinement ?
 *  A.  It might have occurred  to me, but on reflection I should have conclu-
 ded as I now do.
   Q. Is it not difficult to tell  whether a negro grows pale or not? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
107
  A.  I suppose it would if the change was not great.
  Q.  You stated that deafness affected the auditory nerve, and that deaf
crazy men were generally incurable.  Do you say that deafness is a symp-
tom of insanity ?
  A.  I stated, in my direct examination, that, of itself, it was not.
  Q.  Is there any thing in deafness itself that tends to insanity ?
  A.  They are not always crazy, as the jury know as well as  myself; but
my impression is that deaf persons are more apt to become so,  as there are
more deaf persons in the Asylum than out of it, in proportion to the number.
  Q.  Then do you not think it leads to  insanity ?
  A.  No; I don't think it leads to insanity, yet I believe the cause of deaf-
ness often produces it.
  Q.  When do you think this man  became deaf?
  A.  My impression is that he became deaf in prison, although, perhaps, he
was a little hard of hearing before.
  Q.   How do you get the impression that perhaps he was  hard of hearing
before ?
  A.  I do not know as  any one testified to it, but he told me he was a little
hard of hearing from childhood.
  Q.  Is it your impression that the blow with the board in the  prison made
him deaf?
  A.  I did suppose that it did, until I heard the  evidence  on that subject.
From the testimony I don't know as I can say what caused it.
  Q.   Does deafness ordinarily increase with age ?
  A.  My recollection is that in  many people it  does, but  in some cases it
does not.   I know many crazy people who have been deaf, and yet  I have
not been able  to discover that it increased.
  Q.   Does it  not naturally increase as old age comes on ?
  A.   In old age I think it increases;  but I have friends who are and have
been deaf for years, and I am not able to perceive that it increases.
  Q.   What is the general rule ?
  A.  I do not know that  in  youth  or middle age deafness ordinarily in-
creases.   In them it is often cured.
  Q.   What do the books  say on the subject ?
  A.   I am not able at this moment to say what books do say on this subject.
   Q.   Do you believe that the prisoner informed you correctly about having
been hard of hearing from childhood ?
  A.   My impression  is  that he speaks the truth.
   Q.   Then why do you not believe he got a stone in his ear ?
   A.   Why, a bone may have come out or he may have been hit by a stone.
   Q.   What would you  think he meant ?
  A.   I should think he meant that  one  of the bones  of his ear had come
out.
   Q.   What would have caused such a result ? 
108
THE TRIAL OF
   A. An ulcer might have produced it.  He complained of ear ache at one
time when in prison.
   Q. Suppose that it should appear in testimony that the prisoner was asked
last night, " Bill, how did you get on to day," and that in reply he said, " we
blew 'em all up to-day," what should you think about that ?
   A. I should infer that he hardly knew what was going on, and my opinion
is that he does not hear much that is going on.
   Q. Why  do you not believe him when he says the board knocked his
hearing off?
   A. I do not know but that it may be true;  I have no belief on the  sub-
ject  I am rather of the impression that the blow did not cause his deafness,
although he  may have thought it did.  He may not be  mistaken,  h©Avever,
for it may have caused it.
   Q. You have stated that one evidence of insanity with you, was that his
uncle and aunt were also insane ; would you not think it  remarkable that
no member of his own family were insane ?
   A. No ; because I know of a vast number of instances of the kind.
   Q. What is the professional standing of Dr. McCall ?
   A. He  is  a highly respectable and intelligent member of the medical pro-
fession.
  • Q. What is his authority on questions of insanity ?
   A. I should not think any more of his authority than I would of any other
respectable member of the profession, except from his opportunities at the
Asylum at Utica.
   Q. With  his opportunities, how do you rank his authority ?
   A. As highly respectable;  yet he cannot have a great knowledge of in-
sanity.
   Q. Do you agree with him that insanity is not contagious ?
   A. Insanity as we see it, is not contagious; but there are instances in which
whole communities become deranged, as for instance in  the days  of witch-
craft in New England.
   Q. Is hysterics contagious ?
   A. I have known a person  who had hysterics  set others into  it.  As a
general rule, however, it is not contagious.
   Q. Did not this insanity you speak of in New England affect the legis-
lature ?
   A. Not that I recollect of.
   Q. What were the symptoms of that insanity ?
   A. I am  not able to recollect all the incidents of the times, yet I think
those persons were affected, to a certain degree, with insanity.
   Q. Do you recollect what was done for it ?
   A. Laws were passed against it, and witches were hung.
   Q. Were witches hung ?
   A. Those who were said to be bewitched were. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       109
  Q.  And do you term that insanity ?
  A.  They were in a state of great excitement, in which common sense did
not prevail; they were under a delusion.
  Q.  What is a delusion ?
  A.  It is mistaking fancies for realities, that the  person cannot be rea-
soned out of.
  Q.  When a number of people are so deluded as to  pass laws to hang
witches, should you suppose them under a delusion ?
  A.  Certainly not, as the word is defined;  I should rather say they passed
the laws through ignorance.
  Q.  Then the legislature was not under a delusion ?
  A.  Not under an insane delusion, for they were reasoned out  of it.
  Q.  Do you think the prisoner was under  a delusion when he  committed
the murders ?
  A.  I presume at times he could be convinced that Van Nest had nothing
to do with his imprisonment; but it would return.   The delusion was  that
certain persons had imprisoned him wrongfully, and  by killing them he could
get his pay.
   Q. Does the  case show whether he Avas imprisoned in  the  State Prison
rightfully or wrongfully ?
   A. My impression is, that the testimony in this case  is  conflicting about
it,  and, therefore, I have not formed an opinion on that subject.
   Q. If he were imprisoned wrongfully, then he was under no  delusion as
to that, was he ?
   A. No; not in that respect.
   Q. Was he under any delusion about being imprisoned  wrongfully ?
   A.  I do not, of course, know as to that.
   Q.  If killing people was pay or satisfaction to him, was he under any de-
 lusion as to that ?
   A.  I should think he was.
   Q.  What kind of delusion ?
   A.  That the persons whom he killed were, when they were not, connected
 with the  transaction.
   Q.  Suppose  the killing of people whom he knew  were not connected with
 the transaction was satisfaction to him, was he then under any delusion ?
   A.  Most certainly he was.
    Q.  What was the delusion then ?
    A.  I can hardly make it plainer to you than my  previous answers render
 it.  If I labored under a  delusion  that a person had  wronged me,  and I
 killed him for  it, it would nevertheless  be  a delusion, although  the killing
 might satisfy me.  The  very essence of the delusion in this case was that
 he labored under the impression that Van Nest's family were connected with
 the affair of his conviction, when his reason and all the facts told him that 
110
THE TRIAL OF
they were not the people.  His delusion told him they were, and he acted
accordingly.
  Q. Do you agree with Dr. McCall that insanity is an epidemic ?
  A. I have no other illustration of it than in the case of witchcraft; we
have history for it
  Q. Is there any particular season of the year when this epidemic is most
prevalent ?                  -
  A. I have no knowledge that it is more so at one season than at another.
  Q. Do you recollect your  testimony about the change in this man ?
  A.  The greater part of it I do.
  Q. Do you recollect of saying that there was a total change in him ?
  A. I do not; nor have I said so.  I have not intended  to say that there
was a total change, for that is too strong  a term.  I mean to say there  ap-
pears to have been a great change of character and  of mental condition;
that before he went to prison he was a Hvely, sociable young man, and of
the inteUigence of ordinary colored persons, and having the same feelings
and affections; and that when he came out, he was found  to be changed to
an unsocial person, and, as his mother testified,  " he was not the same boy ;
he did not seem to knoAV any thing."
  Q.  In your opinion,  when did this change happen ?
  A. I think he experienced it in the State Prison.
  Q. Was it, in your opinion, gradual or sudden ?
  A. I cannot say from the testimony; but I suppose it was rather gradual.
  Q. How do you get that impression ?
  A. It is, perhaps, rather a matter of inference than otherwise.
  Q. From Avhat do you get that inference ?
  A. From the testimony.
  Q. Whose?
  A. From the testimony of several of the witnesses who  have testified re-
specting him.  I cannot recal their names.
  Q. Did you  hear Nathaniel Lynch, (the man with whom the  prisoner
Hved when a boy, and who whipped him,) testify ?
  A. I think I did.
  Q. Did he swear that there was no change in him ?
  A. I cannot say, positively, whether he did not.   I think some of the whV
nesses did so testify.
  Q. Did you not hear Aaron Demun, Thomas F. Munroe and Israel G.
Wood testify that there was no change in him ?
  A. I cannot distinguish persons,  yet I recollect that several witnessess did
so state.
  Q. When  all those witnesses swear there is no change in him, how do you
find that there is ?
  A. They  did not swear from an  amount of personal knowledge sufficient
to satisfy me. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
Ill
   Q. Do you infer a change without proof?
   A. I do not infer any thing.  I think the balance of the testimony es-
tablishes it.
   Q. Do not the laws of nature govern you at aU, in this matter ?
   A. Yes; so far as they apply.
   Q. Then don't you infer that he has grown up as he naturally  would ?
   A. No; because  there is some proof that he is changed.
   Q. Where is the evidence of any change ?
   A. The testimony of those in Avhose families he lived.   His mother's tes-
timony produced quite an impression on my mind that a change had taken
place.
   Q. Why do you  give her testimony more weight than  those other wit-
nesses  who say he is not deranged ?
   A. His mother must have known him  more intimately than  any  other
person, from having brought him  up, and  having  the ordinary knowledge
that a mother has of her  children.   Although she was not constantly  with
him, she saw him occasionaUy,  and had him with her in his early years.
   Q. Do not you recollect that she testified that for several years before he
went to prison she saw but little of him V
   A. I do recoUect that she said that just before he went to prison she did
not see him very often ; yet  she saw him occasionally.  I think she would
have noticed the change had there been any.
   Q. Is not your opinion mainly based on the  testimony  of the  mother  of
the prisoner ?
   A. Not mainly;  yet I think  her opportunities of judging  of him better
than those of any other witness.
   Q. Do you not rely more on her testimony than upon any other witness ?
   A. I do, perhaps, as much.
   Q. I desire an answer.  Do you not more ?
   A. I can hardly say that; yet perhaps I do, for  I certainly consider it
entitled to considerable weight. I rely very much, however, on  Mr. War-
den's testimony.
   Q. Do you know that colored people acquire but  very little information
after they are six or eight years old ?
   A. I do not
   Q. Do you recollect that the witness Lynch, with whom the prisoner Hved
when a lad, testified that there was no change in him ?
   A. I heard his testimony.   It appears that he did not observe any change.
   Q. Then why do you not conclude that Lynch's  account  of him is the
correct one ?
  "A. Why, a change may have occurred without his noticing it.   Warden
testified that he noticed it at the time;  and  when a witness swears  that he
saw a change, I regard his testimony as stronger proof of the fact than the
testimony of one Avho did not 
112
THE  TRIAL OF
  Q.  But is not that an appearance that may be as well observed by one
as another; by one who says there is no change, as by one who says there is ?
  A.  I believe those who SAvear there is no change, swear to Avhat they be-
lieve to be true,  although I believe they were mistaken.
  Q.  W'hat enabled Warden to see what  Lynch could not ?
  A.  An answer to such a question would be difficult. I have  just stated
that I believed those who testified that no change had taken place, testified
to what they beHeved to be true ; yet I think they were not as observing  as
those who did perceive, or were mistaken.
  Q.  What change do you believe Warden saw ?
  A.  I think it was a change of character.
  Q.  What other witnesses testified of any change ?
  A.  I do not remember their names.  I only generalized facts, and those,
with my observations,  convinces me there  was a  change.
  Q.  Do you recollect that Dr. Hermance did not notice any change ?
  A.  I recollect that  he did not in the first conversation he had with the
prisoner, but at the second he thought him deranged.
  Q.  How did he testify ?
  A.  I cannot recal his  words.
  Q.  Did you rely on the testimony of John De Puy ?
  A.  Not very much.
  Q.  Upon Deborah De Puy's ?
  A.  ButHttle.
  Q.  Upon Adam Gray's ?
  A.  Why, all together  their testimony made a  considerable impression on
my  mind. I have, to be sure, some doubts about the testimony of John De-
Puy, as I have noticed some testimony in conflict with his.
  Q.  Did he not testify  as weU as the rest of the colored witnesses ?
  A.  Not as carefully, I thought.   There was a little  quibbling in his testi-
mony that threw a doubt on his story, unless confirmed by others.
  Q.  Did not most of his testimony stand alone, and Avas he not contradicted
by witnesses whom you credit ?
  A.  Most of it was confirmed by others;  yet, when he testified to things
that he was not very likely to know, it raised some doubt.
  Q.  Do you not lay stress on his testimony about the  prisoner's getting up
nights ?
  A.  I do lay stress,  very considerable stress, on the disturbed sleep.
  Q.  Then do you not rely on his testimony?
  A.  On his and Adam Gray's. I don't recollect  that he slept any where else.
  Q.  But why do you rely upon testimony about which you have doubts?
  A.  Although I had doubts about some parts of De Puy's testimony, I think
I may believe that the prisoner did get up nights.
  Q.  Are you aware that the evidence shows that the prisoner did not sleep
at De Puy's for a month before the murders ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
113
  A.  I do not recollect of any such testimony.
  Q. Do you recoUect of De Puy's saying that he was crazy when in prison ?
  A.  I do not.
  Q.  Do you recoUect that witnesses have sworn that there was nothing re-
markable about his sleeping ?
  A.  I recollect that the jaUer swore that he did not know of his complain-
ing in the night but once.
  Q.  That was since his arrest for the murder, was it not ?
  A.  I conclude so from his testimony.
  Q.  In ascertaining present insanity, would it be better to rely on his acts
for  a month back, or his acts six months ago ?
  A.  I should consider them  aU.  I think his acts six months ago should be
taken into the account in determining his disease.
  Q.  You say that sleeplessness is evidence of insanity.   Do you not think
the fact of his sleeping weU immediately after the commission of the murders
and during this trial, is evidence of his sanity ?
  A.  I do not.   He may have had a paroxysm, accompHshed his object, and
yet now be quiet.
  Q.  You beUeve the witnesses, then, who testify that he has slept well and
been quiet in the jaU ?
  A.  Certainly I do.  I suppose I am to believe testimony that is not con-
tradicted or discredited.
  Q.  But you had some doubt about De Puy ?
  A.  I have beHeved all the witnesses but the one referred to, when a doubt
came over my mind as I have stated.
  Q.  Do these sleepless nights that precede a murder, occur immediately,
or for a long time before ?
  A.  I do not know.
  Q.  Do you not know that they immediately precede the paroxysm in which
the murder is committed ?
  A.  No, I do not; because  such acts have occurred where  no sleepless
nights have been noticed.
  Q.  But when they do occur, what is the ordinary time, before the act, that
they occur ?
  A.  I am  unable to mention any ordinary rule about  them.   They may
precede the act six  weeks or six months.
  Q.  Did you attach any importance to the prisoner's appHcation to the jus-
tice for a warrant ?
  A.  The fact itself was strange, and the manner of it more so.   I think the
whole  testimony on  that subject shows that he acted wholly different from
what any rational man would, on such business, and on such an occasion.
  Q.  Would it have altered your opinion any if he had caUed for a sub-
poena instead of a summons ?
  A.  I do not know that it would.
                 8 
114
THE TRIAL OF
   Q. Are you aware of the  difference between a summons  and subpoena
yourself?
   A. I am not aware of the distinction, if there is any.
   Q. Suppose the justice should come into this court and swear that the pri-
soner was sane when he applied for a summons, would you put your opinion
against his oath ?                                         «
   A. I think I would not.   My impression on that point is, that it did not
occur to the justice that he was insane.
   Q. So far as the circumstances of the prisoner's escape have any bearing
either way, do they not rather prove that he Avas sane than insane ?
   A. Not necessarily.   I have known crazy people to escape from the Asy-
lum  and go to lawyers for process for me.
   Q. Are you familiar with Shakespeare's character  of Shylock ?
   A. I  have read what he says of him.
   Q. Do you beHeve Shylock was crazy ?
   A. I  find other explanations for the conduct of Shylock.
   Q. What was there in the murder itself, except the celerity of its execu-
tion, that satisfied you that the prisoner was insane ?
   A. Why, the whole transaction; the killing of so many persons under the
circumstances.
   Q. If, as he might have had, plunder for his  object, was there any thing
strange  in his killing all, if he kiUed one of the inmates of the house ?
   A. If his object had been plunder, I see no reason in that for kiUing an
infant.
   Q. But suppose he designed to burn the  house ?
   A. The great amount of blood shed, seems to indicate insanity rather than
arson.
   Q. I understand  you to attach importance to  the celerity of the act.
Would not a sane murderer execute such a work with all possible despatch ?
   A. Some murderers may proceed with celerity or tardiness.  They vary.
The recent murder at the city of Troy  was  not speedy, but gradual.
   Q. Have you ever heard of a murder committed Avith  deadly Aveapons,
instead  of poison, where it Avas not done with celerity ?
   A. No case at present occurs to me where the time could be proved as in
this  case.  In most cases the act itself is not seen.
   Q. Do you think the prisoner's celerity in running away from the scene
of his murders was any thing remarkable ?
   A. In his running away I cannot say as I have perceived any thing indi-
cating sanity or insanity.
   Q. Did he  not flee with celerity ?
   A. It does not strike me  that there was any thing very unusual in his
flight.
   Q. Does not the celerity of his getting thirty miles in fourteen hours strike
you as being speedy, under the circumstances ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
115
   A. I do not think it was very fast traveUing on horseback.
   Q. WeU, Doctor, is there any thing which sane men do that an insane
man may not do ?
   A. Perhaps I may say that there is nothing that a sane man can do which
some insane men will not do; yet insanity is not to be judged of by isolated
facts.
   Q. Then may the not running away be evidence of insanity ?
   A. It might be in some cases.  In some cases insane men do not flee.
   Q. What is the proportion of the cases where crazy homicides flee ?
   A. Since the  trial of Wyatt, I have endeavored to recal the cases on this
subject, and I find the number nearly equal.
   Q. If there be a sufficient motive proved for a homicide, is that any evi-
dence of insanity ?
   A. I do not suppose the absence of motive is itself sufficient evidence of
insanity.  It is evidence, however, to be taken into consideration with other
facts in the case.
   Q. Is not a desire for revenge a motive that would indicate sanity rather
than insanity ?
   A. Revenge may operate  in certain cases as a sufficient motive for mur-
der, but it  depends upon the degree of it that exists.
   Q. What was the proof in RabeUo's case.   He, I believe, kUled the boy
for treading on his toes ?
   A. In RabeUo's case it was proved by a great many learned physicians,
as weU as others acquainted with him, that he was not insane, and by others
that he was.
   Q. Did he indicate any desire for revenge ?
   A. He only used the expression about skinning eels once, to my recollec-
tion.  I think he was  standing by the table where they were skinning eels
at the time.
   Q. Were you a witness in the case of Griffith ?
   A. I was.
   Q. Did you testify  that he was insane ?
   A. I  did, and he was acquitted by direction of the judge.  The court
stopped the proceedings.
   Q. You  mentioned the case of Hadfield.   Is he stiU aHve ?
   A. I  believe he is.
   Q. Have you not felt a desire that the prisoner's counsel should succeed
in preventing a trial on the indictment ?
   A. Believing  the prisoner to be insane, I cannot think him a fit subject
to be tried  for murder.
   Q. Whose books are these in the hands of the prisoner's counsel ?
   A. I  think a considerable number of them belong to me.
   Q. You  furnished them, then, that they might assist the prisoner ? 
116
THE TRIAL OF
  A.  I sent them to Governor Seward at his request, as I would to any
other counsel who should desire it.
  Q.  You referred to the case of Kleim.  How do you know that he never
asked any questions ?
  A.  I had him with me two  years, and he never asked any of me; and I
asked his keepers and they told me  he never asked them any, so that he
never asked any questions to my knowledge ?
  Q.  Is not the asking of many questions pecuHar to a certain class—to the
Yankees, as they are  called ?
  A.  I think not peculiar to the Yankees, although it has been so stated.
I however think it a slander. The EngUsh, as a general rule, ask more
questions than we do.
  Q.  How is it with  the Turks ?
  A. I have no acquaintance with them.
  Q.  How is it with  the North American Indians ?
  A. I am under the impression  that they talk among themselves, yet  per-
haps not as much as other nations.
  Q. May not his Indian maternity explain his taciturnity ?
  A.  I do not attach much importance to the fact that the prisoner is  part
Indian, because the testimony shows him to  have been sociable.  Colored
people are generally sociable.
  Q.  Do  you know  that Freeman never asked questions since the time
when it is said this change came over him ?
  A.  I am speaking of him more particularly since he came under my ob-
servation.
  Q.  Then you think he may have asked questions ?
  A.  Of course I do not believe he  never asked questions, but that gene-
raUy he did not.
  Q.  You have spoken of his smUe.  When  a man smiles how can you teU
what he smiles at ?
  A. I cannot tell with certainty, yet when the juryman, now smiHng, smUes,
I presume he can tell why, and yet the prisoner cannot.
  Q.  How do you know that the prisoner's smile is without a prompting
motive ?
  A.  I am not omnipotent, and, therefore, do not know.
  Q.  Do you not suppose he has thoughts ?
  A.  I dare say he has many queer thoughts.
  Q.  Suppose he thought there was a good joke going on here, would it not
be natural for him to  snule ?
  A.  If he understood a joke he naturally would.
  Q.  Suppose he should happen to think of hooking eggs sixteen years a<*o,
might he not smile ?
  A.  Yes, he might, but I regard his constant smiUng as indicating insanity,
rather  than a recollection of hooking eggs. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
117
   Q.  Suppose he thought he was blowing us all up in this trial, would he
 not smile ?
   A.  If he knew what was meant by such a remark he might.
   Q.  Would not a sane man smile if he thought so ?
   A.  Why, if a sane man thought so, he might, yet I think a sane man sit-
 uated  as Freeman is, would not be very apt to say so, nor to smUe at it.
   Q.  I understand you to adhere to the opinion that an ordinary medical
 man cannot judge of insanity?
   A.  I do not go to that length,  exactly.   I think as I have said, that they
 are not as competent as those who have made insanity their study, although
 they may be more competent, perhaps, to judge of other diseases.
   Q.  What do  you think of Dr. Bigelow's capacity and opportunity for
judging of insanity ?
   Objected to and overruled.
   Q.  What should you say of the capacity of a doctor forjudging of insan-
 ity, who, like Dr. Bigelow, has been in practice twenty-six years, and seven
 years physician and surgeon to the State Prison ?
   A.  I should believe that opportunity would render him more competent,
 if I did not have reason to suppose that he has not been consulted in the
 early stages of insanity.
   Q.  But is not such an opportunity a good one for detecting insanity ?
   A.  I do not think the opportunity great.  As he does not see the patients
 constantly, my impression is that Dr. Bigelow's opportunities are not the best
 for judging of the disease.
   Q.  But he has charge of the hospital and free access to aU the convicts
 daily.
   A. But he goes to the prison periodically.  He does not reside with his
 patients.
   Q.  Suppose him to be an experienced, discerning man, as he is ?
   A. I should think him a good  physician, and a very judicious man; but
 I do not think him much of a judge of insanity.  He told me that he was
not called to cases, generaUy, in  the prison, until he had been told that a
man was crazy.
   Q.  But in such cases where he is caUed to decide the question does it not
furnish experience for detecting insanity ?
   A.  I think experience in detecting feigned insanity would enable him to
judge better.
   Q.  Suppose a man to be caUed upon only to see those who are not crazy,
but who pretend to be so ?
   A.  I should think that would give him some experience.
   Q.   Of all the men in the Lunatic Asylum, how many do you see, until
they are brought there crazy ?
   A.  But few of the cases;   yet I  am often consulted by letter before
they come. 
118
THE TRIAL OF
  Q.  Where moral insanity exists, is the inteUect also diseased ?
  A.  My opinion is, that there is always some disturbance of the intellect,
where the passions are diseased, although it may be slight.  There are oth-
ers, however, who think otherAvise.
  Q.  Have  you not seen cases where no derangement of the intellect was
discoverable ?
  A.  I think there was a case, from the western part of this State, in which
I did not detect it, although I had him six  months with me; but  I think it
was from lack of time.
  Q.  Even  although the prisoner's  passions may be diseased and deranged,
do you know that his inteUect is ?
  A.  I am confident that it is.   He is partially demented.
  Q.  What kind of insanity is this  delusion about pay that you speak of?
  A.  It may be monomania so  far as that  alone is concerned, yet I think
dementia is the leading trait of his disease.
  Q.  The one may exist without the other, I suppose ?
  A.  Yes; monomania may exist without dementia.
  Q.  What is the line of demarcation between the two ?
  A.  It cannot weU be defined.
  Q.  But does not dementia take place after some preceding form of insanity?
  A.  Dementia is a stage of insanity.   Sometimes it is  instantaneous, de-
pending upon a great many circumstances.
  Q.  Have  you many cases of dementia  in the Asylum ?
  A.  We don't see much of it there ; we endeavor to cure them.
  Q.  How soon after insanity commences before the patient arrives at the
stage called  dementia?
  A.  There is no rule as to the length of  time before a man  becomes de-
mented.
  Q.  How soon after you think Freeman became deranged do  you think he
became demented ?
  A.  I cannot say.
  Q.  When do you think .the delusion came on ?
  A.  I am not able to say, further than from the testimony.  I  think he was
under a delusion when he came out of prison.
  Q.  Do you think stealing hens any evidence of insanity ?
  A.  It may or may not be.  If you (Mr. V. B.) should rob  a hen roost
to-night, I should think you were crazy.
   Q.  And the same of the other counsel, I suppose ?
   A.  Yes;  for it would be equally strong.
   Q.  Is not malice a motive for mischief and crime ?
   A.  I think it is.
   Q.  May not a sane man act from that motive ?
   A.  I can readily conceive of a sane man acting from a bad heart. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
119
   Q.  Suppose a man should steal and wind up with a murder, would not
malice be the most natural inference ?
   A.  Upon those facts only, I should infer nothing about the question  of
sanity or insanity.
   Q.  Suppose a man should fire a gun into  a  crowd of people, and kill
several people, and you were informed that he had previously said he in-
tended to do so, on these facts alone,  what would you infer in respect to his
sanity ?
   A.  If you (Mr. V. B.) should do that act, I should think you insane.
   Q.  Suppose I should saw off the posts of a rail road bridge so as to en-
danger the  lives of passengers  who  crossed  it, would you infer maUce  or
insanity ?
   A.  I should think you deranged.
   Q.  Do you believe in Dr. Haslem's theory, that all men are unsound ?
   A.  I do not.  I have seen men who had sound minds.
   [Witness further continued in substance as upon the traverse.  See trial.]
   The prisoner's counsel then rested.
   James Cannon was then  called and sworn for the people, and testified
as follows:  I am a  constable, and attended this court  as such during the
trial of Henry Wyatt.  During the time of the trial of Wyatt, Daniel Smith
was in  court.   He sat on the west side of the house, near  the wood box.
Dr. Brigham came across to that part of the house, as he was walking about
the room.  He walked  considerable during that trial.   As he came up to me
I said to him, " there is an insane man," pointing to Smith.  He turned his
head, looked at Smith, nodded his head and walked off.   He did not look
at him a great Avhile.  I think it was before Dr. B. Avas sworn on that trial.
   Cross Examination.—Q.  When was the  Doctor  sworn on Wyatt's
trial?
   A.  I can't recollect the day.
   Q.  At about what time ?
   A.  Near the last of the trial.
   Q.  When was the last of the trial ?
   A.  WeU, last Friday or Saturday a week ago.
   Q.  Did it end then ?
   A.  I think it did.
   Q.  Were not counsel engaged on Monday and Tuesday in addressing the
jury ?
   A.  Don't know but they were, come to think of it.
   Q.  What did you  say to the Doctor ?
   A.  I spoke and said, Doctor, there is an insane man; any one can see he
is insane.   He turned and looked at him, and nodded his head.
   Q.  When did you first state this ?
   A.  Yesterday.
   Q.  To whom ? 
120
THE TRIAL OF
  A.  To Thomas F. Munroe.
  Q.  What makes you think it was before the Doctor was sworn ?
  A.  Because he was walking round, and I supposed he wanted a seat  I
offered to give him a seat.
  Q.  Well, does that define the time ?
  A.  My impression is that it was about that time.
  Q.  How do you know it was before the Doctor was sworn ?
  A.  Why, I  think I compared Smith with the prisoner when I  spoke to
the Doctor.
  Q.  Did you hear his evidence ?
  A.  Yes, sir, I heard it
  Q.  What was his testimony ?
  A.  It was,  I think, in regard to insanity.
  Q.  Was there any witness on the stand at the time ?
  A.  I cannot answer as to that
  Q.  Was one of the  counsel speaking ?
  A.  I think not.  My impression  is that it was before he swore.
  Q.  Might it not have been this week ?
  A.  I am confident it was not this week.
  Q.  Who sat on the seat with Smith ?
  A.  No one.
   Q.  Were there ladies in court at the time ?
   A.  I think there were.
   Q.  Was the court house full at the time ?
   A.  I can't tell how full it was; about as to-day, I think.
   Q.  Are you acquainted with Dr. Brigham ?
   A.  That's  the only time I ever spoke to him.
   Dr. Amariah Brigham, by permission of the court, was recaUed to the
 stand and testified:   I have heard, with some surprise, the testimony of the
 witness Cannon.  He may have sworn  correctly in respect to the time, but
 I have a distinct recollection that I saw Smith in the court room before any
 person pointed him out to me, and that when I saw him I noticed the ap-
 pearance  of insanity.
   The people then resumed.
   Dn. Thomas Spencer, recalled for the people, testified as foUows:
   Q. Have you heard all the testimony in this case ?
   A. I think I have, as I have been in attendance on this trial very  con-
 stantly.
   Q. Have  you given careful attention to aU the testimony bearing upon
 the question of his sanity ?
   A. I have, and taken notes.  I have also made an analysis of this case
 with more care than I have ever bestowed on any medical question.
    Q. From  all the evidence you have  heard, as well as the analysis by you
 made, what is your present opinion as to the  sanity of the prisoner ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
121
  A.  I entertain the opinion which I have before expressed, that there are
none of the essential symptoms of insanity in his case.
  Q.  Will you give your reasons for that opinion ?
  A.  The question resolves itself into the determination of three things in
the investigation :
  1 st  What are the facts which prove insanity ?
  2d.  What are the facts which prove sanity ?
  3d.  What are the facts that prove the insanity  of crime ?
  These questions are the very nicest in medical science, and require a more
careful analysis than any other.  When we distinguish between two diseases
so as to name the one or the other, and say that it is present in the system,
we call that naming of the disease, the diagnosis.  To be true, this must be
founded on true facts.  I therefore Avill abbreviate and repeat the definition
of facts given yesterday.  What I mean by fact, is a self-evident proposition,
and hence appeals to the common sense of every rational mind.
  Facts are truths of matter or of mind.
  False facts  are untruths of matter or of mind.
  Facts of opinion are facts founded in truths of matter  or the right reason
of mind.
  False facts are untruths founded on false facts of matter, or wrong reasons
of mind.
  Delusion is a term often used as  defining insanity.
  Delusion is a Avrong conclusion drawn from any facts,  right or wrong.
  False facts or false facts of opinion, by right reason,  always lead to false
conclusions.   False  conclusions are called opinions,  and should be more
properly called delusions, because always such.   The sane and the crimin-
ally insane have Hke delusions.
  I will, in the first place, confess  my OAvn delusion in respect to this case,
by  way of illustration, and then of some other delusions.
  The first opinion which I formed, which is  frequently called an  opinion
or conclusion, was that the prisoner was probably  insane.  It was, however,
a delusion, and was founded upon a description given me of the facts by one
of the  most respectable citizens of this place, whilst riding upon the railroad.
My second delusion in this case was, if he prove insane, that the prisoner was
sane.  This delusion, if it prove to be one, was when we had partially tra-
versed the issue.   This enables me at this time to define two terms found
every  where in the medical books on insanity.   These terms are " illusions"
and " hallucinations."
  " Illusions" are false impressions produced upon the mind, resembling pre-
cisely  impressions made upon the external senses, as when we dream we
hear noises or see sights.  When seen in waking hours, they are part of our
day dreams, and the higher degree of day dreaming is a  hallucination.
  " Hallucinations" are false thoughts taken as realities.   In dreaming, hallu-
cinations and iUusions are always  mistaken for the realities of things.   For 
122
THE TRIAL OF
example, if we dream that we see a horse, it is an illusion; if we dream Ave
purchase a horse, it is a hallucination.   In  night dreams, both are taken as
realities.  In day dreams, Ave soon correct the error by our other senses, or
by the power of reason.  Insanity is equivalent to a night dream in this re-
spect ;  every thing is taken for a reality.
  In a strict  sense of the word, night dreams  are not always delusions,
because some minds have performed high acts of reasoning,  such as mathe-
matical calculations, and  awake to write  out the conclusion, and when so
written out, such calculations have been found  in  waking hours to be the
truth and not delusive.
  From these  definitions, it will be perceived  that the  minds of men can be
in all states; of sleep, of healthy wakefulness, of insanity, of sanity, and of
criminal insanity.  By this  enumeration it will  also be  perceived  that the
mind may  be in every possible condition ;  and every of these conditions is
to be found in the two forms of insanity and the  one form of sanity which I
have designated and described.   The question whether  Freeman is insane,
must be determined by an approximation resembling the approximation in
mathematical calculations, where we can never reach a perfect result.  Ev-
ery thing depends  upon  comparison, and  in  determining which symptom
occurs  most or least in the several forms of mental condition—insanity, sanity,
and criminal insanity.
  With these facts classified, if we find  them describing the case of the par-
ticular individual, we may name the case sanity, insanity or criminal insanity,
according to the proof derived from the facts.  To borrow a figure for illus-
tration : in order to reach a conclusion which shall not  prove a delusion, we
may liken the process, not to a city set on a hill to guide  the night wanderer
by its  thousand lights, but to a search in the deep,  dark  forest, guided only
by the track of the Avild deer or the path of the savage,  to the rich mine of
truth that  lies  in its darkest  recesses.   To such rules of reasoning have I
confined myself in this most responsible investigation.
  In order to  ascertain the physical diseases  of the body,  it is necessary to
understand its structure thoroughly, by dissection, as a point of comparison,
in order to understand its diseased condition, because each organ has some
symptom, peculiar to itself when diseased.  It may be called the language
of symptoms.   So the mind needs dissection, or to be understood in its seve-
ral faculties, as so many points of comparison,  to determine its diseased con-
dition.  I propose a very brief reference to the several faculties  of the mind
as points of comparison.
  The faculties of mind may be divided into three  classes,  all conspiring as
one  whole, to govern human action;  and may be  called  " involuntary,"
" partly involuntary," and " voluntary"  faculties of  mind.  These terms are
comparative, and mean, least voluntary,  intermediate, and the  most voluntary
operations of mind.
  When the " involuntary" operations of mind are  the seat of disease, so as 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
123
to render an individual unconscious of what he does, he is irresponsible for
his actions.   This is " insanity" in its highest degree.  In the other tAvo forms
of mind, sanity and criminal insanity, conscience still holds its control over the
mental operations.  This is therefore the balance wheel, between the volun-
tary and involuntary operations of mind, ahvays whispering(to the sane and
criminally insane, right, or wrong, before every action.  This  then is the di-
vision Hne,  between right or wrong, in human  action; the one is voluntary
and the other involuntary.  The  sane act under the direction of the under-
standing, in subordination to the force of reason, comparison  and judgment,
which may be called the moral faculties.  These faculties having sat in judg-
ment upon  motives, the will is exercised under the whisperings of right or
wrong, made by conscience.  I will subdivide them.
  I  hardly  need say what I mean by sensation.  It means  an impression
upon the eye, ear, or any other organ of sense, received into the mind.  Un-
der  this, as the first range of faculties, I  have  only to enumerate them, to
have them understood.  The more prominent  are, hunger—thirst—love of
society—love of children—love of money—love of combat.  We have under
this category, also, anger—revenge—fear—joy and love, as passions to excite
the affections or propensities.  These give spring to motives.
  I have before spoken of whisperings of conscience, and the balance of un-
derstanding, as the guide  to will.  By " will"  I mean the mental faculty,
which puts  the body or mind in action.  Besides conscience, as an interme-
diate faculty, we have three others, conception,  imagination, association.  As
voluntary operations of the mind, we have attention, perception, memory,
understanding, a point I have before  reached, with conscience as a guide to
human  action.  By conception,  as an intermediate  faculty, is meant  the
springing up of any impression previously  made upon the mind through the
organs of sense.  In sleep, those impressions appear as reaHties; conception
gets up illusions  in sleep, and  realities in waking  hours.  It may be called
the stark-thought of mind.   Imagination, or imaginary thoughts, are excited
by the passions of anger, hunger, and joy,  and  are a succession of thoughts,
passing through the mind,  without much connection, and naturally involun-
tary.  When asleep, such thoughts appear as realities, and are hallucinations.
Thoughts of imagination are incoherent thoughts.  If a man were ploughing
with his oxen turned towards the plough, it would appear  like reality, in
sleep.
  But now  for reality, in a singular though real shape.   The description of
the Dutchman's horse is an Ulustration.   He lost his horse.  Whether he had
run away, or was stolen, he couldn't say.   He described him thus : " When
he stands up to  the stable, his head comes first; when the boys plague  him
mit the pitchfork, his tail comes first."  This would be a reality.
   I  come next to the other intermediate faculty of the mind, called associa-
tion.  This is partly voluntary, and partly involuntary, by which ideas be-
come grouped together in some natural relation.  If drawing  a horse  and 
124
THE TRIAL OF
carriage, we should generally place the horse's head first.   Of the voluntary
operations of the mind, attention is the power of concentrating our thoughts
upon our sensations, or objects of thought; it may be considered the ear of
mind.
  Perception is the apprehension of a thing by the mind.  Tt may be called
the eye of the mind.  The subject of sensation, or of thought, Avhen received
by the memory, is committed to the powers of the understanding, called com-
parison, reason and judgment.
  I have thrown upon paper a rapid analysis of the most prominent symp-
toms of insanity.  They are strange sensations  mistaken  for realities-
strange sights and noises—strange thoughts—strange illusions—strange hallu-
cinations—delusions—expressions—incoherent  thoughts—unreasonable  ac-
tions—impulsive actions—steady fury or intermittent fury—steady incohe-
rence  or  intermittent incoherence of  thought—intermittent confusion of
thought—continued confusion of thoughf^violent chaos of thought—simper-
ing chaos  of thought—partial destitution of thought, or  inabiUty to start a
thought.  One of these symptoms occur in aU  cases of insanity.   I do  not
think a case  can exist without exhibiting  one of these  symptoms.  Atten-
tion, weakened or suspended, is the  more common symptom.  Comparison
difficult—feeHng of embarrassment in the head—lies unconsciously—reasons
right  from imaginary thoughts—reasons  wrong  from truth—reasons  and
judges wrong on all things, because conscience has lost its influence.  When
a person is bereft of reason, he justifies all his  acts—while reason remains,
or in some forms of insanity, he reasons not at all.   Calm action alternates
with impulsive action—calmness steadily, such as prisoner has in this case.
Truth-tellers become liars unconsciously—disclose and express regret at his
impulsive intention to commit acts criminal in the sane.   When he has furi-
ous mania, he threatens and acts simultaneously; may be conscious or  un-
conscious of  what he does.  Makes odd expressions.  The insane may be
steadily grave, or steadily cheerful;  he may be exceedingly restive, or quiet
as a lamb—carelessly indifferent, to  acts criminal in  the  sane; more rarely
the insane exhibit extraordinary skill in their plans.   The faculty of combi-
nation is confused, or may  be suspended—builds castles in the air—feels no
remorse of conscience—or occasional glimmerings of conscience are displayed
on most subjects, or none—and passion rules the muscular actions.  I state
MY OWN BELIEF HERE, THAT NO CASE OF INSANITY EXISTS AVHERE THE
INDIVIDUAL IS IRRESPONSIBLE, UNLESS THE PASSIONS  ARE DISEASED TO
SOME EXTENT.
   These constitute the prominent symptoms of insanity, mixed up together.
There  are others of a subordinate  character, which are not  necessary, as
points of comparison.  I propose to read the more prominent points of crim-
inal insanity.  It comes on sloAvly—the person is mischievous—cheats a Httle
—swears—lies—steals, then lies  again—the symptoms mix up together,  and
grow Avorse—he suffers from dreams—restiveness, asleep or  awake—sleep- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
125
lessness—starts journeys nights or Sundays—loiters in bar rooms—meets hale
companions—has frightful dreams—has night-walkings, or voluntary somnam-
bulism.  If at a tavern, he sleeps awake, because conscience pricks, or be-
cause he tries to turn day into night—feigns calmness, especially when plan-
ning crimes—carefully arranges time, generaUy for the night time—place—
instrument, and  companions, if any ; carefully plans  an escape; all things
are then ready for crime—arson, theft or death.  Those are some of the more
prominent symptoms.  I would then state here that I have carefully draAvn
up the  very symptoms of insanity and sanity in parallel columns, and re-
curred to them mentally.
  I believe that care required this mode of examination in order to make
an opinion conclusive; although in a  case not involving life and death, I
should have found but little difficulty in coming to a satisfactory conclusion,
I kept careful minutes of the testimony, and at each point in the  progress,
noted down their relations to  each of the faculties of mind I have defined,
and to the symptoms of sanity and insanity, as they were arranged in my
mind.   The result at which  I arrived was, that all the  faculties of
MIND WERE POSSESSED, IN A DEGREE, RENDERING  FREEMAN A  RESPON-
SIBLE BEING.
  The first witness  called, Mr. Curtis, testified substantially to Freeman's
agitation when  he went into the cell.   At the time of this agitation he an-
swered, they intended to kill him.  Why kill  the child?  Some feeling was
exhibited in the  ansAver, Didn't kill the child;  State owed him for five years
labor—some body had  got to pay him.   He beHeved him more of a knave
than a fool, when a boy.  Putting aU these  facts together, he (Curtis) came
to the conclusion that he had idiocy or insanity, or a mixture of both.  Here
we find exhibited in  these facts the passion of fear, or as he testifies, feeling.
I wouldn't make much  of that.  Somebody had got to pay him. I  infer that
love  of money, as a means of getting something to eat and drink, was a desire
remaining in Freeman.   This would imply concealment, or forgetfulness, or
errors of recoUection on the  part of Freeman.   The balance would be in fa-
vor of sanity from that symptom, because concealment  is more common to
the sane, than to the insane.  He  told  Mrs. Godfrey  he had been  in prison
five years; did not steal the horse, and wanted a settlement.  The same ev-
idence of love of money is obvious then.   Any one with common sense wUl
decide whether it is on the side of sanity or insanity.  It is answered by the
question, " Which is most provident, the sane or insane ?"
  The witness Green thought he had not much intellect.  He said he would
rather not give an opinion.   He was good at blowing; was  a half-pay man;
he had not much success in teaching him to read.   Those facts would imply
smaU intellect.
  Mr. Hopkins stated that he got the idea of heaven that it was above. He
thought from what he said that the Savior still remained on  earth.   On the
question of who  ought to pay, he thought  all ought to pay ; looked as if ex- 
126
THE TRIAL OF
pecting pay.   That Avould seem to imply the love of money-  Then Avhether
the one standing by ought  to  pay ?   He replied  Ave'll do what is right
about it.  That Avould seem to imply a knowledge of right and wrong as a
fact.  He thought him a monomaniac on the subject of pay for services in
the prison.  Witness draws inference from these facts that the prisoner la-
bors under a form of monomania, which implies  partial mania, partial mad-
ness, in opposition to furious madness, the highest form of mania, character-
ized, in its usual form, by hallucination on some particular subjects.  Allow
me to make the distinction between them.   Hallucinations  in our Avaking
hours are soon corrected  by the sane.   Delusions, on the contrary, which
are founded upon false facts, or facts of opinion, are  very common  to  the
sane.   For instance, if this witness is right, his conclusions should be desig-
nated in strictness, an opinion.  If Avrong, it should receive the name of de-
lusion.   The witness or myself must, therefore, labor under  a  delusion, be-
cause one or the other must have made up that  opinion upon false facts, or
false facts of opinion, or both.  Which is  right ?  Truth is always consistent
with itself.  Freeman cannot be both insane and sane.  Here  is the  advan-
tage of my tiresome definitions.
  There are three forms of insanity; mania, monomania, dementia, and some
add, idiocy.  This brings me to a point where I need to tell Avhat monomania
is, as a point of comparison in this case with the words or actions of the pri-
soner.   The symptoms of monomania are illusions or errors  of the senses—
hallucinations or errors  of thought, and delusions founded thereon—that is,
unusual things or thoughts get up the feeling of reaHty in the patient, just as
much as Avhen illusion or hallucination occurs in dreams.  If upon one sub-
ject, it is called monomania.   In this case I would appeal to the common sense
of every one who hears, whether Freeman has had strange  sights or heard
strange noises, or had unusual thoughts as the foundation of his belief.  I
have listened to the testimony with great attention, and have found neither
of these present, nor any errors of sensation as to the sense of sight or sound;
I have not been able to discover a single one; they are among the most com-
mon symptoms, and the other symptoms characterizing monomania present.
Incoherent connections  of thought are the subjects in monomania, that  is, if
the love of money be the subject, confusion of thought, incoherence and sin-
gular action would be developed, when his mind Avas turned  to that subject.
   The prisoner had one singular thought on the subject of pay: that "all of
them ought to pay," as he had expressed himself.  It means the people.  That
must either be  a delusion to which the sane are alike  subject,  or it must be
a hallucination.  Which is it, a delusion or hallucination ?   He always con-
nects with it the stealing a horse.  In a low mind, the nice distinction Avouldn't
be drawn between the people's having imprisoned him rightfully or Avrong-
fully.  We should most of us say that was a delusion  of the mind of Free-
man.  A mind like his would readily make him believe he ought to have his
pay; a wrong conclusion founded on a right opinion, and grounded on a false 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
127
original fact.  It, therefore, comes under my definition of a delusion founded
on false facts.  Mr. Hopkins considered him a monomaniac.  A conclusion,
therefore, founded upon such a false fact is valueless.   In saying that  " Ave'll
do what is right," he showed the power  of distinguishing between Right and
Wrong !!   Monomaniacs are generally impulsive when the patient is moved
by any thing which usually arouses the passions; all the ideas on that sub-
ject become confused and incoherent, and it is no uncommon circumstance
for all the poAvers of the mind to be involved in great confusion for a time,
by any exciting cause.  In the calmer moments the patient will be only de-
ranged upon the particular subject; at other times on all subjects.   Such is
the general character of monomania—such its general  aspect as a disease,
especially when it assumes that  exalted state  called homicidal  monomania.
Is it homicidal monomania, or criminal insanity ?  Here comes a nice distinc-
tion, for several have avowed their belief that it was monomania.   Are these
opinions truths, or are they delusions ?  The farther symptoms of homicidal
monomania, as laid down in the books, are these :  First, that the patient acts
from the sudden impulse of the moment.  On the contrary, a sane criminal
generally acts  deliberately, arranges the time, place, instruments, accompli-
ces, if they have them;  do every thing with deliberation ; scarcely an excep-
tion can be found to the general fact, that  such  insane patients as commit
homicide, at  once  confess what they have done.   They frequently,  by no
means generally, and perhaps, half the time, disclose  their intentions before-
hand.  The mother is suddenly taken with an impulse to kill her own child;
in her lucid moments, she shudders at the thought;  discloses her intention,
and asks her friends to  prevent so terrible  an  act.   Man, guilty of crime,
rarely discloses, except to confidants.  The homicidal  monomaniac confesses
his crime, if it can be called crime.  The sane criminal conceals his crime ;
he confesses his crime as honestly as  the insane, when he gets caught, and
can't escape punishment.   These are  the facts of medicine and law, as laid
down by writers, and according to my own observation.
  Apply these principles to this case and how stands the balance?  So far as
the facts  of Mr. Hopkins  go, the circumstances and facts considered alto-
gether, are very much on the side of homicide, resulting from moral  depra-
vity.   Has conscience lost its influence over his mind ?  The next witness was
Wm. P. Smith. Smith considers him a man of limited ideas.  Why go so
far to kill ?   " Stand a better chance to fight"—" sorry I killed the child"—
" looks kind  o'hard." ' There is, then,  the same ideas with respect to pay;
the avowal to fight until he died ; about the liver; sent to prison wrongfully,
were the leading thoughts.   The  answers as to child, imply the remains  of
conscience; that he could stand a better chance to fight, away from a thick
population, the evidence of reason.  Moral depravity, not insanity, are infer-
able so far as these facts go.
  The opinion that this witness gave, that he could not distingush  between
rio-ht and wrong, being founded on false facts, was a delusion of the witness. 
128
THE TRIAL OF
Justice  Paine's testimony, of whom he wanted a Avarrant;  State Prison;
didn't steal; repeated denial; appeared in a passion;  said he was abused;
must have satisfaction; threw tAvo shillings at the Justice.   My marginal in-
ference  was  " love of money, revenge," in balancing the account.   Here is
the passion of anger, strongly developed; a sudden impulse, one of the lead-
ing characteristics of mania.  The common sense of the jury  avUI determine
whether this is the result of revenge, and love of money.  The leading facts
of Mr. Parsons were, enquired for an Esquire's office.  Why ?  " Wanted
to get damages; explained that he was deaf; wanted a warrant for the man
who put him in Prison."   Whether the mistake between an  Esquire and a
Justice is not sufficient to account for this, I need not say.
   Sally  Freeman next: " talking; laughing boy ; learned to read in speUing;
opinion  that he is entirely changed; dull; didn't talk."  That shows a great
change  of character; that is a strong  evidence of insanity.   She thought
him insane.   Whether the change from boyhood to manhood, and deafness,
would account for the change ?   In jail, the prisoner wanted counsel; Mr.
BostAvick asked him, Had you an accomplice ?  No.   Were you told that
Van Nest helped to get you in prison ?   No.  Asked who he wanted for his
attorney ?  "I don't know the lawyers."  Wouldn't take pay of Murfey J
would have  all, or wouldn't take any.   Hope of escape, from wanting an
attorney, implies a reason, and a good reason.
   Mary Ann  Newark: says  he was a  smart, active boy;  after prison, re-
quested  her to speak louder; proposed to  board; woman poor;  wouldn't
say any  thing, only ansAver questions; would do his work.   She accounts for
his " acting queer" because he was deaf.  To compare  the patient with him-
self as well as with others, is important.   The Avitness was under a delusion,
or she thought right.  My marginal references  are, "  he reasoned like oth-
ers ; he  was faithful; and taciturn because deaf."  But she states one of the
strongest symptoms of insanity.  The prisoner should have the whole advan-
tage of it, viz: The prisoner appeared to be in a hurry; he appeared to act
from impulse.  Just as he was going to start out, he was in  a hurry.   This
fact, in medico-legal science, implies insanity.  What else is there to balance
the account ?  The person acting in this hurry, asked what  he  should do ?
There is deliberation as well as hurry.  He stopped to put snow in the tub.
My marginal query, is—was it the impulse of insanity, or the hurry of san-
ity?
   It accords with the laws of mind that the impulses of insanity should not
thus alternate with deliberation.  In drawing my balance, therefore, I should
put it on the  side of sanity.  If he acted from impulse, was it  that of mania ?
Dementia has no impulses, except sudden ones.  Time, place, instruments,
are generally carefully arranged  in the sane.  Freeman carefully threw his
knife  out of the window.  The truth of science, therefore, tells  me that all
these  acts, coupled with the facts of the case developed by  legal  scrutiny,
could not have been done  but by  a sane mind. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
129
   Deborah Depuy testified: Does not talk of his own accord; dull; changed
 from boyhood;  deafness.  These, as points of comparison, are sufficient to
 account for them on established principles of physiognomy.
   Doctor Hermance said: Reasons for- murder same as others; wouldn't
 pay.   He believed prisoner was insane, because there was apparent sincerity
 when  he spoke  about pay; dull; ear-dropped.  Ear-dropped is a singular
 expression.  In the ordinary sane, when  they spoke  of pay for being in
 prison, it would appear as an absurdity; it would seem to be a delusion.  In
 this case, he had argued himself into the belief that he ought to have  his pay
 by a  false  course of reasoning, connected  with his confinement in  prison.
 This opinion of  Dr.  Hermance should, in my view, be caUed a false fact of
 opinion, or a delusion.
   Robert Freeman next called : " Heard well when a boy; movements never
 very  quick;  slow;  same as  other  boys; playful; often played  with him.
 Changes—head  down; don't appear like the same boy."   Compare an or-
 phan boy with a man grown, from  ten to twenty-one, and with the fact of
 his present deafness.
   John Depuy observed that he was " Smart, lively, active, danced, could
 throw any boy." He also describes some of the most general symptoms of
 insanity, "  dancing, getting up nights, talking to himself, believing he was in
 a real  fight Avhen there was no one to fight  Avith."
   My  marginal  note is—illusion, hallucination, delusion, revery,  (revery is
 a waking dream.)  As illustrating the laws of mind, I would state this fact,
 that for a moment I  had this Ulusion in my mind—that of seeing the negro
 dance, or hearing him sing;—the hallucination that it must have been a real
 dance; and hence an opinion, which should always  be based upon true facts,
 that it was a dance.   That opinion was a delusion.  This  I can but state,
 was, for a short  period, the pleasantest period of the trial on my mi'nd.  I
 didn't  stop  to reflect.  I felt the strong feeling of joy that I had reached cer-
 tainty in relation to this poor prisoner's insanity.  A little reflection satisfied
 me that this joyous period was delusion.  I Avas looking with anxious solici-
 tude for the symptoms of insanity, if existing.  The symptoms as described,
 (although the symptoms  of insanity,) in general are found in other forms of
 insanity besides  those already noted; they  are  common to mania, but not
 confined to any of the four forms of insanity described in medical  books.
 They  are alike  the  symptoms  of drunkenness, which I have not studied
 specially as a disease.  I thus account for  my own temporary false  fact of
 opinion.  It was just as good an opinion as any one  founded upon false facts.
 The thought  that I had seen drunken  men frequently sing and dance and
fight, coming up  in my mind, corrected the whole delusion.  The insane,
monomaniac,  demented person, or idiot, can make no such correction.  At
this point, I would state that no medical man on the stand has expressed the
opinion that  this is  mania; or, mania with lucid  intervals of incoherent 
130
THE TRIAL OF
thought.  Upon this point, I will say there can be no doubt that he  is free
from mania.  Furious raving is all the definition I need to give of mania.
  Doctor Briggs asked, " Why commit murder ?"  Bill,  like the yankee,
asked, " Why did they put me in  prison for nothing ?"   This Avas a delu-
sion ;  but Avas it the delusion  of a demented person ?  Opinion, insanity;
after alluding to " eating liver," and perhaps other facts, Avhich I have not
abstracted.  These reasons for murder were all unsatisfactory to Dr. Briggs'
mind.   His opinion corresponds Avith Doctor Van Epps', next called ; except
Doctor Van Epps expressed the opinion that it Avas dementia and  idiocy
combined.  This Avas founded on  all the facts he had heard ; and the fact
that Freeman said, " they said I was crazy in prison."   When desperate acts
are performed, they glory in  telling  them;  sometimes talk considerable.
These were the leading facts of Dr. Van Epps.
  True facts  and false facts of opinion.—First intervieAV of Rev. John Aus-
tin—religious feeling.  Second interview, to ascertain what  relations Free-
man's crime had with Wyatt's trial—eleven answers to questions, all pertinent.
Why he killed Van Nest, put repeatedly ; no intelligent ansAver.   Why he
kUled Van Nest when not  active in getting  him in prison.   His being in
prison is the sole idea to which his reason referred, to get pay.  Had seen
Mrs. Godfrey, and tried to get pay; had been wrongfully imprisoned and
wanted  to get pay; had caUed on BostAvick and Paine to get pay;  Freeman
had also called on Bostwick and Paine to see if something could not be done
about pay; got no satisfaction  from them.  Is it right to visit the  deeds of
one on another ? no definite ansAver; right to kill child ?  shook his head in
token of "No."   Why begin at this house ?   I Avent along and thought I might
begin there;  liver; stones  in  ears; ear dropped; incoherent; Testament
given by Mr. Austin.  How many would you have killed ?  A great many
if Avrist had not been cut.   Do you knoAv they hang folks for  killing ?   Yes.
What do they do to folks that kill ?  Hang 'em; if you will let me go this
time I will try to do better.  This  was a strange state of mind.
  Marginal inferences—Reason, memory, revenge, or pay.   Acted by shake
of head, as sane  say, No.   Then with respect to the  thought, I thought I
might begin there, and to the liver, I have in a  marginal  note—Illusion or
defect of memory.  Deaf persons are  Hable to illusions of hearing; blind
persons imagine they see  sights they do not.  He  must have remembered
the words he heard, or the Avords  must have been an illusion.  It is pro-
bably an expression he has somewhere  heard, and called up by association,
when committing the murder.
  He was asked if he would Hke to have Gov.  SeAvard defend him ?   Yes.
Didn't first understand  until after repeating  and varying  phraseology; he
then answered, yes.
  As indicative of the state of the mind of the  prisoner, I have in a marginal
note—fear; hope; conscience; intention;  attention; understanding; me-
mory;  comparison;  righter or better reason;  moral poAvers, such  as  all
reasonable beings possess. 
                           WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       131

   I have, under the head of " motives"—Had he a motive to get clear ? and
 the ansAver is, " Yes."
   Demented persons could not understand and give so correct  answers as
 those made to Mr. Austin, in one ease of a thousand; nor do IbeUeve, from
 what I know of medical science, they could give such answers at all.  What-
 ever form or degree of dementia, my own opinion became here fixed, still
 making a voluntary effort to give attention to every point of testimony on
 the other side of the question;  and had I  been summoned, as in one case of
 my past life, to  prove the insanity of the prisoner, I should have  announced
 to his counsel that I had no reasonable doubt of it.
   Take this with  the general  fact which was stated upon the  affirmative
 yesterday, that  the prisoner was  sane, that I did  not believe  any insane
 person Avould fix his attention, and understand or comprehend, and, by the
 power of memory and association, give answers so exactly correspondent as
 those I had heard given on the various examinations of  the prisoner made
 by myself and in  my hearing,  I feel  as Httle doubt  on the question of the
 prisoner's sanity, as I have felt in distinguishing ordinary diseases in my
 professional practice.  The reason is, that I have  derived my  conclusion
 from facts instead of false  facts.   I have  found from facts, in this case, the
 evidence of the healthy exercise of every faculty of the mind.
   Q.  In arriving at  this conclusion have you taken into consideration all
 the  testimony in this case ?
   A. I haA-e, and have analyzed it all with great care.
   Q.  Has the  investigation removed aU doubt from your mind  that the
 prisoner is perfectly sane ?
   A. The scrutiny, so far as I can judge, has been impartial on my part,
 and conducted according to the strictest method of induction Avhich should
 form the foundation of all medical facts of opinion.
   Q. What chair do  you at present occupy in the Medical College ?
   A. That  of Professor of the  Theory and Practice of Medicine, but have
 collaterally lectured on Medical Jurisprudence.
   Q. Have you given particular attention to the subject of insanity ?
  A. I have.  It has been a subject of  engrossing attention with me for
 several years.
   Q. Have you from your examinations and the evidence, proof  of the full
 exercise by  the prisoner of each and every faculty of the mind ?
  A. I have ; yet that his  morals are blunted as in  men of feeble intellect.
  Q. How do you determine that the system is diseased ?
  A. To say that a disease exists,  we must find some of the essential as weU
as the occasional symptoms of a disease.
  Q. Are not diseases of the mind manifested in such a way as to be ob-
servable ?
  A. They  are manifested  through the brain and nervous system.   Insanity
may be dependent on a disease of the more  soHd parts of the brain,  or a
derangement of its functions. 
132
THE TRIAL OF
   Q. When called as a witness to determine a question of sanity, can you
 determine it in any way other than by Avitnessing the operation  of every
 faculty ?
   A. We commonly determine it by a shorter method.   We  look to the
 symptoms of insanity, and if we find most of them present, we take  it for
 granted the person is insane.
   Q. Are you from reading or from observation acquainted with the Indian
 mind?
   A. I have some acquaintance with them, and have observed their pecu-
 Harities.
   Q. Have you studied the Indian  character  so as to be able to give its
 leading traits ?
   A. Many of them, I can.  I lived several years near the Oneidas.
   Q. What is their character in respect to taciturnity ?
   Objected to and objection sustained.
   Q. What is their character in respect to ansAvering questions briefly yet
pertinently ?
   Objected to and objection sustained.
   Q. Have you observed the smile of the prisoner ?
   A. I have, occasionally.
   Q. Can you say whether it is indicative of any pecuHar kind of insanity ?
   A. I cannot draw any conclusion from it that is worth much. It resem-
bles  very much the demented smile.
   Q. Can you determine from the physiognomy whether a person is insane
or not, and if so, the kind of insanity that exists ?
   A. I cannot.  In lecturing,  I tell my class that they should visit patients
in the day time and at night, so as to see their condition and appearance,
but not to place their principal reliance on appearances.
   Q. Do negroes tan in the  sun ?
   Objected to and objection  sustained.
   Q. Do they grow pale by imprisonment ?
   Objected to and objection sustained.
   Q. Doctor, is there any feature more expressive of disease or of passion
than the eye ?
   A. I do not think of any feature that is more so; others might think dif-
ferently.
   Q. Is the eye more expressive of insanity than all others ?
   A. I cannot answer that.
   Q. Is insanity an epidemic disease ?
   A. I have never  considered it particularly so, yet all diseases are liable
 to become epidemic.
   Q. Have you ever known a case Avhere insanity has been epidemic ?
   A. I never have known an  instance where it prevailed as such.
   Q. Do you regard the fact  that the prisoner cannot read, but thinks he
 can, as any evidence of insanity ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
133
   A. It is one of those irregularities  that others might consider as some
evidence of insanity, but Avith me it has but very little weight.  Those born
blind cannot be taught the character of objects of sight so as to understand
pictures as those who see can.   They  compare them to objects of hearing,
tasting, smelling, or feeling, or some of the senses.   Ask them what a pic-
ture is like, and they Avill perhaps teU  you, the sound of a trumpet.  Chil-
dren, who have not learned to put sentences together, when set to read will
get up a mummery in imitation of reading, resembHng that of the prisoner.
He had poor opportunities for learning, and therefore could not be expected
to read, and would imitate in that respect a child.
   Q. What do you think of his determination to get pay ?
   A. I think it a delusion.
   Q. Of what character ?
   A. From  all the  evidence before me, I consider that it arises from his
having  associated the idea of having been imprisoned wrongfully with the
idea that the laborer is worthy of his hire, and that he tried to get his pay.
   Q. But concerning the kUUng  to get pay, how do  you think his delusion
was in respect to that ?
   A. It is a common-place remark that every one must have heard among
boys, if one makes an  assault upon another, " I'll pay you for that." It is
equivalent to revenge.
   Q. Do you regard an intention to get revenge for a conceived injury  as
evidence of insanity ?
   A. I do  not.  Persons aggrieved or insulted very frequently  make use
of the expression, "I'll have satisfaction," which means, "I will avenge the
wrong."
   Q. Upon the subject of dementia do you discover any evidence of it in
the prisoner ?
   A. I have not, except that his powers of mind are below that of ordinary
men.
   Q. How do you define dementia ?
   A. Feebleness of intellect  and incoherence, define dementia better than
any two other words.
   Q. Is incoherence an invariably attending symptom of dementia ?
   A. It is so rarely absent that I cannot, from any thing in my reading or
experience,  believe that dementia can exist without it.  It is the very word
by which some define the disease.
   Q. Is there not absurdity in the idea that the prisoner is demented ?
   A. Absurd thoughts and incoherent thoughts mean very different things.
Absurd thoughts have come before me in  the evidence, but very Httle of in-
coherence.
   Q. Do the books which are regarded as authority on this subject, mention
incoherence as an essential symptom ?
   A. They do; and it should be regarded as  an essential symptom. 
134
THE TRIAL OF
   Q.  Have not all diseases some essential symptom ?
   A.  They have.
   Q.  Are you confident that there is no incoherence in the prisoner ?
   A.  I have not heard one answer evincing incoherence, where the ques-
tion Avas understood and within his  comprehension.
   Q.  What are the other essential symptoms of dementia ?
   A.  Forgetfulness, incomprehension, irrationality and inappetency.
   Q.  Have you discovered any want of memory in the prisoner ?
   A.  I have found as few instances of failure of memory as I have ever found
in any other individual, and yet, ill most cases, it is the first symptom.
   Q.  Have you discovered any want of comprehension in the prisoner ?
   A.  I have not, except that which arises from his deafness.
   Q.  Have you discovered any other symptom of dementia in the prisoner ?
   A.  Several symptoms have been observed that would, if standing  alone,
get up the surmise that he  was insane, but of them there is not one symptom
Avhich is not common to a sane mind.
   Q.  Did you examine the prisoner Avith  Doctors Doane  and Brigham ?
   A.  I did.
   Q.  What is the standing of Dr. Doane  in the  medical profession ?
   A.  He is a man of considerable celebrity  as a writer and translator.
   Cross Examination.—Q.  What was Doctor Doane's opinion about the
insanity of  the accused ?
   Objected to, and objection sustained.
   Q.  If the attorney general should go to-night and steal hens, what would
be your opinion of his sanity ?
   A.  Not doubting but that it might be a supposeable fact, I would not make
up any opinion.
   Q.  Suppose you were required to  make up an opinion ?
   A.  Taking his character as I know it, I should say it would be an evidence
of insanity.
   Q.  Suppose he should arise here and fire a gun into this crowd, what state
of mind would it indicate ?
   A.  I should think it a much greater evidence of insanity than to steal hens.
   Q.  Why so, Doctor?
   A.  Because he would be much more likely to da the latter.   I should put
such an act in  one side of my balance ?
   Q.  What would you put in the other ?
   A.  I cannot get up the symptoms on the other side.  It would be the ab-
sence of symptoms of insanity.
   Q.  If you found him in possession  of memory sufficient to answer thirty
questions coherently, would that balance the account ?
   A.  No;  it would not.
   Q.  If you found an appetite for chickens, and that he was hungry, would
that account for it ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
135
  A.  Yes; if he Avas likely to starve.
  Q.  Doctor, in your opinion which of these portraits has the most expres-
sive features ?  (Counsel here presents the witness  with Rees' Encyclope-
dia.)
  A.  In one figure the mouth, in the other the eyes are most expressive.
  Q.  Then you think there is expression in the mouth?
  A.  I should think a negro's mouth and lips Avere as expressive as his eye,
but as a general rule the eye is most expressive.
  Q.  Speaking metaphorically, as you have, has the mind any nose ?
  A.  I have not studied bumpology sufficiently to answer that question.
  Q.  Speaking metaphorically, as you have in relation to the eye and ear
of the mind, has the mind any mouth ?
  A.  I do not know as it has.
  Q.  Was Paradise Lost  Avritten under the excitement of hunger or anger V
  A.  I neA'er supposed either.
  Q.  Was the tragedy of Hamlet ?
  A.  I have never supposed so.
   Q.  Do you consider Paradise Lost a coherent work ?
  A.  I do.   It is a work  of reason combined with imagination and volition.
  Q.  How is the tragedy of Hamlet ?
  A.  In that there is an imitation of incoherence.   I think it is coherent in-
coherence.
   Q. Was either of them composed under the excitement of joy ?
   A. They were deHberate, no doubt, although compositions of that charac-
ter excite the feelings.  Poets are, therefore, more  frequently found in Lu-
natic Asylums than mathematicians.  AU exciting  pursuits are more likely
to lead to derangement than others.
   Q. How do poets compare with mathematicians or reasoning men as to
their liabUity to become insane ?
   A. They are more prone to insanity.
   Q. Do you know of any  poet in this country that ever was confined in a
mad house ?
   A. I do not.
   Q. What faculty or power of the mind moves the mouth in taking food ?
   A. Hunger excites the motives, and the wUl influences the muscles.
   Q. What faculty moves the feet in walking ?
   A.  The will.
   Q.  What faculty moves a horse to open his mouth to take his oats ?
   A.  The will.
    Q. What is it that induces a horse to move when driven ?
   A.  His will, or the will of the driver, both combined.
   Q.  Has the horse the involuntary faculties you have ascribed to men ?
    A.  Some of them; the instructive faculties are as strong as in men.  They 
136
THE  TRIAL OF
 possess the faculty of voluntary motion ;  have a limited understanding—no
 reason—some comparison—do not know how much.
   Q. Have you ever seen an insane horse ?
   A. I have seen an insane horse, cow, and other animals, when affected
 with hydrophobia.  All the mental faculties of the horse, that do not belong
 to the human species, may be deranged, but none that belong to the human
 species exclusively.
   Q. Are quakers more liable to insanity than other men ?
   A. I should think they would be less so.
   Q. Do they more often manifest the symptoms of what you call criminal
 insanity ?
   A. No;  much less.
   Q. Do they travel on Sunday more than other people ?
   A. I don't know, indeed.
   Q. Can you refer to a case of insanity that you have seen or read ?
   A. I have read the case of Abner Rogers.
   Q. Was he, in your opinion, insane ?
   A. I consider his a case of insanity.   In his case there was the fullest evi-
 dence of it.
   Q. Have you  any evidence  that he could answer questions more cohe-
 rently than Freeman ?
   A.  I think so, but I don't know.
   Q. How were RabeUo's powers of memory ?
   A.  I never made it a special point of examination.  A great many insane
 people give correct answers until you happen to hit the vein of insanity.
   Q.  What is the characteristic of RabeUo's  case ?
   A.  I cannot say. I cannot remember the names, but mean to remember
the facts of cases.
   Q.  Did the case of Rogers show the case of  one insane  who was capable
of performing much more labor throughout than Freeman ?
   A.  I believe it did.
   Q.  If the prisoner thought the Van Nest's had something to do with get-
 ting him in prison, when he killed them, did he act under a delusion ?
  A.  He probably did.
   Q.  Was it an insane delusion ?
   A. No, sir.
   Q.  Why Avas it not an insane delusion ?
   A.  Because we have no evidence, in the testimony in the case, that he
 either believed it or imagined it to be true.
   Q.  Suppose the prisoner was insane, and knew the Van Nest family had
 nothing to do with sending him to the State Prison  yet slew them for the
 reason that he believed they had, was he under a delusion ?
  A.  The question is absurd, and I am not bound to answer it.  I will re- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
137
 call that remark.  An insane man cannot believe that which he knoAvs to be
 false.  He mistakes imaginary for real thoughts.
   Q. Suppose a man Avho kneAv he was not the King of England, but avIio
 supposed he was, having the imagination that he was King, to give notice to
 his Secretary of State that he was, what Avould you think of that ?
   A. It involves an absurdity.
   Q. Suppose a man beHeved that he was the Savior, and under that  im-
 pression committed a crime, would you say that he Avas insane ?
   A. I don't recollect to have heard of such an instance.
   Q. Would it be an insane  delusion ?
   A. Upon a question of that kind I  avUI not venture an opinion until such
 a fact transpires.
   Q. If a  man were to believe himself the Savior of  the world, would he
 then be under a delusion ?
   A. He would.
   Q. Would it be a delusion peculiar to the insane, or  belong, according to
 your classification, to criminal insanity ?
   A. I should hardly imagine that the criminally insane could get up such
 a belief.  It would be a delusion and would be a strong indication of insanity.
   Q. Could a sane man indulge such a delusion ?
   A. I should  think it involved an impossibUity.  If a  man should teU me
 he thought so, I would'nt beHeve him.
   Q. Have you ever seen an insane man under that delusion ?
   A.  I have.
   Q. Can a sane man indulge such a belief ?
   A. I cannot think he can.
   Q. Why?
   A. Because it involves the attributes of the Deity, which are above men.
   Q. Do you believe that there are  Avomen, besides Victoria, who believe
 they are Queen of England ?
   A. I do.
   Q. Are  such women sane ?
  A.  No one perfectly sane can indulge that delusion.  One partially sane,
if she had the bump of ambition largely developed, might.
  Q.  Why cannot a perfectly sane woman believe so ?
  A.  Because she cannot believe and disbelieve at the  same time.
   Q.  What is the reason that a sane  man, who beHeves that the  Van Nest
family had nothing to do with putting him in prison, cannot be under the
 delusion that they did, and slaughter them for that reason ?
  A.  Because it is impossible for a sane man to beHeve  what he don't know.
  Q.  If you dream you see a horse is it a hallucination  ?
  A.  It is.
  Q.  If you dream you see a horse is it an illusion ?
  A.  The horse is an image then, and is an illusion when seen in dreaming. 
138
THE TRIAL OF
  Q.  If you dream you buy a horse is that an illusion ?
  A.  It might be both hallucination and illusion.  The image and the ab-
stract idea would be a compound of the two.   They cannot well be separated.
  Q.  Is every self-evident proposition a fact ?
  A.  It is considered so.
  Q.  Are all facts self-evident propositions ?
  A.  Not necessarily so.
  Q.  Did you state to the jury that by facts you meant self-evident propo-
sitions ?
  A.  Not as a general thing.
  Q.  Can insane men think ?
  A.  Yes, and a great share of the time involuntarily;  and that is the very
essential fact in those cases.
  Q.  Can an insane man have attention ?
  A.  He can.
  Q.  Can he conceive ?
  A.  Yes, and apprehend.
  Q.  Can an insane man apprehend correctly ?
  A.  He can, in a high degree, on some subjects.
  Q.  Can an insane man have memory ?
  A.  His memory can never be perfect.
  Q.  Can his memory be inappreciably impaired ?
  A.  I presume such a case might exist.
  Q.  Can an insane man have hunger and thirst ?
  A.  Certainly.
  Q.  May an insane man exhibit anger and revenge  ?
  A.  Yes; they perform acts indicating these.
  Q.  May insane men have understanding enough to comprehend the ten-
dency of their actions ?
  A.  They can, but not Avhere conscience is gone.
  Q.  May insane men have fear ?
  A.  They may.
  Q.  Do they exhibit prudence ?
  A.  They often do.
  Q.  Is there any act of the mind but Avhat is common to both ?
  A.  There can hardly be said to be any.
  Q.  Do insane men write poetry ?
  A.  They frequently do.
  Q.  Do they compose orations and essays ?
  A.  They do, and often with ability.
  Q.  Do they plan escapes ?
  A.  There are such cases on record.
  Q.  Do they plan murders and execute them ?
  A.  They have murdered their keepers. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
139
  Q.  Can they compare ?
  A.  They often do, yet that faculty is generally very much impaired.
  Q.  Can an insane man have method in his madness ?
  A.  Yes, but it is  not usual.  You cannot find any thing in the sane but
what occurs in the insane.
  Q.  Do the insane often think others so ?
  A.  Man is a bundle of absurdities, and no Avonder the insane should con-
sider others insane.
  Q.  Is an insane man  Hke a sane man sometimes awake and  sometimes
asleep ?
  A.  The same in that respect, but the characteristic is that insanity is a
continued day dream, unless lucid intervals happen.
  Q.  Have you not likened insanity to night dreams also ?
  A.  I have  likened insanity to night dreams—the mistaking imagination
for fact.
  Q.  If a man take false things for true, is that insanity ?
  A.  That is one of the strongest evidences of insanity.
  Q.  Is there any symptom that is not an invariable symptom ?
  A.  I never would rely upon any one symptom.
  Here the testimony closed.
  During the examination of the witnesses, numerous questions  of interest
arose, which  were argued  and  decided, but which have not been noticed
here,  for the reason that the testimony which was the same as upon the tra-
verse has not been fully reported.  It is presumed that they are measurably
unimportant to medical men, and as they are clearly indicated in the opinion
of Mr. Justice Beardsley, lawyers are referred to that paper for information
respecting them.  [See opinion of Supreme Court, granting a new trial.]
  Mr. J. Van Buren then addressed the jury in behalf of the people, and
Mr. W. H. Seward for the prisoner, concluding at a quarter past eleven,
P. M., on the 4th day of July, when His Honor, Judge Whiting, charged
the jury substantially as follows:

                   JUDGE  WHITING'S CHARGE.

Gentlemen of  the Jury:
  The prisoner has been indicted by a grand jury of this county for the
murder of John G. Van  Nest.   Upon being brought into court to be  ar-
raigned on that indictment, counsel acting in his behalf interposed for him a
plea that the prisoner is in a state of insanity.   The district attorney denied,
ore tenus, the truth of that plea, and thus formed an issue preliminary to any
further proceedings upon the indictment.
  By the statutes of this State,  it is humanely provided that no insane per-
son shall be  tried.   Insanity is a disease which so far impairs the  mental
faculties and  powers, that, whilst it continues, the victim is not supposed to 
140                          THE TRIAL OF
 be capable of answering to a criminal  charge.  No insane person  can be
 tried, sentenced to any punishment, or punished  for any crime or  offence
 whilst he continues in that state.   [2 R. S., 582.]
   To try that question in the case of the  prisoner, you have been empanelled
 and sworn, and after the court shaU have discharged their duty, you  will
 proceed to determine the fact according to the evidence.  The rules of law
 which the court may suggest for your guidance in this case,  may serve to
 direct you in  your investigation.  From your patient attention during  this
 protracted trial, I cannot doubt that your minds are duly impressed with the
 importance of this question, as well to the prisoner as to the people.   Human
 life probably hangs upon the issue.
   Although the examinations of witnesses have taken a wide range, and have
 developed a  large  portion of the entire  history of this prisoner, the only
 question for you to determine is, whether he is at present insane.  If insane
 for any cause, or upon any subject, he cannot be tried upon the indictment.
 The evidence of the fact attending the alleged murder, his flight and arrest,
 as weU as his former  conviction and imprisonment, has  been given,  not for
 the purpose of determining his guilt as upon a traverse of the indictment,
 but for the purpose of  exhibiting the life and  conduct of the prisoner as
 bearing upon the issue of present insanity.  In that view you wUl consider
 it, leaving the question of whether he was sane or insane on the twelfth day
 of March, to be settled hereafter, in case you find him sane now.
   The law presumes  every man sane untU the contrary be proved.  It is,
 therefore, a fact to be  proved, Hke any other fact, to the satisfaction of a
jury.   To establith the fact of the prisoner's insanity, it must be proved that
 he is laboring  under such a defect of reason from disease  as not to  be able
 to distinguish right from Avrong.  If some disease is the acting power within
 him which he  cannot resist;  or if he has  not sufficient use of  his reason to
 control his passions;  if he is dispossessed of  the free natural agency of his
 mind, he  is insane, and cannot be tried.   Or if his moral and inteUectual
 powers are so deficient  that he has not  sufficient memory, will, conscience,
 or controlling power,  or if through the overwhelming violence of mental dis-
 ease his intellectual power has for the time been obliterated, he is not to be
 placed on trial for his acts.   Does the proof in this case bring the prisoner
 within this rule ?
   The  classification of insanity by learned men has no  influence  in deter-
 mining the question.  If he be insane, the form of that insanity is not mate-
 rial, for the result must  be the same.  Ignorance is not  insanity.  The law
 does not require any degree of knowledge to render a person responsible,
 beyond a knowledge  of right and wrong.  The  evidence of the prisoner's
 insanity is derived from  three sources, viz :  from comparison, from facts, and
 from opinions of medical witnesses.
   It would be idle to decide upon the soundness of his mind by expecting
 or looking for knowledge and inteUigence in him about matters of which he 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      141
had never learned.  He  must be taken in his own grade of life and intelli-
gence to determine whether in that he has reason, judgment, memory, and
consistency of conduct.   If compared Avith other men, those Avith whom he
is compared should be of his own grade, ignorant and uneducated, but yet.
Avho have a knowledge of right and wrong, and whose lives and conduct are
under the control of conscience and reason, although in a low decree.
  From  facts in the case.   The facts from which  the evidence  tending to
shoAv his insanity is principally derived,  are those which  relate to  his ap-
pearance and conduct; to the change in him since his boyhood ; to his read-
ing and  counting-, to his hearing; to the breaking the knife in prison ; to
his resistance of authority, his punishment and his complaints while there;
to his sleeplessness ; to his buying the steak; to the family insanity; to his
stupidity; to his ignorance and indifference to his fate and the proceedings
on this trial; to his habits of silence; to the expression of, and smile on, his
countenance;  to his want of early education ;  to his former conviction and
imprisonment; to  his protestation of innocence; to his claim for pay and its
refusal;  to the blow which he received with the board; to his conduct after
that circumstance  ; to his persistence in •♦he beHef that he should be paid for
his time; to the murders because of refusal to pay him ; to his larceny of the
horses; to his riding into Mrs. Godfrey's yard; to his denial of the larceny
to Amos and others; to  his denial of the murders; to his  being confronted
with the dead and with his accusers;  to his committal to jail; to his confes-
sions  there and the manner of them; to his  simplicity ; to his  memory of
events and to his taciturnity of manner and his mode of answering questions.
All these have been aUeged to bear upon the question of  his present  insa-
nity.   You will consider them, and judge of them as you Avould of other facts
bearing  upon the reason  of human action.  And, gentlemen, you should also
inquire whether the prisoner is under a delusion.   [The judge here presen-
ted them the case  of Kleim, tried at the  Oyer and Terminer in New York,
and explained his case,  and submitted to the jury whether the acts of the
prisoner were the effect  of delusion, or of unsound and erroneous judgment.
The judge then continued.]  The jury should consider the proof in regard
to the prisoner's uniform assertion that his conviction and imprisonment had
been wrongful and unjust, because he was innocent of the crime of stealing
the horse; his opinion that he ought to be paid for his  time in prison;  his
demand of that pay of Mrs. Godfrey ; her refusal of that payment; his ap-
plication to magistrates for process to  compel payment, and their refusal of
it; his declaration that the  people had taken his time  and labor from him ;
that there was no law for him.  Also his preparation of the fatal knife ;  his
conduct on the night of the  murder; his concealment of the weapons under
the wood; his answer to Doctor Bigelow's question, what he did in the house
after hiding his weapons, " nothing, but I stood  round there and thought
about it. I didn't know what to do, but finally I thought I'd go any how."
 All these matters  are facts reHed upon by the counsel acting in behalf of the, 
142
THE TRIAL OF
 prisoner, as tending to prove the prisoner insane.   You will consider the
 testimony on  the  subject, and give to them the force and importance they
 deserve.
   We now come to the opinions of medical Avitnesses.  The opinions of pro-
 fessional men  on a question of this description are competent evidence, and
 in many cases are entitled to  great consideration and respect.   This is not
 peculiar to medical  testimony, but is a general rule alike applicable to  all
 cases Avhere the  question is one  depending on  skiU and  science in  any pe-
 culiar department.  In general it is the opinion of the  jury Avhich is to go-
 vern, and their  opinion  is to be formed upon the proof  of facts laid before
 them.   But some questions lie beyond the scope of  the observation and ex-
 perience of men in general, but are quite within the observation and expe-
 rience of those whose  peculiar pursuits and  profession  have brought  that
 class  of facts  frequently and  habitually under their consideration.  Upon
 this ground, gentlemen, the opinions of Avitnesses Avho have been conversant
 Avith insanity in  its various forms, and who have  had the care and superin-
 tendence of insane persons, are received as competent evidence, even though
 they have not opportunity to examine the particular patient and observe the
 symptoms and indications of disease at the time of its supposed existence.
 It is designed to  aid the judgment of the jury in regard to the influence and
 effect of certain facts Avhich lie out of the observation and  experience of per-
 sons in general.  And such opinions, when they come from men of great ex-
 perience, and in  whose correctness and sobriety of judgment just confidence
 can be had, are of great Aveight and  deserve the respectful consideration of
 a juiy.   But the opinion of a medical man of smaU experience, or of one who
has crude or visionary  notions, or Avho has some favorite  theory to  support,
is entitled to but Arery little consideration.   The value of such testimony AviU
 depend mainly upon the experience, fidelity, and impartiality of the Avitness
 Avho gives it.
  The opinions of persons not  educated to the profession,  but who have been
so situated as to  haA*e given particular attention to  this disease,  and to pa-
tients suffering under it, are also competent evidence, but not to the same
 extent as those of  medical men of the same experience.  The evidence de-
rived  from all  these several sources should be appHed to the condition of the
prisoner's mind,  at the  present time, and is received Avith that view.
  A large number of Avitnesses have been SAvorn on both sides.   Their testi-
mony is  voluminous.  I cannot believe  it necessary to detain  you Avith its
reading.  Indeed, the day is nearly spent, and the reading of it Avould carry
us into  the Sabbath.  You wiU determine this case, not  by the  number of
the Avitnesses  on either side.   The amount of their knoAvledoe, their integ-
rity, and every thing that gives Aveight  and value to testimony, should be
considered ; and if, after carefully weighing the evidence in this'light, under
the responsibiHty of your oaths, you arrive at the conclusion that  he is in-
sane, you will return such a verdict to the court; if not,  then you will find 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
143
 the prisoner at the bar sane.   Take the matter into consideration, and let
 your verdict be such as  God and your consciences shall approve.  Be just
 and fear not
    To this charge the counsel for the prisoner excepted.
    The Judge  concluded his charge at fifty-five minutes past eleven o'clock
 p. m.  Two constables  were sworn to keep them, &c, Avhen his Honor re-
 marked to them that in case  they should  agree upon a verdict, the  court
 would convene on the next day to receive it.
    On Sunday, the fifth day of July, 184G, the court again convened between
 the hours of eight and nine a.  m.  The jurors then came into court  atten-
 ded by the said constables, and were inquired of by the clerk Avhether they
 had agreed, to Avhich  they replied " Ave have not."
    His Honor,  the circuit judge, then inquired Avhat the difficulty Avas among
 them ; whether it  was a disagreement as to the evidence, or  any  thing the
 court could remove by further advice.
    One of the jurors, in reply, stated that it was not a disagreement as  to the
 eA7idence;  that they stood eleven against one in opinion.
    Mr. Davis, one of the jurors, remarked that he Avas the one dissenting.
 He did not believe the  prisoner was a responsible agent; that although he
 Avas'proved to have memory and knowledge of events, he had not been proAred
v to have made  an induction of reason.  He, therefore, could  not agree to  a
 verdict of " sanity."
    His Honor then  remarked to the jury that in his desire to compress his
 charge on the night before, he had omitted one suggestion  upon a point men-
 tioned in  his charge,  but from the lateness of the hour he had forgotten to
 speak of it as he had intended.   It was the evidence of his guilt as laid in
 the indictment.   The prisoner is not on trial before you on that charge, yet
 the evidence Avas deemed proper for the purpose of comparing the knowledge
 of the prisoner with the knowledge of other persons of the same facts; and
 if his knowledge of many of these facts corresponds with others knoAvn to be
 sane, then the jury were to say whether the prisoner did not disclose a state
 of mind sound and sane as to those matters.   And so of other events and
 transactions of his life.   If he shows  a knoAA'ledge and memory coinciding
 with the knowledge and memory of others  known to  be sane, the jury are
 to  say whether that is, or is  not, evidence of sanity.  Insanity is  unsound-
 ness of mind; a change of character from soundness to unsoundness.   It is
 alleged that the  prisoner has dementia.   Instances  of this condition of the
 mind are doubtless familiar to some of you,  in cases of extreme old age,  where
 the mind and memory have decayed and lost their power.  If the prisoner
 have that form of insanity, when did it occur, and Avhen did the change take
 place ?  The  main question for the jury to decide is Avhether the prisoner
 knows right from avrong.  If he does, then  he is to be considered  sane.
 I do not believe that there is evidence of delusion, as there is  proof that it is
 common for convicts  to claim pay for being confined. 
144
THE TRIAL OF
   One of the jurors here obserA'ed, " such is the opinion of the jury."
   He further said it Avas important that the jury should agree upon a ver-
dict, and it was the duty of the court to keep them together until they agreed.
Your verdict is for the information of the court,  and hence, the  court  may
confer with you with more freedom than in a case where your verdict would
be final as to the guilt or innocence  of the accused.  The sheriff will pro-
vide you with  refreshments, which, with a walk in the fresh air after your
night's confinement, the court hope will enable you to deliberate further, with
a desire to arrive at unanimity.
  These  remarks were excepted to by the  counsel  for the prisoner.  The
judges then retired from the court house until eight o'clock, p. m., of the
same day.  On taking their seats at that hour, the jurors were  called and
interrogated by the clerk as to whether they had  agreed  upon a verdict,
Avhen the foreman delivered to the court a verdict in writing, as follows:
  " We find the prisoner sufficiently sane est  mind and memory
to distinguish between right and wrong."
  His Honor directed the jury to render their verdict orally, whereupon
the foreman declared the same verdict orally to the  court, and being poUed,
each answered that it was his verdict.
  The prisoner's counsel, who had just arrived, then requested the court to
reject that verdict, and to instruct the jury  to find a verdict upon the issue
raised by the plea of insanity, i. e., whether the prisoner is " sane or insane."
  The court refused, and counsel excepted.
  His Honor, the circuit judge, directed the clerk to  enter the  verdict as
rendered, saying that it Avas equivalent to a verdict of sanity, under the rule
laid down in his charge.
  Excepted to, and court adjourned to nine o'clock the next morning. 
TRAVERSE OF THE INDICTMENT.
              THE ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA.
  On the morning of the sixth day of July, 1846, Luman Sherwood, Esq.,
district attorney, moved the court  that the prisoner be brought in and ar-
raigned upon the indictment for the murder of John G. Van Nest.
  Mr. Seavard felt obliged to oppose the motion.  A plea of present insanity
had been interposed in behalf of the prisoner, upon which an issue had been
joined.  UntU that issMe shall have been disposed of,  or a verdict of sanity
found, he denied either  the propriety or the right of the court to require the
prisoner to plead.
  Mr. Van Buren replied, that although the jury had not found a verdict
of sanity, in form, they had in effect, and the court had so decided.
  His Honor, the circuit judge, observed that the court would not hear an
argument of that question.  It was for the court alone to say Avhether they
were  satisfied that  the prisoner was sane. The verdict, although not pre-
cisely a verdict of sanity in form, was  that in substance, and the same had
satisfied the court that the prisoner should be tried.
  Decision excepted to.
  The motion of the district attorney was granted, and the prisoner was
brought by the sheriff to the bar.
  After reading the indictment, the District Attorney, in a very loud tone
of voice, asked the  prisoner if he demanded a trial upon the same, to which
the prisoner answered " No."
  The prisoner was asked if he had counsel, to which he replied " I don't
know."
  The prisoner was then asked if  he was able to employ counsel, to which
he answered " No."
  His Honor, the circuit judge, then  directed the clerk to  enter for  the
prisoner a plea of " Not Guilty."
            MOTION  TO POSTPONE THE TRIAL.

  Mr. Si:ward moved the court that the trial of the prisoner be  put over
the term, and in support of his motion read the following affidavit:
Cayuga Oyer and Terminer :  William Freeman, ads. the People.
  Cayuga County,  ss :  William H. Seward, of Auburn, in the county 
146
THE TRIAL OF
of Cayuga, counsellor at law, being duly SAvorn, saith, that William Freeman,
the prisoner at the bar, is a person of a mind so feeble  and a knowledge so
limited as to be  absolutely unable, in the belief of this deponent, to make,
with requisite  understanding, any deposition or perform any other legal act.
That from the most careful  personal inspection of the prisoner which this
deponent has been able to make, and the best judgment he has been able to
form from the  testimony upon the preHminary issue in this cause, this depo-
nent beHeves, without any reservation, that the prisoner at the bar was insane
at the  time of committing the offences alleged in the indictments, and re-
mains in that condition.
  This deponent further says, that it seems to have been judiciaUy estab-
lished on the preHminary trial in this cause,  and this deponent believes, that
the natural feeling of indignation excited by the prisoner's inhuman homi-
cides, sweUed by other circumstances, rose so high on the arrest of the prisoner,
that it was only by  the most diligent efforts of the- poHce that he was saved
from being the victim of the blind  fury of the people.  That that popular
indignation has by no means  so far subsided, in the beHef of this deponent,
as to leaAre any ground of hope that at this time a jury of twelve indifferent
and unprejudiced persons could be found in this county.  That  any trial
which could now be had, however fairly conducted by the court, would,
in the beHef of this deponent, be but a hollow form, unless by  mere ac-
cident some cool, dispassionate persons might find their way into the jury
box.
  This deponent further saith, that the  trial of this cause requires witnesses
unpaid, numerous, and some of whom reside at a distance.   That so far as
this deponent  knows, several of the prisoner's witnesses who have been in
attendance, have withdrawn  under the supposition that, having testified on
the preliminary issue, their duties were ended, and without any expectation
of being  obliged  again to attend a court which has  exacted a large portion
of their time during five weeks;  and that A. Sidney Doane, an important
and, as this deponent believes, an indispensable witness, could not be pro-
cured to  attend this court, but could be procured at a future time.
  This deponent further says, that his client is cast upon his help now, more
helpless than ever.  That this deponent could not reHnquish his defence to
any other of the  members of  the bar who are wUling to assume it, without
what would seem  to be very great danger to the  defence.  That this depo-
nent's engagements require him to attend the supreme court which  commen-
ces its session this  day at Utica.  That other professional business,  not
inconsiderable, has  been necessarily neglected by him absolutely for five
weeks past, in consequence  of his  attendance on  this court in behalf of
prisoners who  needed the highest professional  effort without being able to
render any reward. That this deponent's private affairs  of extreme im-
portance are suffering from neglect, and that he can truly say that his health 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
147
and strength have  been already so severely taxed that he is apprehensive
they will be insufficient to sustain him through the fatigue and labors of a
more protracted session of this court.
  This deponent doth, therefore, for his own sake, for the sake of his imbe-
cile and insane cHent,  and for the sake of pubHc justice and of humanity,
most humbly ask and implore that these indictments may be continued until
another term of this court.                WILLIAM H.  SEWARD.
  Sworn before me this sixth day of July, 1846.
        Philip Van Arsdale,
                        Clerk of Cayuga County.
  Mr. Van Buren opposed the motion, and insisted that the trial proceed
without further delay.   It was true that it  might disoblige the  counsel, but
he did not beHeve, and therefore would not concede, that the excitement
raged so high but  that an  impartial jury might be obtained  in this case.
Sufficient had been already developed to  render it obvious that the trial
might be had in a very short period of time, unless the prisoner's counsel
saw fit to protract  it by a defence of insanity.   The public demanded the
trial of the prisoner, and he must protest against any postponement.
  Mr. Seward felt constrained to say that the public did not  demand the
trial of this man until he could be fairly tried.   Whilst the blood of  Free-
man can never atone for the homicides, it can never satisfy pubHc justice nor
make amends for the wrong of forcing him to be tried by men  who have
partaken of the excitement which the Fleming tragedy has occasioned.  Let
it be  remembered that the prisoner is incapable of any act respecting his
defence, and is without capacity to name or the abUity to obtain witnesses.
  Motion denied, and decision excepted to.
  Mr. Seward then moved that the indictment be quashed, and interposed
a plea that John O'Hara, one of the grand jurors, who found the same, was
at the time a brother-in-law of John G. Van Nest.   He then read the fol-
lowing affidavit:
Cayuga Oyer and Terminer :   William Freeman ads. the People.
   Cayuga  County, ss:   Christopher  Morgan, of counsel for the defend-
ant, in the indictments above mentioned, says that the said defendant is
unable, by reason  of mental imbecility, to make a deposition, as  this depo-
nent  believes.  That John O'Hara, one of the grand jurors named in and
who found the said indictments, as deponent has been informed and believes,
was son-in-law of Mrs. Phebe Wyckoff, brother-in-law of John G. Van Nest,
brother-in-law of Mrs.  Van Nest, and uncle to  George W. Van Nest, aU of
whom are alleged in the said indictments to have been murdered by the said
defendant                            CHRISTOPHER MORGAN.
   Sworn before me, this sixth day of July, 1846.
             Philip Van Arsdale,
                        Clerk of Cayuga County.
   Motion denied, plea overruled, and decision excepted to. 
148
THE TRIAL OF
  The court then ordered that the prisoner be put upon trial.
  Mr. Seward requested that other counsel might be associated with Mr.
Morgan and himself on the defence.
  The court appointed David Wright, Esq., as associate counsel, and ordered
a jury to be empanneUed for the trial.
  The prisoner's counsel thereupon interposed the folloAving chaUenge.
       CHALLENGE  TO THE ARRAY OF THE  PANEL.

 Cayuga Oyer and Terminer:  AYilliam Freeman, ads. the People.
   And now at this day, that is to say, on Monday, the sixth day of July, in
 the  year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred  and forty-six, came as
 well the aforesaid WilHam Freeman, in his proper person, as the People
 aforesaid, by Luman Sherwood,  Esquire, district attorney  of the  county of
 Cayuga, and the jurors aforesaid,  also come, and hereupon  the  aforesaid
 WiUiam Freeman  challenges  the array of the panel, because he says that
 Richard Searing, of Venice, a juror duly returned by the supervisor, town
 clerk and assessors of his town, to the clerk of the county of  Cayuga, as  a
 suitable  person  to serve as a juror according to  law, and who was duly
 drawn, empanneUed, summoned, and returned, and who appeared at this
 court as  a juror, and answered to his name as  such, and the ballot of whose
 name was put into the jury box to be drawn in drawing a jury for this cause,
 was, without notice to the said WilHam Freeman, in his absence, irregularly
 and unlawfully, without application by the said Richard Searing, or by any
 person in his behalf, or by any person whomsoever, discharged from attend-
 ance as a juror, by this court.   And that the order of this  court, entered in
 the minutes thereof, for the discharge of the said Richard  Searing, and the
 facts therein recited, are untrue and false, and this he  is ready to verify.
 Wherefore, he prays judgment and that the panel may  be  quashed, &c.
   To which challenge the district attorney pleaded the record of the said court
 in the following words, to wit:
   " It having appeared satisfactorily to this court, that Greenfield Iden and
 Richard  Searing are members of the society or rehgious  denomination  of
 Friends, and whose opinions are such as preclude  them from finding a de-
 fendant guilty of an offence punishable with death,  the court discharge them
 from further attendance as jurors at this court."
   Mr. Seavard said if the district attorney offered that entry as a plea of
justification for the court, he must demur to it, as he then did.
   The court overruled the demurrer.
   Mr. Wright then replied to  said plea, alleging it to  be  false in fact, and
 offered proof, by Richard Searing himself, then in court. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
149
  The court refused to receive the replication or to hear evidence in rela-
tion to the challenge, but overruled the same and ordered the clerk to pro-
ceed to empannel the jury.
  Decision excepted to.
         THE JURORS  AND THEIR EXAMINATION.

  William Ross, called and answering, was challenged for principal cause
by the prisoner's counsel, examined briefly by the court and set aside.
  Abi.iah P. Olmsted called, challenged by prisoner's counsel, and set
aside because he was a juror on the preHminary trial.
  Henry Acker caUed, challenged by prisoner's counsel, and set aside on
same grounds.
  Benjamin Atavood called, was challenged for principal cause, and being
sworn, testified: I have heard some of the testimony, and have seen the pri-
soner.   I consider the prisoner an accountable being.  That opinion is fixed
and settled.   It would require some testimony to remove it.
  Question by the court—Have you any opinion concerning the guilt of the
prisoner from the evidence heard in court ?   Answer—No sir.  I formed
that  opinion  from what I first heard.   It was  not strengthened by  what I
heard in court.   I formed my opinion that this  man committed the murder
before  I came here.
  Challenge sustained.  Excepted to by attorney general.
  Sheldon Goodrich called, was  challenged for principal cause by pri-
soner's counsel, and being sworn, testified : I Avas one of the jurors  on the
last jury in this cause, and then came to  the conclusion that the prisoner was
sane, and so found.  I have not changed my opinion concerning his  sanity.
From all I have seen and heard of him I think him guilty, and responsible
for his acts.
  Challenge sustained.
  James Ammerman was next called  by the clerk, and being chaUenged
by prisoner's counsel, for principal cause, was SAVorn and testified: I believe
the prisoner or somebody else killed John  G. Van Nest.  I believe he is the
person who killed him.  I made up that opinion at first.  I was present at
the funeral.   I  made  up my opinion on what I heard, that the prisoner is
o-uilty of murder.  I have not heard any of the witnesses sworn.   I have no
doubt from what I have heard and read that the prisoner is the man.   I have
read the newspaper accounts of the murder.  I saw the  bodies brought out
of church at the funeral.  Was here in court after insanity was pleaded, and
part  of the time during the trial of that plea.   I heard a part of Dr. Brig-
ham's, and a part of Dr. Spencer's testimony.  I should judge that the pri-
soner was sane.   As a juror I calculate to go according to the witnesses.  I 
150
THE TRIAL OF
think the prisoner, however, is the man that murdered the family, and that
he is sane and ought to be punished for it.  That is my fixed opinion and
has been ever since I was at church.
  Cross Examined.  I neA-er heard about this insanity until I came here
to court.  I heard that his name was Freeman, and I heard, too, that  the
jury brought  him in sane.  I think there is nothing to prevent me from try-
ing this man fairly.   I have no doubt I could try him fairly.   I have no feel-
ing or bias that wiU prevent me from trying him fairly.
  Challenge overruled, and exception.
  The prisoner's counsel then challenged the juror for favor and demanded
triors;  whereupon the  court appointed counseUors John  P. Hulbert and
Daniel Andrus.
  The court read the foregoing testimony, by consent of counsel, after which
the juror further testified: I had thought a man could not be crazy who
would get knives and  kiU these folks as  he did, or else folks would have
known it and have taken care of him.  It is said he stole a horse and ran off.
I should think a crazy man wouldn't go off, so I think the prisoner sane.  I
heard it said  that they were going to have a jury of doctors to see if he was
sane.  When I came, he sat here in court.  I heard Van Arsdale and Miss
Holmes testify.  I heard Van Arsdale identify him.  It would take as strong
evidence as theirs to remove my  opinion.   I heard aU of Van Arsdale's tes-
timony, and  that estabUshed my opinion that the prisoner  was the guUty
man.
   Cross Examined.   I know Van Arsdale.   He is on our side of the lake
frequently.   If I was sworn as a juror, I should look at the prisoner myself.
   Q. Suppose Van Arsdale should swear the other way, would you beHeve
him?
   A. I should go according to the  witness who should be on  the stand at
that time.  If he should swear it was another  man I should go according to
evidence.
   After counsel had  addressed the triors, the court charged them to give pa-
tient care to this man's case.  None but competent jurors should enter the
jury box.  Whilst a person having a fixed  opinion should be rejected, a man
may have an opinion founded on information which wiU not resist evidence.
   The triors found the juror not indifferent.
   Charles  Eldred was next  called, and answering, stated that  he had
conscientious scruples against finding a verdict of guilty where the punish-
ment is death, and for that reason declined to sit.
   Q. by the court.  Are you a member of any religious society whose rules
 forbid capital punishment ?
   A. I am not a member of any religious society; my scruples are of a civil,
 not of  a religious character.  I think a juror should uphold the law as it is,
 yet I am unwilling to participate in the death  of any body.   It would be my
 duty, if I sat as a juror, to render a verdict  according to  evidence.  If he 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
151
was guilty it would be my duty so to find.   But I have conscientious scru-
ples against sitting as a juror at aU in this case.
  Juror discharged.  Exception.
  Cyrus II. Davis was next called by the clerk, and ansAvering, Avas chal-
lenged by the attorney  general; on being sworn he testified: I was on the
former jury in this case, and have heard the testimony relating to  the pri-
soner.   From the testimony that I have heard I think the prisoner irrespon-
sible, and would under no circumstances find him guilty.
  Challenge sustained.
  Thomas J. Slater was next caUed, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause, by the prisoner's counsel, and being sworn, testified: I have
the same opinion now that I had when called to try the issue of insanity.   I
thought him a sane man then, and the evidence that I have heard since has
strengthened my opinion.  It would require stronger evidence than any I
have heard here to remove that opinion.
   Cross-Examination.—I did not know Van Nest. I have been here only
part of the time.  I saAv the prisoner for the first time on the first day of
June.   I have no feeHng of prejudice on my mind that would prevent  me
from weighing the evidence.   I should feel it my duty to hear the evidence,
but I don't know  that I could give aU  the evidence  its  proper weight.
I formed my opinion  upon an account of the coroner's inquest.  I have
 heard most of the testimony given in court.  From that evidence  I beHeve
 the man is guUty.  I have expressed that as my fixed opinion.
   ChaUenge sustained.
   Lyman Soule was  next caUed, and answering, was challenged for prin-
 cipal cause by the prisoner's counsel.  On being sworn, he testified:  I have
 a fixed  and settled opinion that the prisoner is guilty of the murder of  the
 Van Nest family.  From his confessions, and from the evidence, I have no
 doubt of it.  I also have a fixed opinion that the prisoner was  sane when he
 committed the act.
   Challenge sustained.
   John Bid well was next called, and answering, was challenged for prin-
 cipal  cause, and being  sworn to answer, testified:  In my opinion the  pri-
 soner is guilty. I  formed that opinion when I read the  account of  the
 murders.  I have also an opinion that he is sane and  accountable, and it
 would take stronger evidence than any I have heard to remove that opinion.
    Cross-Examination.—Q.  Suppose Dr. Pitney should swear he  was
 insane, what would you think then ?
    A.  I don't know but I should believe it.  My mind is open to a fair con-
 sideration of the cause.  I have no prejudice or bias that would prevent me
 from trying him fairly as a juror.  I am not sensible of any prejudice  that
 would resist the evidence or struggle against it.
    ChaUenge sustained.
    William E. Vail  was next called, and  answering, was chaUenged for 
152
THE TRIAL OF
 principal cause by the prisoner's counsel, and being sAvorn, testified:  From
 the evidence, I believe the prisoner guilty.   I saAv the prisoner brought into
 court.   Have seen him since.  Have heard  the testimony of Dr. Brigham.
 I think the prisoner sane.  I think so from the Avay he prepared his knives,
 and  the way he escaped.  I read the account of it in the neAvspapers, and
 then formed my opinion.
   Cross-Examined.—I live west of Auburn.  I did not hear Doctor Mc-
 Call's testimony.  Heard a part of Dr. Brigham's.  If Dr. Pitney should
 testify that he is insane, I don't know as I would believe he was insane then.
   Challenge sustained.
   Martin Hosford was next called, and  answering, Avas challenged for
 principal cause, and  being sworn to answer, said he had no doubt of the
 prisoner's guUt.
   Challenge sustained.
   George H. Carr was next called, and  answering, was challenged for
 principal cause, and being sworn to answer, &c, testified:  I have expressed
 the opinion that the prisoner is guilty of the murder of the Van Nest family,
 and that he is sane.   That is my opinion now.
   Challenge sustained.
   Benjaaiin Taylor was next called, and  answering, was chaUenged for
 principal cause, and being sworn to answer, &c, testified in substance as the
 last.
   Challenge sustained.
   Edwtard Morey was next called, and answering,  was  chaUenged  for
 principal cause, and being sworn to ansAver, &c, testified:  I have heard
much of this case  and have conversed  about it.   I have formed an opinion
 that  the prisoner  killed  the Van Nest family, and that the killing was a
 wicked, wilful murder.  I formed that opinion from the evidence given upon
the coroner's jury, and it has not been  changed by any thing  I have heard
here.
   ChaUenge sustained.
   Samuel Guernsey was next called, and ansAvering, was challenged for
principal cause, and being sworn to answer,  &c, testified in substance the
same as the last.
   Challenge sustained.
   John Vosler was  next called, challenged, and disposed  of the same as
the last.
   Thomas F. Graham was next called, and answering, was challenged
for principal cause, and  being  sworn, said:  I desire to be excused  from
 serving  on  this jury.  I have  conscientious  scruples about finding a man
 guilty where the punishment is death.
   Excused.
   Cornelius  Flint was next called, and answering, Avas  challenged for
principal cause, and being sworn, testified:  I have heard much of this case, 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
153
 but had not fully come to a conclusion about it until I came here.  I now
-think the prisoner guilty.  I think he Avas sane  when he acknowledged the
commission of the crime.  Until I hear testimony as strong the other way,
I cannot change that opinion.
   Challenge sustained.
   Joel Hoff Avas next called, and answering, was challenged for principal
cause, and being sAvorn, testified:  The  prisoner is guilty of the  murders
alleged.  It is a case of Avicked, deliberate murder, done when he was in his
senses, and he is morally responsible.
   Challenge sustained.
   Andreavs Preston was next caUed, and answering, was sworn as a juror
to try tlu; prisoner.  (1)
   William  Steel was next caUed, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause, and being sworn to answer, testified:  I  have formed an
opinion of the  guilt of the prisoner.  That opinion is that he is guilty.   That
is  a deliberate opinion, which has been freely expressed. I  formed  that
opinion from what I have both heard and read concerning this affair, as well
before as upon the preliminary trial.  I have had my doubts  some Avhether
or not the prisoner is responsible, but I heard the testimony of Dr. Brigham
and others, and  did not really find any occasion to change my previous opin-
ion.  The evidence which I heard rather confirmed it.  A  crazy man is one
void of common  sense.
   Challenge sustained.
   Lyman Royce was next called, and answering, was challenged for prin-
cipal  cause, and being sworn, testified:   When I first heard of the murder
of the Van Nest family and the arrest of the prisoner, I thought him  guilty
of murder.  It has been my opinion ever since. I formed it from reading
the neAvspapers.   As to his sanity, I have formed no fixed  opinion  one  way
or the other.   I consider my mind open on that subject.   I have not been
able to satisfy  myself in relation to that.
   Challenge withdrawn.
   Q. by attorney general. What is your opinion  concerning capital pun-
ishment ?
   A.  It is, that the law as it is should be executed.
   Lyman Royce was then SAvorn as a juror to try the prisoner.  (2)
   The number of ballots in the box being reduced below  twenty-four, the
counsel for the prisoner objected to the drawing further from the box untU
there were at least that number in it from Avhich to draw.
   The court overruled the objection, and decided that all that Avas required
was that there should be at least tAventy-four baUots  in the box Avhen the
drawing commenced.
   Excepted to.
  Leaiuel A. Newland Avas next called, and  answering, was  challenged
for principal cause,  and being sworn, testified:  I think the prisoner is 
154
THE TRIAL OF
guilty, wickedly and deliberately guilty.   I read the newspaper accounts of
the affair and the testimony taken before the  coroner's jury; and that has
been my settled  opinion from that time until now.  The testimony of the
prisoner's statements of having committed the murder  and how he did it,
confirmed my previous opinion.  I think he was sane.   I presume I have
expressed that opinion, also that he ought to be punished.
  Cross-Examination.—I came to the conclusion that he was sane.  I
had heard enough to satisfy me, and had formed an opinion that he was res-
ponsible.  I don't know that there is any thing on my mind to prevent me
from weighing the testimony fairly.   Don't knoAV but my mind is open to a
fair consideration of the evidence.  I think I have command of my mind.
  Challenge sustained.                                        t
  Peter G. Fosdick was next called, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause, and being affirmed,  testified:  I have made up my  mind
that the prisoner is  guilty.  My opinion is fixed; fixed  as the  rock of Gi-
braltar.
  Challenge sustained.
  Abel Chase  was next called, and answering, was chaUenged for princi-
pal cause, and being sworn, testified:  I have formed an opinion that the
prisoner is guUty of murder as alleged in the indictment.  I formed it from
reading  the testimony on the coroner's inquest, and it  has remained un-
changed.  I have heard a part of the testimony, and that has confirmed my
opinion, so that I have now a firm and established opinion that the prisoner
is guilty.
  Challenge sustained.
  Washington Bogardus called, and answering, was challenged for prin-
cipal cause, and being  sworn, testified:   I hqjje formed an opinion that the
prisoner is both guilty  and sane, and  have so expressed myself.
  Challenge sustained.
  William Tremaine called, and answering, was challenged for principal
cause, and being SAvorn, testified :  I  have never expressed any opinion that
the prisoner is guilty, and don't know as I have formed any.  I have heard
a part of the testimony given on the  preliminary issue, but I don't know as
I formed any opinion.   I did not know but he might have kiUed these per-
sons.  I read the testimony published, but I left  the  matter for  further
disclosures.  I don't know but he may be sane.  There was testimony for
and against his insanity.
  ChaUenge withdrawn.
  Q. by attorney general.  Have you  any scruples about finding a man guUty
where the punishment is death ?
  A.  I  have not The law ought to be carried out.
  William Tremaine was then SAvorn as a juror.  (3)
  Harvey C. Beach was next called, and answering,  was challenged for
principal cause,  and being sworn, testified:   I am of opinion that  the pri- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      155
soner is guilty, and have repeatedly expressed that opinion to others.   I
think him sane enough to be responsible for his acts, and it would take more
testimony than I have heard to remove that opinion.
  Challenge sustained.
  Jacob Bogert called, challenged for  principal  cause, sworn, and set
aside for the same reason.
  Adam Fries was then called, and being challenged, was SAvorn, and tes-
tified :  I have no doubt he is guilty if he is the man.   I was at Van Nest's
house when the prisoner was brought there, and it was the common talk
that he was the man.  I was at church at the  funeral—heard the sermon of
Mr.  Winfield, and have heard some of the testimony.   I cannot tell Avhether
the prisoner is  the man  or not, yet I think  he is guilty.  When the man
who sold the knife testified, I became satisfied the prisoner was the  man.
It is my opinion that the man who committed the murders ought to be hung.
Don't knoAv but I have said that Freeman  ought to be hung.
  ChaUenge sustained.
  Jacob H. Rosa called, and answering, was challenged, and being sworn,
testified that he had formed an opinion that the prisoner was guilty.
  Challenge sustained.
  Isaac Follett and Joseph Thompson  the same.
  John R. Hopkins called, and answering, was challenged by the attorney
general, who demanded that the question be  tried by triors.
  The first two jurors were appointed and sworn as triors.  The juror after
being affirmed, testified:  I was sworn on the preliminary trial as witness
in relation to the mental condition of the prisoner.  I have been to see him
in the jail.   I have more than once expressed an opinion as to the state  of
his mind, but not that he was Responsible.  I do not think he is responsible
in the degree that men of higher intellect are, but I have not expressed an
opinion that he is not responsible in any degree.  I said that from my inter-
course with him, my general conclusion was that I believed him a monoma-
niac  upon  the  subject of pay; and that  he was of low intellect.  I was
requested to see him by Mr. Seward, I presume with a view to  learn the
state of his mind and to testify.  I have requested others to see him.   I re-
quested Mr. Horace  Hotchkiss for one.  I requested him to go with me  to
see the prisoner,- to ascertain the state of his mind.  I have taken a general
interest in this man as I have in other  cases.  I was  never a witness in a
capital case before.  In conversation I believe I haA-e always maintained the
opinion I now express.
   Cross-Examination.—The opinion I formed was upon those interviews.
I don't design to entertain any opinions that are fixed.   I don't  think I have
an  opinion on any subject that would resist evidence.   I am not conscious of
having any thing on my mind that would prevent me from trying this cause
fairly between  the people and the prisoner.  I never formed an opinion that
the  prisoner was not sane at the time the acts Avere committed.  I have not 
156
THE TRIAL OF
any fixed or deliberate opinion upon that subject.  I suppose it is impossible
for men to get rid of impressions.  My mind is not closed against evidence,
nor would it resist it.  My mind would not struggle against evidence of the
prisoner's guilt, nor with evidence relating to his sanity.  I was present du-
ring a considerable part of the trial.  I heard a part of Dr. Brigham's testi-
mony.  I heard a part of Dr. Bigelow's.   Did not hear Dr. DarroAv nor Dr.
Spencer, nor Wood, nor Lynch.  Taylor and  ChurchiU went Avith me the
first time to see the prisoner.
  Re-Examination.  If Taylor and ChurchiU should swear to  a state of
facts different from what I saw, I should,  as a juror, be obliged  to believe
them.  If they should swear  I did not see the prisoner, I would not believe
them.  Sitting as a juror I should be obliged to throw away my  OAvn know-
ledge.
   Q.  Are you opposed to capital punishment ?
  A.  Society has a right to decide whether it is, or is not necessary.  I think
it would be Avell to try other modes of punishment.  I have thought so, but
I can't say so now.   My mind is somewhat unsettled upon that point.  I
have sometimes thought I should not be willing to sit as a juror in a capital
case, but I think if I  sat upon a jury in a capital case, that I Avould try to
bring in a verdict according  to evidence.
  Counsel on both sides addressed the triors at length, on the subject of the
indifference of the juror, when his honor, the  circuit judge, charged them
and they retired.  On coming into court, they say they find the juror " not
indifferent."
  The panel  having been  exhausted, the court ordered the sheriff to sum-
mon thirty persons quaUfied  to serve as jurors, from the body of the people
of the county, and that he furnish to the prisoner's counsel a Hst of them be-
fore returning them to the court.
  The list being returned, the clerk proceeded to draw.
  Argelos  Taylor was next drawn, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause by the counsel for  the prisoner, and being sworn to  an-
swer touching his indifference as a juror, testified :  From what I have read
of the accounts of the murder, I have formed an opinion that the prisoner is
guilty.  From what I have learned of the circumstances, I should say I had
formed an opinion that he was guilty of the murder of John G. Van Nest,
his  wife, child, and Mrs. Wyckoff.  I have had that opinion since I read the
account of the examination on the coroner's inquest, and from Avhat I have
since heard ; also from the examination of Van Arsdale before the magistrate.
I have read  accounts  in the  papers since the examinations.  I read the ac-
count with which there was a portrait of the negro, and a plan of the house.
I made up my mind then, and it is my opinion since, and it is my deliberate
and settled opinion.   The proof on the trial might turn it some ; might change
it, but I should want proof.   Before I could relinquish that opinion, I must
have proof that the prisoner  is not guuty.  My mind now presumes the pri 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      157
soner guilty.   I have expressed this opinion heretofore in a number of con-
versations.  I have said the prisoner ought to be hung from the reports I have
heard, which I still believe, and that is now my opinion ; which reports I ne-
ver heard contradicted,  and have  no reason to disbelieve them. I have
heard conversation about prisoner's sanity.  From what conversation  I have
heard I have formed an opinion that he was sane.   I made up that opinion
partly from the preparations he made for the murder, and partly from what
I heard, and  his flight.   This is now my opinion.
   Cross Examination.  I saw John G» Van Nest a number of years ago;
some  ten  years ago; had no  particular acquaintance  with him.   I saw the
prisoner in Auburn, before he  went to the State  Prison.  I knew Avho  he
was but had no particular acquaintance with  him.  I don't knoAV as  I ever
saw any one that kneAV the facts.  I never said  the prisoner ought to be hung,
whether guilty or not.  I said if the accounts  and reports Avere true he was
guilty and ought to be hung for it. I took them to  be true, and I never
heard them  contradicted.  I have  no means of knoAving whether he Avas
guilty, except from reports.
   Q.  Do  you recoUect any of  the particulars of the  examination of Van
Arsdale ?
   A.  I don't know that I can relate the particulars;  don't recollect the par-
ticulars of what I  did read.
   Q.  Are you conscious of any thing on your mind that would prevent you
from weighing the evidence ?
   A.  Nothing except the reports I have heard. I don't know any thing
else against him.  I know of nothing myself.  I  don't know that I have any
doubts but that I  could weigh the  evidence  fairly.
   Q.  If sworn as a juror are you conscious  of any thing on your mind that
would resist the evidence and struggle against it ?
   A.  I don't know that my opinion that he is guUty would have any influ-
ence on my mind. I should think I had not such an opinion.   I don't know
whether it Avould  have  any weight on the trial or not.
   Q»  What is your best beHef about it ?
   A.  I should think I had not.
   Q.  Is your mind open as far as you know to a fair consideration of the case ?
   A.  I don't know but it is.
   Q.  Don't you know that it is, as far as you  are. conscious ?
   A.  Why, yes sir, I should think it was.
   Re-Examination.  I don't know hardly what my opinion would be if I
should hear the evidence.  I would  try to  do as well  as I could according
to the  evidence, and that is  what I mean Avhen I say my mind is open.   I
don't know as my mind is as much fixed as it would  be if I had been a juror
and had heard the evidence.  I have an opinion, Avithout any doubt, that
the prisoner is guilty of murder. It might be  removed by evidence to con- 
158
THE trial of
tradict it.  I don't know that it is a mere matter of speculation as to my
ability to remove my present opinion.  I think  my mind, if I Avere  in the
jury box, would be the same as now.  I could not forget what I had heard.
I couldn't say that it would operate on my mind.  It Avould be in my mind;
I could not forget it.   I mean to say strong evidence of prisoner's innocence
would be necessary to remove  my impression of his guilt.  I  recollect of
reading the examination of Van Arsdale, identifying this man as the murderer
at the house and in the presence of the dead bodies.  I recollect Miss Holmes
testified about going to the hall door and opening it  for Mrs. Van Nest to
come in, and I think these examinations were taken under oath.
   Cross Examination.  I don't know but I could go according  to evi-
dence.  I said I didn't know hardly what my opinion would be if I should
hear the evidence.
   Q. When you  say you have an opinion without doubt, do you mean that
you have heard the reports and have no reason to doubt them ?
   A. Yes;  that I heard the reports and formed my opinion  upon them.
   Q. If you have heard, or know, or feel any thing which would prevent you
from weighing the evidence fairly, state it ?
   A. I don't  know  of any thing more than what  I  have read and heard
about it.  I feel as if I ought to  be bound, as a juror, to act according to the
evidence, and I feel that I could do so.
   Q. by Judge Richardson, one of the court. If you were sworn as a juror
to give a verdict according to evidence, would you  find a verdict of guilty
upon the opinion  you have formed without any evidence on  the part of the
people ?
   Question objected to by prisoner's counsel, and objection overruled.
   A. No.
   Q. Has  your opinion been so formed that if the evidence  shall prove the
prisoner to be guilty you will find him guilty ?
   Objected to and objection overruled.
   A. Yes.
   Re-Examination.  Q.  If  you  had seen this  murder  committed", and
should be sworn as a  juror to try the case, would you not feel just as much
confidence  that you could exclude the opinion you have formed and  give  a
verdict according to evidence as now ?
   A.  I think not, for I should know it were so.
   Q.  Would you not be bound to reject what you had seen  and give a ver-
 dict on the evidence ?
   A.  I don't know how I could get around it.  I should think it was so.   I
should believe what I saw.
   Q.  Had you seen this murder committed, and were sworn as a juror, would
 you feel entitled to give a verdict upon what you  had  seen, or- would you
 require evidence and feel bound to  go according to law and evidence ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      159
  A.  If I had seen it with my own eyes, and I should be a juror, and evi-
dence should be to the contrary, I think I should beHeve Avhat I saw.
  Q.  Could that influence you in giving your verdict ?
  A.  I think not.
  Challenge overruled, and decision excepted to.
  The prisoner's counsel then challenged the juror for favor, and demanded
triors.
  The court, by consent, read the foregoing testimony to the triors.
  After remarks of counsel, the court charged them that it was manifest that
the important question to be tried by the jury to be empanneUed, was the
question of sanity or  insanity.   The trial  upon  the preliminary issue has
settled but one point as to that, viz : that he Avas sane at the time of render-
ing that verdict. The  law presumes a man to be sane until the  contrary is
clearly proved.   The juror indulging an opinion that the prisoner Avas sane
at the time the act was committed,  being but a legal presumption, does not
disqualify him, unless the juror had attended a trial upon that issue, and heard
the testimony and made up his  mind upon that.  The case of this  juror is
distinguished from the case of Hopkins,  who was challenged by the attorney
general, and found by you to be not indifferent.  He had formed his opinion
from  personal  observation of the prisoner, not from  information.   In this
case the opinion is formed from information.  If the juror  had got the in-
formation from those  who knew, the opinion would be stronger.  If you find
the opinion of the juror so strong, as in your opinion to influence his action
and thus disqualify him, then he is not indifferent   On the other hand, if
you find the opinion a floating one,  and  such  as may be removed by the evi-
dence, and that he will give an impartial verdict from the testimony, he is com-
petent.  Kit is formed upon a supposition that certain facts be true, then it is a
hypothetical opinion, and does not disqualify him, as that presupposes that the
facts are to be proved.  The rule for determining the indifference of jurors by
which this court have been governed, is laid down in the opinion of Chief Jus-
tice Marshall, on the  trial of Aaron Burr for treason.  (The  court then read
from Burr's trial, as  follows :)   " Were it possible to obtain a jury without
any preposessions whatever, respecting the guilt or innocence of the accused,
it would be extremely desirable to obtain such a jury; but this is, perhaps,
impossible, and therefore will not be required.  The opinion which has been  v
avowed by this court is, that light impressions Avhich may fairly be supposed
to yield to the testimony that may be offered, which may leave the mind
open to a fair consideration of that testimony, constitute no sufficient objec-
tion to a juror.   But that those strong and deep impressions  which will close
 the mind against the testimony that  may be offered in opposition to them,
which will combat that testimony and resist its force, do constitute a sufficient
objection to him.  Those who try the impartiality of a juror ought to test him
by this rule.  They ought  to hear the statement made by himself or given
 by others, and  conscientiously determine according to their best judgment 
160
THE TRIAL OF
whether, in general, men under such circumstances, ought to be considered
as capable of hearing fairly, and of deciding impartially, on the  testimony
which may be offered to them, or as possessing minds in a situation to strug-
gle against the conviction which that testimony might be calculated to pro-
duce.  The court  have considered those Avho have deliberately formed and
deUvered an  opinion on the guilt of the prisoner, as not being in  a state  of
mind fairly to weigh the testimony, and, therefore, as being disqualified to
serve as jurors in the case."  That is the law as applicable to this case, and
sets forth the rule  which  you will observe in arriving at your verdict.
   Charge excepted to  by prisoner's counsel,  after which the triors retired,
but after deliberating for a while, they came into court  and asked for  fur-
ther instruction ; whereupon His Honor, the circuit judge, remarked to them :
" If the juror says  he has formed a fixed and deliberate  opinion, he is not
indifferent.  But you are to look at the whole examination, and say whether
he has such an opinion  as will resist the evidence; if he has, he is not in-
different.   If you beHeve his mind is open to  a fair and impartial considera-
tion of the evidence, then he is a proper juror.  Courts would at aU times
be bound to declare a juror not indifferent when he  has stated that he had
formed a deliberate opinion."
  Mr. Preston, one of  the triors, inquired whether an opinion formed from
reading the accounts in a newspaper could be caUed a deHberate opinion.
  His Honor replied, " that it was difficult to understand how a man could
be said to form a deHberate opinion upon a mere matter of information;  hut
that is a question for the triors.   The resort to the triors, by the prisoner's
counsel, is  in  the nature  of an appeal from the opinion of the  courc upon
the facts.   The question of law is the same before the court in some respects.
The court apply the law and exclude a juror when there is no dispute about
the facts as to  the state of the juror's mind.  In this case it is for the triors
to determine upon the indifference of  the juror.   The triors must  find
whether the opinion which the juror has formed wiU have a controUing effect
upon  him in opposition to the evidence  in favor of the prisoner;  if it will,
the juror is not indifferent"                                       *
  The prisoner's counsel  excepted to the above, and requested the court to
charge the triors that if they find that the juror has formed an opinion Avhich
will exert any influence upon his mind in the jury box, then he is not in laAv
indifferent.
  His Honor declined to  vary his charge.  Excepted to.
  The triors report that they find the juror indifferent.
  The prisoner's counsel then challenged the juror peremptorily, and he was
set aside.
  John Miller was next called, and ansAvering, was challenged for princi-
pal cause, and being sworn, testified: If what I have heard and read is true
I think the prisoner is  guilty and ought to be hanged.  I never heard any
one talk of it who  was there.  I supposed the accounts given of the matter 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
161
 were true, as I never heard to the contrary.  I have heard folks say it was
 the greatest murder they ever heard of, and that he ought to be hung;  and I
 may have said the same, and think it is Hkely I have.  I  heard they talked
 of Lynching him at the house.  I might have said that would have been weU
 enough.  I thought he ought to be hung.  I may have said he ought to be
 hung without a trial.  I have said the trial  took a good deal of time, and I
 see now that it will take more time than I thought it would when I came
 here.   I have believed him guilty ever since I heard of the murder.
   By the court:  The juror's opinion seems entirely hypothetical.
   Challenge overruled.  Exception.
   The juror was then chaUenged for favor, and found by Preston and Royce,
 triors, to be not indifferent.
   Henry Chadderdon was next called, and answering, was challenged
 for principal cause, and being sworn, testified: I thought the prisoner com-
 mitted the murders from what  I have heard.  I heard that a  colored man
 committed the crime, but did not know his name.  I may have  been told
 that he was recently from  State Prison.   I  heard a person read about the
 case in a newspaper, which stated that the murder was committed by WU-
 Ham Freeman.  I heard that he was there a few days before; pretended  to
 be deaf; tried to get work, and  then went and committed the murders in the
 night.   That he stabbed Mrs. Van Nest first,  out door, then Mr. Van Nest
 in the house, then stabbed the old lady, then the child, and then the young
 man.  If these reports are true, my mind is fixed that he is guilty and ought
 to be punished.   I think I have no impression that would prevent me from
 weighing the evidence fairly.
   Cross  Examination.  Q.  What do you  mean by your opinion being
 fixed.   Do you mean any thing else than that you have heard this story and
 do not know whether it is true or not ?
  A. That is all.
   Q. Have you any feeHng against the man ?
  A.  I have not.
  Q,  Have you any opinion or impression that  wiU prevent you from weigh-
 ing the evidence fairly ?
  A. I think not.
  Q. Don't you know you have not
  A. Yes; I know I havn't
  Q. Is your mind open to a fair consideration of this case ?
  A. It is; yet I never heard any one express a doubt that the report was
true.
  Re-Examination.   Q. Have you not an opinion that  he is guUty until
it shall be removed by evidence to the contrary ?
  A. I have.
  Q. Can you teU whether it will resist evidence ?
11 
162
THE TRIAL OF
    A. I should think it would not.
    Q. Why do you think so ?  Have you ever tried it in such a case ?
    A. I never have.
    Q. Might you not find it difficult to give up your opinion ?
    A. I don't think I would.
    ChaUenge overruled.
    Prisoner's counsel then challenged the juror for favor, and demanded
  triors, who, after hearing evidence in substance as above, and being charged,
  say they find the juror indifferent
    He was then challenged peremptorily and set aside.
    James Rhoades was next caUed, and  answering, was challenged for
  principal cause,  and being sworn, testified: I have frequently heard this
  matter tanked about, and have beHeved the prisoner guilty of murder.  I
  have been told since I came here that the prisoner is the man who commit-
  ted the murders, and I think he is guilty.   My mind is not made up as to
  whether he was sane or not.  I heard they talked of Lynching him at Van
  Nest's house; that the people were very much excited there.  I don't think
  I have any doubt that the prisoner kiUed them.   I  think he is the man, and
  shall beHeve he  was the man untU I hear something to the contrary, and I
  should require pretty strong evidence to induce me to change that beHef.  I
  think I would be more likely to beHeve evidence against him than for him,
  after aU that I have heard.  I would feel bound, however, to give a verdict
  according to law.
    ChaUenge sustained.
    Ansel Bruce was next called, and answering, was challenged  for prin-
  cipal cause, and  being sworn, testified : I cannot reaUy say I have formed
  any  opinion, and have never said much about this case.  I read the account
''and  the testimony taken at the coroner's inquest, in  the newspapers.   When
  I heard that he was arrested, I made up my mind that he would have a trial,
  and  if guUty would be dealt with accordingly.  I did not know who did it,
  but I made up my mind that it was a wicked and deHberate murder in some-
  one ; a wilful and cruel murder.  If it is proved that he is the man, it would
  settle the whole matter in my mind.  I have heard that he was identified by
  Van Arsdale, and if he should be identified on the  trial I should think the
  charge fuUy made out.  I think there can be  no evidence that Van Nest Avas
  not kiUed.  I have no doubt but that I could find a verdict according to the
  testimony.   I have no feeHng or  excitement that  would prevent me, nor
  any bias.
    ChaUenge overruled.
   Prisoner's counsel then challenged the juror for favor, and demanded triors,
  who, after hearing testimony, in substance as  above,  found the juror indiffer-
  ent, when he was challenged  peremptorily and set aside.
   James S. Johnson was next called, and answering, was challenged for 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
163
principal cause, and being sworn, testified in substance, the same as last ju-
ror, and  challenge overruled.  He was then challenged for favor, found in-
different by triors, then challenged peremptorily and set aside.
  The panel being again exhausted, the court ordered the sheriff to sum-
mon twenty other men from the  body of the people of the county, to serve
as jurors.
  John Jones was next called,  and  answering, was challenged for princi-
pal cause, and being sworn, testified: I Avas  summoned here, I suppose, at
the suggestion of Samuel Bell.  I don't know as I ever told him that I would
do him as good a favor some other time, and don't know but I have.  It is a
very busy time to be  called out.   I don't know but I did say that if it was
through Bell's means that I was called here, I would do him as good a favor
some other time.   From the papers and what I have heard, I have formed
an opinion that the negro, is guUty of the  crime, and have expressed that
opinion quite frequently.   I have said that he  ought to be  hung if that re-
port Avere true.  My  mind is that he is guilty. Before I can change that
opinion I must  have evidence to the contrary.  I think I should be more in-
clined to receive  evidence corroborative  than evidence to  the contrary.
Bell told me they  had found the  black man sane.
   Cross Examination.  Mr.  BeU is one of the  assemblymen from  this
county.  He  is a very respectable man.  I suppose  it would be better for
me to be trying this cause than to have my family kiUed.  Hoskins, the de-
puty sheriff, summoned me.
   Q.  Have you any impression about this  case that would prevent you from
weighing the evidence fairly ?
   A.  No, sir;  I think not.
   Q.  Do you mean to say that you would receive evidence against him more
favorably than  for him ?
   A.  I could tell better if I could hear the evidence.
   Q. Do you feel any thing in your mind now that induces you to believe
you would receive evidence against the prisoner more  favorably than for
him?
   A. No.
   Q.  Is your mind open to a fair consideration of this case ?
   A.  Yes, sir.
   Augustus Pettibone, called as a witness, and being sworn, testified : I
am sheriff of this county.  I undertook to get a jury in this case.
   Q. Did Samuel Bell suggest to you the  name of John Jones as a juror ?
   A. Some one handed  me a list of  names during the Wyatt trial, and his
name was on the list.
   Q. Did you follow that list ?
   A. I think likely I drew off the name of John JonesTrom that letter, to
summon him this time.
   Q. WiU you produce that letter ?
                                                   * 
164                         THE TRIAL OF
  A.  Yes, sir.  This is it.   (Here exhibits a letter addressed to him, signed
Samuel Bell, and containing a list of persons proper to be summoned as
talesmen, among whom is the name of John Jones.)
  The court overruled the challenge.  Excepted to.
  The juror was then chaUenged for favor.  Triors demanded and appointed,
and the foregoing testimony, in substance, read to them by consent.
  By the court: It is said that here is an attempt to pack a jury ; if so, it is
the first attempt I ever heard or read of in the United States.  His Honor
then referred to the Irish rebellion and O'ConneU's trial.   He was not pre-
pared to believe that any person  in this  country was so corrupt as to be
guilty of the practice; yet the testimony of the juror, as well as that of Pet-
tibone, should be closely and carefully examined.  Excepted to.
  Verdict: that juror is indifferent.
  He was then chaUenged peremptorily and set aside.
  Elias Miller was next caUed, and answering, was chaUenged for prin-
cipal  cause, and being sworn, testified:  I read of the murder of the  Van
Nest family and beHeved it.  I was told yesterday that it was through Sam-
uel BeU that I was summoned here.  I formed an opinion from what I read,
and other reports, that the prisoner was a murderer.  It would require con-
siderable strong proof to remove  that opinion.   Think I should be more
likely to believe evidence against him than for him.
  Cross-Examination.—Q.  If  you were sworn  as a juror, would any
thing you have heard induce you to give a verdict, if no proof was given ?
  A.  I think not.
  Q.  Would what you have heard be any evidence to you as a juror ?
  A.  I shouldn't think it evidence enough to convict him.
  Q.  Would you consider it any evidence ?
  A.  Not in this case.
  Q.  When you say you have formed an opinion, do you mean more  than
that you have heard of it and supposed it to be true ?
  A.  I have never heard it contradicted and supposed it true.
  .Q.  Do you know any thing of this matter yourself?
  A.  I do not
  Q.  Is your mind open to a fair consideration of the testimony ?
  A.  I beHeve it is  as far as I know.
  Q.  Suppose some of the witnesses SAvore in his favor and some  against
him, would you give  the same weight to both ?
  A.  I don't know as I should, if it was equal.
  Q.  Can you weigh the evidence fairly ?
  A.  I don't think I could.  I think I could not.
  Q.  Why?
  A.  Why, I have heard a great deal against him and beHeve it to be  true,
and I don't think I could give equal weight to evidence that should go to
show him innocent.   ChaUenge sustained. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
165
   Thomas  C. McFarlane caUed, and answering, was sworn as a ju-
ror.  (4)
   John Christian caUed, and answering, was sworn as a juror.  (5)
   Norman Peters caUed, and answering, was challenged by the attorney
general, and being sworn to answer, testified:  I have  no conscientious
scruples against finding a verdict of guUty where the punishment is death,
where the evidence shows clearly the guilt of the party on trial.  I don't
know as I Avould be caUed an abolitionist, yet I have voted that ticket and
have voted other tickets.
   Q.  Suppose it should be proved that the prisoner is a poor demented ne-
gro, would you think society ought to be punished and not the negro ?
   A.  I should hold him responsible the same as any other man.
   Challenge withdrawn and juror sworn.  (6)
   Matthew  J. Conklin caUed, and answering, was challenged for princi-
pal cause, and being sworn, testified:  I heard of this murder soon after it
took place.  Have heard different remarks made about it.   I have said if it
was true,  that no punishment was too bad for him.  If he is guilty of the
crime he ought to be hung.  I believe he is  guilty.  I have heard  nothing
to contradict it.   That  opinion is founded on the reports.  It has not crea-
ted a  prejudice in my  mind.  From report I have no doubt but he kiUed
Van Nest   It would require evidence to remove that opinion.
   ChaUenge overruled  and chaUenge to the favor interposed, and triors ap-
pointed.   Verdict indifferent.
   Juror was then challenged peremptorily and set aside.
   Benjamin  Beach caUed, and answering, was chaUenged for principal
cause, and being sworn, testified:  I have heard this murder talked about.
Have heard the coroner's inquest read in part.  I don't  recollect reading
any thing  since.  I beHeve the Van Nest famUy were murdered, and, ac-
cording to accounts, I  had no reason to  disbeHeve it.  But I can't say the
prisoner is guUty, for I have read accounts that men have been hung who
were not guilty.   At times I have doubted whether he was guilty.  I have
expressed my  opinion that if he murdered the famfly he ought  to be hung,
but never said he was  guilty, because I did  not know.  I  rather leaned to
the opinion that he was  guilty, but I have doubted it.  My belief now is that
I rather think  he has murdered the family.  It is a pretty strong impression,
but if evidence came forward that he was innocent I would beHeve it.  If
the testimony was equal on both sides, I would throw away my impressions.
My present belief would not turn the scale.   I should not want to act upon
my belief,  and would not.  I have heard nothing of his sanity, only that he
was going to be tried on that first  I am rather induced to think, from aU
accounts, that  he was sane.  If the  evidence was equal I  would  not hang
him.  I would not put a man to death unless I knew he was guilty.  I have
heard of the attempts to Lynch him.  I said if he had done it, it was  not too
good for him.  I was excited then, but I don't think so now. 
166
THE TRIAL OF
  Challenge overruled.  Decision excepted to.
  Prisoner's counsel then chaUenged  the juror for  favor, and demanded
triors, who were appointed and sworn, and the foregoing evidence submitted
to them by consent.
  The court then charged the triors in substance as in the case of the juror
Taylor, [ante 159,] which was excepted to.
  The triors found him indifferent, and he was then sworn as a juror.  (7)
  Garret  V. Peak v/as next caUed, and answering, was challenged, but
the same was withdrawn, and he  was sworn as a juror.  (8)
  James McLeod was next called, but was discharged on his testifying
that he beHeved capital punishment wrong, and  had  conscientious scruples
against finding a verdict of guUty where the punishment is death.
  Juror discharged.
  Jacob Croavley was next caUed and discharged on the same grounds.
  Joseph Weston was next caUed, and answering, was chaUenged for
principal cause, and, on being sworn,  it  appeared that he had formed an
opinion that the prisoner was guuty, and he was  discharged.
  Tompkins Tripp was next caUed, and answering,  was chaUenged by the
attorney general, and being sworn, said:
  Q.  Are you an aboHtionist ?
  Objected to and objection sustained.
  Q.  Have you any peculiar views as to colored  persons which would affect
your verdict ?
  A.  No.  I should endeavor to hold him, as I should other men, accounta-
ble for his acts.
  Q.  Would you attach no more weight  to the testimony of colored persons
than to white ?
  A.  I should not.
  Challenge withdrawn and juror sworn.  (9)
  John P.  Hunter was next caUed, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause,  and set aside on the ground of having formed and expressed
an opinion of the guilt of the prisoner.
  Preston Thompson was next called, chaUenged and discharged on the
same grounds.
  Nelson Burke was called and disposed of in the same manner.
  Nathaniel C. Cary was  next called, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause,  and being sworn, said his mind  was open to a fair conside-
ration of the evidence.
  The challenge was overruled, but he was chaUenged peremptorily and set
aside.
  Charles CoMSTOCKwas next caUed,  and answering, was chaUenged and
set aside.
  Nathaniel Vilas was next called and chaUenged peremptorily, and set
aside. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
167
  Obadiah A. Cooper was next called, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause, and being sworn, testified:  I have heard of this murder,
and when people thought Lynch-law ought to be applied to him I felt sorry,
and reasoned with them.  What I have read and heard, has brought convic-
tion to my mind that such a  family was murdered, and that the prisoner
murdered them, and I now believe that as I do other historical facts.   I
should not give any more weight  to  the evidence confirming  my opinion
than to evidence contradicting it.  The heart is deceitful, but I think I can
weigh the evidence  fairly.
  Challenge withdrawn and juror sworn.   (10)
  Archer Ma comber was next called, and answering was not challenged,
but was interrogated by the court in respect to scruples  of conscience about
finding  a prisoner guilty where the punishment is  death; but as the juror
said he had no conscientious scruples, he was sworn.  (11)
  William B. Schobey was next called, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause by the prisoner's counsel, and being sworn, testified:  I have
formed an opinion that the prisoner is guUty of murder,  and have expressed
it in plain language. I have said that he ought to be executed, the sooner
the better.  I think I may have said he ought to have been executed with-
out a trial, but not  in  this place.  As to his sanity, I think he was a sane
man—as sane as men in his condition usually are, and  that he is  responsible.
I have expressed an opinion that there was not a pretence of insanity in his
case.  I feel that I should not be an indifferent juror in this case.
  Cross-Examination.—I have stated my opinions on this subject yester-
day and to-day.  I presume I said so  to Mr. Morgan this morning.  I spoke
to  Mr. Morgan about being called sooner; told him I thought  him guilty.
I have a clear and decided opinion that he is guilty.
  Challenge sustained.
  William Crise  was next called, and answering, was  chaUenged for prin-
cipal cause by the  prisoner's  counsel, and being SAvorn, testified:  I  have
heard and read of  the murder of the Van Nest family, and it is said the
prisoner murdered  them.  I have no opinion that Avould influence my ver-
dict.  When I read the accounts in the newspapers I believed  that Freeman
murdered them.  I  think I read Van Arsdale's deposition.  I have not, nor
never had any doubt that the prisoner killed the family, but never expressed
any opinion concerning his sanity or insanity.  I  am not so well satisfied
about bis state of mind.  It would require pretty strong evidence to satisfy
me that he did not kill the family.  If the evidence was equally balanced, I
mio-ht believe those who  swore he was there, rather than  those who should
swear he was not.   But I think if the testimony  was  balanced, my opin-
ion would not turn the  scale.   It might have a bias if the testimony was
doubtful.
  Cross-Examination.—I do  not  think I have  any  feeling  against the
prisoner that would influence my judgment as a juror.  I have talked fre- 
168                         THE TRIAL OF
quently about it, and may have talked with William Allen about it.  May
have said something to Amos Rathbun directly after the murder.  I should
think there was no impression resting on my mind that would prevent my
weighing the testimony fairly.   I should think  that I stood indifferent  be-
tween the people and the prisoner.
  ChaUenge overruled.
  The prisoner's counsel then challenged the juror for favor, and demanded
triors, to whom the foregoing evidence was submitted by consent.  The triors
found the juror indifferent.
  He was then challenged peremptorily and set aside.
  Aaron Yale called,  and answering, was chaUenged, and was  set aside
because of his not having the requisite property qualifications for a juror.
  John Hussey was next called, and answering, himself asked to be  ex-
cused from serving, as he was opposed to capital punishment and had con-
scientious scruples against sitting as a juror in capital cases.
  He was discharged.
  John  C. Yawger was next caUed, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause by the prisoner's counsel, and being sworn, testified:  I have
heard and read of the murder of the Van Nest famUy,  and of the general
opinion  that the  prisoner murdered them.  Silas Ludlow told me about it.
Peter HoweU,  who was present at the funeral and saw the dead bodies, told
me  that Freeman killed  them, and that he had been caught.   I heard he
was taken to the  house and identified.  I read some of the testimony taken
before the  coroner.   Ludlow saw the prisoner in  jail, and thought him a
pretty hard looking feUow.  Flying reports said he had  confessed the mur-
der.  From aU that I have seen and heard I conclude that he is guilty.  My
opinion  now is that he is guUty.  I think there is no doubt of it.  I have
heard the question of his sanity talked about also.  I beHeve him to have
been sane at that time.   I have no doubt that he was.   This opinion might
be removed by proof to the contrary.   I shall believe it until it is positively
proved to the contrary.
  Cross-Examination.—Q.  If you were sworn as a juror, have you any
impression that would prevent you from weighing the testimony  fairly ?
  A.  Nothing more than that I think him guilty, and should want positive
testimony to the contrary.
  Q.  With your present information could you find a verdict either way ?
  A.  I don't think I  could.
  Q.  Do you not know  that it is the duty of the people's counsel  to prove
him guilty, beyond a  reasonable doubt, before you ought to convict him ?
  A.  Yes, sir.
  Q.  Do you know  that you cannot as a juror act upon previous impres-
sions ?
  A.  Yes, sir.
  Q.  Have you any impression on your mind that wiU prevent your weigh-
ing the evidence fairly ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
169
  A. I think I have some little.
  Q. Do you knoAV any thing of his guilt except what you have heard and
read?
  A. I do not.
  Q. You say you think you have some little impression on your mind that
might prevent you from weighing the evidence ?
  A. I did say so, but I don't think it wiU disqualify me from hearing the
evidence and finding a verdict in this case according to it.
  Q. Have you any desire to have him convicted unless he shall be proved
guilty ?
  A. No, sir; but I must say that it wUl require strong proof, after all I
have heard, to make me think him innocent, or rather stronger proof than
if I had never heard of the case before.
  ChaUenge sustained, but finally withdrawn by prisoner's counsel; when
he was challenged by  the attorney general, who  interrogated him about his
views of capital punishment; but as the  juror testified that he had no con-
scientious scruples against finding a prisoner guilty in a capital case, it  was
subsequently withdrawn, and the juror permitted  to be sworn to try the
prisoner.   (12)
                TRIAL OF THE MAIN  ISSUE.

  In court, July  10, 1846.   Present, Hon.  Bowen Whiting, circuit
judge, and Joseph  L. Richardson, Isaac  Sisson, Abner Hollister,
and Walter G. Bradley, associates.
  John Van Buren and Luman Sherwood, of counsel for the people.
  William H. Seward, David Wright, and Christopher  Morgan,
for the prisoner.
  The  clerk proceeded to caU the jurors decided competent to try the pri-
soner, who answered to their names and entered the box, to wit:
     1.  Andreavs Preston,         7.  Benjamin Beach.
     2.  Lyman Royce,             8.  Garret V. Peak,
     3.  William Tremaine,        9.  Tompkins Tripp,
     4.  Thomas C. McFarlane,   10.  Obadiah A. Cooper,
     5.  John Christian,           11.  Archer Macomber,
     6.  Norman  Peters,           12.  John C. Yawger.
  Mr. Sherwood, the district attorney, then opened the case to the jury,
in substance as follows:
May it please the Court—
  Gentlemen of the  Jury: After  having spent much time in a fruitless at-
tempt to ascertain, with the aid of the learned counsel and learned witnesses,
the mental capacity of the unfortunate prisoner at the bar, we have arrived 
170
THE TRIAL OF
 at the point, where, in my judgment, it were better for the public and as well
 for the accused, to have commenced.  For I discover from the names of the
 witnesses, who have just been caUed by the direction of the prisoner's coun-
 sel, that the question of insanity, which has for weeks occupied the attention
 of this dburt, and finally been determined by a jury, is to be  submitted to
 you.   Of this, however, you wiU not understand me as complaining.   The
 magnitude of the case you are empanneled to try, wUl induce you to- hear
 with patience  aU that may be said by witnesses and counsel in favor of one
 whose life depends upon your decision.
  This cause,  and one trial of it, in substance, which has already transpired,
 have  been the subjects of so much  pubHc discussion, that it seems almost
 unnecessary that I should state to you any of the facts concerning it, or any
 of the evidence upon which the prosecution rely for  a conviction of the
 prisoner.   But from the fact that you have been selected from a very large
 number, for the reason that you  knew less than others of the history of this
 prisoner and the crimes he has committed, and that your minds  are unpre-
judiced in regard to him, you wiU, doubtless, Hsten patiently to the relation,
 which I shall  endeavor to  give,  as briefly as  possible, of the  history of the
 prisoner, and the evidence upon  which we rely for his conviction.
  The prisoner Avas born 'in this  vUlage, and with the exception of some
brief periods of time,  has always resided here or in the  immediate vicinity
of this place.  His father was an African—his mother was the offspring of
an African and Indian.  He resided with different persons in the vUlage, or
 adjacent to it,  during  the period of his boyhood and tiU the age of sixteen
or seventeen years, when he was convicted of the crime of larceny for steal-
ing a horse, the property of a widoAv lady in an adjoining town,  and  sen-
tenced to State Prison for the term of five years.  I am aware of nothing in
his character or conduct, previous to that conviction, not common to colored
boys in his circumstance's and  condition in life, except, perhaps, he was more
 vicious than ordinary  boys, which resulted in  frequent changes of abode.
  During this  period his education was entirely neglected, so that he entered
the State Prison an ignorant boy at the age of seventeen.  You are aware
that the discipHne of that institution inhibits that  social intercourse which,
 with the uneducated, is essential to their inteUectual advancement; and ex-
 cept with the chaplain and principal officers, only admits of such communi-
 cations between convicts and keepers as are necessary in reference to the
 work at which the former are engaged.  Practically, the chaplain is the only
 officer from social intercourse with whom  convicts may be said to derive any
 benefit  In this case, that officer found the prisoner so deaf that it was dif-
 ficult to converse with him, and we may fairly infer that the prisoner's mind
 could not have been improved by five years' tuition at hard labor in the State
 Prison.  He was discharged from prison on the 20th day of September, 1845.
 From the time of his discharge until the 12th of March last, (when he com-
 mitted the crime for  which he  now stands indicted,) he remained  most of 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
171
the time in the vUlage, and earned his  subsistence principally  by sawing
wood.
   Gentlemen, you will readily see from the hasty narrative I have given of
this man's  Hfe, that he could  not have been otherwise than an ignorant,
degraded being.   Yet, ignorant and degraded as he was, he had sufficient
knowledge  to plan a crime, and sufficient sagacity to contrive all the means
of its execution;  and, that too, with as much  skUl as the more  gifted in in-
tellectual capacity.  A few days previous to the  commission of this crime,
the prisoner purchased of a blacksmith in this vUlage, by the name of Hyatt,
this knife, (holding up the knife, then in two parts, a part of the blade having
been broken off, with which the murder was supposed to have  been com-
mitted.)  About  the same time, or shortly before, he  took to the shop of
another blacksmith this dirk pattern, (holding up the pattern of a dirk,) and
attempted  to negotiate for the making of a dirk like it.  In these  transac-
tions he manifested a regard for money which resulted in his purchasing the
knife at half the price which the blacksmith asked for it, and broke off the
negotiation for the dirk Avithout a bargain.   Failing in procuring the dirk as
he desired, he finally obtained a common butcher knife, which he ground on
the back and inserted in the end of a club some four feet in length.  He was
seen with these instruments at a mechanic's shop, in the east part of the village,
shortly before the murders were committed; and it wiU appear in the course
of this investigation, from the confessions of the prisoner and from other ev-
idence, that just at twilight on the evening of the 12th of March, he proceeded
with these instruments from his boarding house, in the east part of the village,
to the house of the deceased, about three  miles distant;  that he Avas seen
in the vicinity of Van Nest's house about nine o'clock in  the evening; that
he remained near the house till Van Arsdale, who was staying at the house,
had retired to bed in the chamber, and a  man by the name of Williamson,
who had been spending the evening sociably in the family of Van Nest, had
proceeded toward his home in that neighborhood.  The family of Van Nest
consisted of his wife, three children, Mrs. Wyckoff, (his wife's mother,) a young
lady by the name of Helen Holmes, and Van Arsdale.  After Williamson
had left,  and Van  Arsdale retired, the prisoner entered the house, and with
the knife you have seen, stabbed Van Nest, in the  breast, penetrating the
heart, and  inflicting a  wound of which he iristantly fell  lifeless. He then
came in  contact with Mrs. Van Nest, and stabbed her  in the abdomen, in-
flicting a wound of which she expired in a few minutes.  He theii proceeded
to a bed on which their youngest child, a  boy of two years of age, was lying,
and thrust the knife entirely through his body, severing the bowels, and in-
flicting a wound of which he expired after languishing in agony about thirty
minutes.  He then came in contact with Mrs. Wyckoff, and inflicted upon
her a wound of which she died in some two days thereafter.   He then pro-
ceeded to the room of Van Arsdale and stabbed him in the breast, and had
an encounter which resulted in Van Arsdale's driving  him from  the house1 
172
THE TRIAL OF
After this, the prisoner again came in contact with Mrs. Wyckoff at the gate
of the door yard, and had an affray, in which she, with a butcher knife with
which she had taken the precaution to arm herself, inflicted a wound upon
him, severing the tendons of his wrist, and disabling him from further prosecu-
ting the work of death. Mrs. Wyckoff, wounded as she was, proceeded in
her night dress to her neighbor's, carrying the  marks and giving the alarm
of this family slaughter, while the prisoner proceeded  to the barn of Van
Nest, stole  and mounted a horse,  and proceeded  towards Auburn, passing
Williamson in less than a mile from the house of Van Nest, and continued
till within a mile of the village, where the horse  fell with him.  He  then
left that horse and proceeded to the barn of a man by the name of Burring-
ton, some  three miles east of Auburn, where he stole another horse,  with
which he made his flight, by way of Syracuse and BaldwinsvUle, to  a village
in the county of Oswego, where he was arrested, first on suspicion of having
stolen the horse, which he there offered for sale, and finally for the crime of
which he now stands indicted.
  It is proper to call your attention to the fact that the prisoner is, and has
for  years been, partiaUy deaf.  And  in this connection I may say that his
abiHty to  hear appears to  be suddenly effected  by circumstances, if not
measurably affected to  suit the occasion.  For, when offering this horse for
sale, and when charged simply with larceny, those with whom he conversed
found little difficulty in making him  understand, or in understanding  him.
But when charged with the higher crime of murder, and when inquiries were
made of liim concerning it, and from  whence he came, he suddenly became
so deaf that it was only by threats of violence, which were in some measure
executed, that he could be  made  to  hear at all.  Upon his arrest, he was
taken to the scene of his crimes, where he was identified, and thence to jaU
to await an indictment and the trial in which we are now engaged.
  Gentlemen of the jury, I have thus far given you an outline, a mere sketch
of the life and crimes of this prisoner.  Under ordinary circumstances and
in ordinary cases, I  should go no farther, before proceeding directly to the
proof by which the charge  must be maintained.   Nor do I now propose to
give you a minute detail of the evidence upon which the indictment is to be
sustained.  I will not exhaust the  patience which the importance of the case
wUl require you to exert in listening to the testimony of witnesses.
  The fact that one  trial has already been had upon the principal question
that involves the guUt or innocence of the defendant, is, I trust, a sufficient
apology to detain  the cause to allude briefly to some of the circumstances
attending it, and the evidence upon which the prisoner's counsel rely for his
acquittal.
  This indictment was found at the  May term of the General  Sessions of
the Peace, and ordered to this court.   On the first day of the present sitting,
the prisoner was brought in to be arraigned, and before his arraignment his
counsel appeared at the bar and interposed in his  behalf the plea of present 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
173
insanity.  Never before having seen the prisoner, except as he entered the
jail upon his arrest, and knowing nothing of his mental condition, I took issue *
upon that plea, had him  remanded to  prison, and while another trial was
progressing, instituted such investigation, through the aid of medical men and
others who were acquainted with the prisoner, his past history and habits,
as induced the  beHef with me and my learned associate that he was  in a
suitable condition to be tried.
   The law of this State (2 R. S. 697, § 2) prescribes that "No act done by
a person in a state of insanity, can be punished as an offence;  and no insane
person can be tried, sentenced to any punishment, or punished for any crime
or offence while he continues in that state."
   Had my associate or myself beHeved  that the prisoner at the bar was in
the condition of one whose trial is inhibited by this section of the statute, we
certainly should have saved the court, the jury, and the counsel the labor of
a protracted investigation, that resulted  in a verdict of sanity.  And I doubt
not, our learned adversaries will give us credit  for believing, not only that
the prisoner is now sane, but that he was so when he committed the horrid
crimes that convulsed a neighborhood, by striking from existence a number
of its most respected citizens.  Yea, gentlemen, solemn and awful  as these
murders are to dweU upon, their terror sinks into insignificance in compari-
son with  the thought of hanging a maniac.  God has stamped  the maniac
with irresponsibUity.  Our  law has recognized the mark, and I trust you
wUl not believe that the  pubHc prosecutors would urge this miserable man
to trial, in violation of law,  and against the common dictates of humanity.
We believe the jury that pronounced  the  prisoner sane  was composed of
honest men.   We beHeve the court that approvingly received their verdict
was also honest.   Believing thus, and knowing that most of the evidence up-
on which the prisoner's counsel rely to  establish the prisoner's insanity, has
arisen from  conversations with him since the  commission of his crimes, and
since his imprisonment under charge of them—conversations in which the
prisoner is himself the principal actor, if not the author of the disease impu-
ted to him—it seems to me, we  would be wanting in  fidelity to the public,
whose duties we have been delegated to perform, should  we refrain  from
pursuing, with proper diligence, the prosecution of this  criminal.
   Gentlemen, I am willing to concede  honesty to  the prisoner's counsel in
believing that their client is  insane. But in making this concession, I must
be allowed to differ with  them in judgment of the facts upon which they ar-
 rive at such conclusion.
   From what I have  already said  of the prisoner, you  must have  inferred
that he was never in a situation to  have obtained much knowledge.  On the
 part of the prosecution we concede that he is  an unlearned, ignorant, stupid
 and  degraded  negro.  With this concession, we will not claim for  him the
 power of feigning insanity or any of its appearances, so as to deceive those
 who have known him, and been famuiar with his history and habits.   Yet, 
174
THE  TRIAL OF
 gentlemen, you will readily perceive what inducements a man has, charged
 with a crime like this, to affect a disease which has become the common de-
 fence of murderers.  And I apprehend you wiU have learned before the
 close of  this trial, how men of learning and of science may be deceived by
 converting natural imbeciHty and taciturnity into strong " symptoms" of men-
 tal derangement.  In listening to the disquisitions of learned doctors of me-
 dicine and of mind, upon the symptoms of insanity, within the last few weeks,
 I have at times been  almost led to exclaim, in the language of Festus to
 Paul, " Thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad."
   Gentlemen of the jury, the main question  you wUl be required to decide,
 wiU be the insanity of the prisoner at the time the murder was committed.
 I might,  perhaps, assume that it wiU scarcely be  questioned by bis counsel
 that he took the life of the deceased at the time, and in the manner described
 in the indictment, and  as I have  already,  in  substance, related.  It wiU,
 however, be  necessary first  to prove the crime, and that the prisoner com-
 mitted it.  As we shaU proceed with this proof, you wiU discover that the
 perpetrator must have possessed memory,  sagacity, judgment and aU the
 common  attributes of mind.   There are certain principles estabUshed by the
 sages of  the law and sanctioned by the bench for ages, by which criminals
 have been tried.  I will here briefly advert to them, and give the court,
 (turning to the bench) reference to the authorities:
   1. If a man kills another suddenly,  without  any, or without a consider-
 able provocation, the law implies malice; for no person, unless of an aban-
 doned heart, would be guUty of such  an act, upon a slight, or no apparent
 cause. (4 Black. Com. 200.)  It  is presumed a man had a premeditated
 design if he kills.  (Foster 295, Starkie 514.)  The law  impHes maUce if a
 man does a deHberate, cruel act.   (1 Rep. 492.)
   2.  Every man of the age of discretion,  is presumed of sound memory
 until the contrary appear;  which may be, either by the  inspection  of the
 court, (1 Hale, 33, trials per pais 14 O. B. 1783 No. 4,)  by evidence given
 to the jury who are charged to try the  indictment, (3  Bac. Abr. 81, 1 Hale
 33, 5, 6,)  or being a collateral issue, the fact may be  pleaded and replied
 to ore tenus, and a venire awarded returnable instanter, in the  nature of an
 inquest of office.  (Foster 46, Kel. 13, 1 Lev. 61, 1 Sid.  72, 1 Hawk P. C.
 eh. 1, § 4, note 5.)
  3. Insanity, to excuse the commission of a crime, must have existed at the
 time of the commission of the offence, and such as to deprive the accused of
 the power of distinguishing between right and wrong.
  In the  case of Lord Ferrers, who was tried  before the House of  Lords
 for murder, it was proved that his Lordship was occasionally insane and in-
 capable,  from insanity, of knowing what he  did, or judging of the  conse-
 quences of his actions.  But the murder was deHberate, and it appeared that
 when he  committed the crime he had capacity sufficient to form a design,
and knoio  its consequences.  It was urged on the part of the prosecution, that 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
175
complete  possession of reason was unnecessary to warrant the judgment of
the laAv, and that it Avas sufficient if the party had such possession of reason
as enabled him to comprehend the nature of his actions and discriminate be-
tween moral good and evil.  And he was found guilty and executed.   (19 St
Trials by Howell, 947.)
   In the case of Arnold for shooting at Lord Onslow, tried before Mr. Jus-
tice Tracy, it appeared clearly that the prisoner was, to a certain extent, de-
ranged, and that he had greatly misconceived the conduct of Lord Onslow ;
but it also appeared that he had formed a regular design and prepared the
proper means for carrying it into effect.  Mr. Justice Tracy left the case with
the jury, observing that " where a person has committed a great offence, the
exemption of insanity must be very clearly made out before it is allowed.   That
it is not every hind of idle and frantic humor of a man, or  something unac-
countable in his actions, which will show him to be such a madman as is to be
exempted from punishment."  (16 St.  Trials by Howell, 764, 765.)   The
jury found the prisoner guilty.
   In the case of Parker, tried by a special commission, 11th February, 1812,
for high treason,  (the defence insanity,) it was held, that before it could have
any weight in rebutting a charge so clearly made out, the jury must be pro-
perly satisfied that at the time when the crime was  committed, the prisoner
did not really know right from wrong.   He was convicted.  (Collison 477.)
   In the case of Rex vs. Bowler for shooting at a person and wounding him,
tried at the Old Bailey on the 2d  of July, 1812, (the  defence insanity,) Mr.
Justice Le Blanc, after summing  up the evidence,  concluded by observing
to the jury, that it was for them to determine Avhether the prisoner, when he
committed the offence with  which he stood charged, was capable of distin-
guishing right from wrong, or under the influence of any illusion, in respect
to the prosecutor, which rendered his mind at the moment insensible of the
nature of the act he was about to commit.  He was convicted.  (CoUison
 673.)
   In the case of BeUingham for the murder of Mr. Percival, (the defence
insanity,) tried at the Old BaUey, May 15, 1812, Mansfield, Chief Justice,
stated to the jury, " That in order to support such a defence, it ought to be
proved by the most distinct and unquestionable evidence, that the prisoner was
incapable of judging between right and wrong; that  in fact it must be proved
beyond all doubt, that at the time he committed the atrocious act  with which he
stood charged, he did not consider that murder was  a crime against the laws
of God  and nature; and  that  there was no other proof of insanity which
would excuse  murder or any other crime.  And that in the species of in-
 sanity in which the patient fancies the existence  of  injury,  and seeks an op-
portunity of gratifying revenge by some hostile act, if such a person be capa-
ble in other respects of distinguishing right from wrong, there would be no
 excuse for any act of atrocity which he might commit under this description
of derangement."  (Collison addenda 636.) 
176
THE TRIAL OF
   In the case of Hadfield, for shooting at the king, tried  in  the  court  of
 King's Bench, in 1800, (defence insanity,) it was proved that  he had been
 a private soldier in a Dragoon Regiment in  1793; received many severe
 wounds in the battle near Lisle, which caused partial derangement of mind,
 and he  had been  dismissed from the army on account of insanity;  that
 since his return to his country he had been actually out of his mind from the
 beginning of spring to the end of dog-days, and had been  under confine-
 ment as  a lunatic.   Acts of insanity were proved on  the 11th, and on the
 morning of the 15th of May, the day the  murder was  committed.   On the
 part, of the crown  it was proved that he sat in his  place  in  the theatre
 nearly three quarters of an hour before the  king entered;  that at the mo-
 ment when the audience rose, on his majesty's entering his box, he got up
 above the rest, and presenting a pistol loaded with slugs, fired at the king's
 person and then let it drop.   And Avhen he fired his situation  appeared fa-
 vorable for taking aim;  for he was standing on the second seat from the or-
 chestra in the pit;  and he took a deliberate  aim by looking down the barrel
 as a man usually does when taking aim.  Lord Kenyon held, that as the
 prisoner  was deranged immediately before  the offence was committed, it was
 improbable he had recovered his senses in the interim; and although, were
 they to run into nicety, proof  might be demanded of his insanity at the pre-
 cise  moment when the act was  committed, yet there being no reason for be-
 lieving him to have been at that period a rational and accountable being, he
 ought to  be acquitted.   (Collison 480.)
   Such has been the law for ages, sanctioned by the fifteen judges of Eng-
 land as late as 1843, in answer to questions suggested  by the  trial of Mc-
 Naughton, in which they say,  " The jury ought in  aU cases  to be told that
 every man should be considered of sane mind until the contrary were clearly
 proved in evidence;  that before the plea of insanity should be  allowed,
 undoubted  evidence ought to be adduced,  that the accused  was of  diseased
 mind, and  that at the time he committed  the act, he was not  conscious of
 right and wrong.   This  opinion related to every case in which a party  was
 charged with an illegal act and the plea of insanity was set up.   Every per-
 son was supposed to know what the law was, and, therefore, nothing could
justify a wrong act, except it was clearly proved that the party did not know
 right from wrong."  (Forensic Medicine, by Guy, 332.)
   Gentlemen, I have thus alluded to  the fixed and settled principles of  law
 incident to all criminal  trials upon an  issue like this; more fully perhaps,
 than was necessary  for the purposes of this case.  If so, my  apology is, that
 my acquaintance with this cause, arising from the trial of the  preliminary
 issue, together with the cause of Wyatt which has just preceded it, in which
 the same defence  Was interposed, has instructed  me, that these established
 maxims,  which have for ages governed criminal  trials in the country from
 which we have derived our laws, and which  have been sanctioned and  up-
 held by  our  own tribunals, and which have thus far preserved society and 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
177
 punished  crime, are  now sought to be overruled; not by learned judges,
 not by the sages of the legal profession, but by the neAv light of our learned
 adversaries, Avith the help of learned Doctors of Medicine, and speculative
 Theorists, upon the various and multifarious divisions of insanity.  When Ave
 shall have proved  to  you the commission of this crime, and fixed the pri-
 soner as the perpretator, instead of allowing you, as the law directs, to imply
 that malice prompted it, you will be told by his learned counsel and his body
 of learned doctors, that no motive has been proved for the shedding of so
 much blood, and that in  the absence of such proof, you are to regard the
 horrid deed itself as the strongest evidence that it was the Avork of a maniac.
   Such doctrine, gentlemen, has been inculcated  in this court by the pri-
 soner's counsel, and, it is fair to presume,  will be advanced again  upon the
 present trial.  It is proper that I should caution you against the adoption of
 such heresy to the laAv. I can in no way better expose the fallacy of such po-
 sitions, than by quoting the language of a doctor of insanity, which will be
 used by the  prisoner's counsel, and the commentaries of an  author  upon
 Medical Jurisprudence.  The doctor says: " These acts are without motive.
 They are in opposition to all human motives.  A man murders his wife and
 children, known to have been  tenderly attached  to them.  A mother de-
 stroys  her infant."  The commentator adds: "It is  hereby  assumed or
 implied, that sane  men never commit a crime without an apparent motive;
 and that an insane person never has a motive, or one of a delusive nature
 only, in the perpetration  of a criminal act. If these positions Avere true, it
 Avould  be  very easy to distinguish a sane from an insane criminal; but the
 rule  Avholly  fails in practice.  In  the first place,  the non-discovery is here
 taken as a proof of the non-existence of a motive, while it is understood that
 motives may exist  for many atrocious criminal acts, without our being able
 to discover them;  a fact  proved by the numerous recorded confessions of
 criminals before  execution, in cases where, until these confessions  had been
 made, no motive for  the perpetration of the crimes  had appeared to the
 acutest mind.  It is clear, that if before inquiring into the perpetration of a
 murder, the law were to search for motives, and rest the responsibility of an
 accused party upon the accidental discovery of Avhat ought to  be deemed
 a reasonable  motive, many most  atrocious criminals would necessarily  o-o
 unpunished, and some lunatics be executed.  Besides, if one accused person
 is to deriA-e benefit from an apparent absence of  motive, there is no reason
 why the same benefit should not be extended to all Avho are charged with
 crimes.  In the case of Courvoisier, who  Avas convicted of the  murder of
 Lord William Russell, in  June, 1840, it was the reliance upon this fallacious
 criterion before the  secret proofs of guilt accidentally came out, that led
 many to believe he could  not have committed  the crime; and the " absence
 of motive"  was urged by his counsel as the strongest proof of the man's inno-
 cence.  It Avas ingeniously contended ' that  the most trifling action of human
life  had its spring from some motive or other.'   Tins  is undoubtedlv true,
               12 
178
THE TRIAL OF
but  it is not always in the  power of a man untainted with  crime, to detect
and  unravel the motives Avhich influence criminals  in the perpetration of
murder.   No  reasonable motive was ever discovered for the atrocious mur-
ders and mutilations perpetrated by Greenacre and Good.  Yet these persons
Avere very properly made  responsible for their  crimes.  On the trial  of
Francis,  for shooting at thf^ Queen, the  main ground of defence was, that
the prisoner had no motive  for the act, and therefore was irresponsible; but
he was convicted.  It is difficult to comprehend under what  circumstances
any  motive for such an act  as this could exist; and therefore  the admission
of such a defence would have been Hke laying down the rule, that the evi-
dence of the perpetration of so heinous a crime should in all cases be taken
as proof  of irresponsibiUty !
  " Crimes have been sometimes committed without any apparent motive  by
sane individuals, who were  at the time perfectly aware of the criminality of
their conduct  No mark of insanity or delusion could be discovered about
them, and they had nothing to say in their defence.  They have been very
properly held responsible.  On the other hand, lunatics, confined in a luna-
tic asylum, have been known to be influenced by motives in the perpetration
of crimes.  Thus they have often murdered their keepers out of revenge  for
ill treatment which they had experienced at  their hands.  See the case of
the Queen vs. Farmer, York Spring Assizes, 1837.  This man was acquitted
as insane, while  the clear motive for the  homicide  Avas revenge and iU feel-
ing."  (Taylor's Med. Jurisprudence, 515.)
  Thus you see, gentlemen, that this is not the  first time that such fallacies
have been urged in a court of justice.  Yet, notwithstanding their exposure,
they are  to be here urged again upon you and upon this court—Avith Avhat
effect, your own good sense must ultimately determine.   I may add,  that if
such fallacies shall obtain Avith jurors, we  may bid adieu to all hopes of pun-
ishing the atrocious crime of murder, until some neAv discoveries in science
shaU  enable the learned doctors to enter the murderer's heart or analyze
his mind, and  discover the influences by which it is operated.
  Gentlemen, you are to receive lessons upon the  subject of insanity,  in the
course of this prisoner's defence,  which doubtless will appear to you, as they
have appeared to us, not only as strange innovations upon the law, but Avhich
expose the singular  vagaries of the human mind—lessons which, if fully
imbibed  and thoroughly established, would not only acquit this prisoner of
his present  crimes, and pardon him for his past offences, but which  would
open your prison  doors to  their present inmates, and close  them against
future culprits.  Witnesses, learned Avitnesses, in behalf of this prisoner, -will
swear that crime itself, Avhere no motive can  be discovered, is an invariable
" symptom" of insanity.  You  will by them, with the  aid of the prisoner's
counsel, be instructed in the various classifications and  diA-isions that science,
upon a careful analysis, has  made of mania.  You will learn the complicated
character of the disease with which this distinguished patient is afflicted, and 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
179
 the different types it has assumed during his  career of crime.   You  will
 learn that he was first afflicted with Avhat his scientific witnesses denominate
 cleptomania, a madness that induced  stealing, and which, by its strange
 infatuation, carried him in a regular gradation of crime from the hen-roost to
 the peddler's cart, and thence  to the horse  stable, and Avhich could only be
 relieved by a. prescription from a court of justice, Avhich for five years reduced
 his circulation by confinement within the walls of a State Prison.
   During this period it will be claimed for him that he underAvent a change ;
 not only a physical and mental, but a maniacal change ;  that while laboring
 for the State and brooding  over his misfortunes, or his faults, he not only
 received  an  injury upon his  head which affected his brain, but that he con-
 tracted a strange " delusion" which he  brought  from the prison, that he was
 entitled to pay for his five years' services, and hence became a " monomaniac"
 upon the subject of his pay ; that, failing to obtain payment at the office of
 the prison agent, the delusion carried him to justices' offices for warrants to
 prosecute the person whose property he had stolen, and who caused his im-
 prisonment
   This form of his disease increased with his disappointment, until it armed
 him Avith the instruments of death, and led him to the destruction of one of
 the most respected and beloved families in community.   This family slaugh-
 ter is made the eA-idence that the prisoner's disease assumed another type,
 and he became a homocidal monomaniac.
   Gentlemen, you would naturally here suppose that he had already evinced
 insanity enough, upon the  theory of his counsel, to excuse a dozen culprits.
 But his apologists will  not stop here.  Shortly after he was lodged in jail
 upon the  charge contained in the indictment, it was discovered by those who
 deeply sympathized with the prisoner  in his misfortunes, that dementia,
 the very last and fatal stage of insanity, the climax and ultimatum of all the
 varied forms of mania, had commenced its  ravages upon his miserable sys-
 tem.   Such, gentlemen,  is an outline of the  theory with  which they wiU
 attempt to connect the history and crimes of this prisoner.  I shall not attempt
 to detaU  to  you the evidence with which they will  attempt to fill up this
 sketch.   It will be sufficient here that I glance  hastily at the prominent
 features of it, and refer briefly to the evidence by which  we shall attempt to
 rebut their ingenious theory, and hold this distinguished culprit responsible
for the blood of our esteemed citizens, in which he has so deeply imbrued his
 hands.
   First, they will attempt to shoAV that there was something singular in the
 change  he underwent from the age of seventeen to twenty-two.  Gentle-
men, you  have doubtless  been sufficiently close observers of mankind to have
learned that the natural vivacity of the boy is lost in the more staid  and sober
habits of the man.  And when  you  add to this, the fact that the prison con]
vict is cut off from society and social intercourse, you will naturally infer
that he  might lose a portion of his  sooial quaHties.  If, therefore, the pri- 
180
THE TRIAL OF
soner undenvent a change during the period of his five years' confinement, and
at a time of life when a change takes place in every mortal, your OAvn good
sense, in the absence of all proof, would enable  you to determine Avhether
such change was natural or  unnatural.  But, in addition  to this, we shall
show  you by witnesses Avho have knoAvn him from early boyhood, that time
has effected  no change in him beyond  the change  that under like circum-
stances is common to his species.
  Again, they wUl attempt to show you, that while in prison he received an
injury upon his head that resulted in deafness, and may have terminated in
a disorder of the brain.  In answer to this, Ave shall prove to you that his
deafness preceded the Hoav upon the head; that that blow Avas caUed upon
himself by disobedience or an insurrectionary movement, and was inflicted
in a manner that  could have resulted in no essential injury.
  The notion he entertained that he was entitled to pay for his services, we
have once shown, by a former chaplain of the prison, and shall again if we
shall be able to obtain his attendance, instead of being an " insane delusion"
was a notion somewhat common to the ignorant inmates of that institution.
  I have already commented upon the fallacy of attempting to fathom  the
motives of a criminal for the perpetration of a murder.  But Ave shall prove
that the prisoner,  when a boy, shortly before he was sentenced to State Pri-
son, resided  upon the premises where these  murders Avere committed, and
in a log hut a few feet from the dAvelling of the deceased; that he Avas ac-
quainted with the family and must have known them to possess a degree of
affluence; that he was at the house about a week previous to the fatal deed;
and shall submit it to you to determine whether his object was plunder, or
whether he took refuge in some fancied wrong, and sallied forth with ample
preparations  to seek revenge  upon society.   It matters not what  may have
been Iris motive, nor whether we discover any; for if, in the language of the
law I have read to  you, " he had  sufficient capacity to form a design and
knoAv its consequences," the laAV holds him responsible for his crimes,  and no
fancied injury can shield him from its consequences.
  Gentlemen of the jury, after the counsel for the prisoner shall have collected
all the trifling circumstances from Avhich an inference might be drawn that
he has been  afflicted with, or predisposed to, any of the forms of mania, men
of science, and I  doubt not of skill,  will be called  from the Insane Asylum
and other institutions of learning, who have visited and conversed with the
prisoner  in his cell, and introduced  to prove him in a state of  absolute and
irrecoverable dementia.   Gentlemen, I  hope I do not undervalue learning,
nor would I depreciate in your estimation the value of science, and of skill,
and of experience, in determining the true character of any disease that those
attainments can discover.  But in view of what has transpired in this court,
and of what we have every reason to apprehend may again occur upon  this
trial, I do feel caUed upon to caution you against receiving the dogmas of
men, learned or unlearned, in violation of the plain principles of common 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
181
 sense.  Hoav  many patients, think you, are there within the pale of our
 lunatic asylums, Avhose  insanity was not  discovered before their keepers
 knew them ?  Insanity, unless occasioned by some sudden injury, is generally
 if not always  preceded by some marked change, altering the habits or con-
 duct of the patient, and which alteration is as readily discovered by a man
 of ordinary astuteness and sense as by the man of extensive  learning, and
 more likely to be first discovered by the most intimate friends and acquain-
 tances of the  diseased.   I am willing to concede, that science and skill, with
 the aid of experience, often trace out the causes of disease, and alleviate the
 sufferer.  But I am unAvilling to concede  that vast learning is necessary in
 detecting the  mental aberrations of our intimate acquaintances.  Who  that
 has ever watched by the side of a friend afflicted with occasional delirium,
 but has discovered  the first  wanderings of mind ?  Think not, gentlemen,
 that I desire to  prejudice your minds  against the learned men who will be
 called in to aid this defence.  I am sure  that I respect them, and believe
 that I fully appreciate their merits and their skill.  AU I desire is, that the
 laav shall be  upheld; not only the law that defines and affixes a penalty to
 crime, but the laAv that governs the testimony of experts.   The laAV aUoAvs no
 witness, skilled  in science or in art, to give an opinion, without at the same
 time requiring him to give the reasons upon Avhich that  opinion is founded.
 Why is this ?   It is to guard against empirics, and to test the value of opin-
 ions, by subjecting the  facts  upon which they are based to the analysis of
juror's judgments.   Hence I say, gentlemen,  should  any medical witness
 give an opinion, which  may not be well founded upon the facts from which
 he derives  it, it will become your  duty to look carefuUy at the facts, and
 determine for  yourselves his  knowledge, or his empiricism, according to the
 merits of his opinion.   I doubt  not that my respect for medical witnesses
 upon a trial like this, is full as great as that of our adversaries.   It is natural
 that we should all respect most those opinions that concur with ours.  I am
 free  to acknowledge, that I have very little  regard for that opinion, that
 science, or that  skill, or whatever you  may please to call it, which makes a
 particular crime a " symptom" of a particular mania—or any crime more a
 " symptom" of insanity than of depravity.  In  Avhat  I  have already said, I
 trust you AviU  have discovered the fallacy of such positions.
  We are all aware that in physiology  different theories have followed  each
 other in  rapid  succession;  and  we know not, from  the  doctrines of the
 schools to-day, Avhat they may be to-morrow.   And whatever they  are now,
 liable  as  they are to fluctuate, Ave cannot  be  too cautious  in incorporating
 them  into the  law of the land.
  The different  conclusions at which witnesses have arrived, and the differ-
 ent opinions they will express with  regard  to the mental capacity and intel-
lectual soundness of the prisoner, you wiU ascertain from their testimony, are
the results of the different modes of testing it.  One thinks that the prisoner
supposes he can read, but finding he cannot, makes this inabUity evidence 
182
THE TRIAL OF
 of insanity.  If all are insane, who know less, or who can do less than they
 had supposed, who could number the crazy ?  Another, in conversing Avith
 him,  asks  him Avho God is.   He ansAvers,  a Being  above.   He asks fur-
 ther, " What is he like ?"   He answers, or the  " best he could  gather from
 his answer was" that he is " like  a man;" and from this  dialogue he thinks
 him crazy  or an idiot.  If this is a true test, shall we pronounce all who look
 upward in their addresses to the Deity, and all who believe that " man Avas
 created in the image of his Maker," insane ?  If this learned catechiser, when
 upon the stand, shall fail to give a better definition of the Deity, we trust
 you will not pronounce him insane.
   Such are some of the tests that have been applied by  the  prisoner's wit-
 nesses to ascertain his sanity, and from such results they call  him a fool;
 Avhile others have thought the best Avay to test his knoAvledge, was by obser-
 ving him in his daily life and different vocations, noting his actions, and his
 capacity to perform different kinds of labor with success,  and by conversing
 with  him upon subjects upon Avhich he may fairly be supposed, from his
 condition in life and from the manner in Avhich he Avas raised, to have some
 knowledge.
  In  answer to aU that may be adduced in the prisoner's behalf, Avith a view
 to show that he is a demented being, we shall prove to you that his memory
 is such that he  readily recalls to mind all  the occurrences of his life.  We
 shaU test the accuracy of his recollection  by those who have been familiar
 with his  history.   We will prove  that he answers  readily all questions that
 he is  made to understand,  in relation to subjects of which he has acquired
 any knowledge; that his looks, appearance and actions are, as near as may
 be in any individual, Avhat they were  before he entered the State Prison;
 that his attitude and the expression of his countenance  are  the same, and
both hereditary; that his health has been, and still is, good ; that his appetite
 is good; that no change is discoverable, either mentally or  physically, by
those who Avere best acquainted with him; that his moroseness is natural to
him, and, you will observe, is a trait in the natural character of his maternal
 ancestry; that  in the concealment of his instruments of death, he manifested
a criminal intent;  that in their preparation,  and in the execution of his de-
sign, he manifested sagacity, judgment, will, and all the common attributes
 of mind; that in the time he chose for the perpetration of his crime, and in
his flight, he sought concealment, and manifested what he subsequently con-
fessed, a consciousness of the Avrong he had committed.  We will prove by
 medical men, some of whom have known him from boyhood, that they dis-
 cover in him no change, uncommon to others, in passing along with the same
 period of time,  and nothing that indicates insanity in any of its forms.   And
 upon such proof, aided by science, and by sense, we shall rely for a convic-
 tion of the  prisoner.
  In  opposition to  all  this, you will be told, by witnesses who  have  never
 known him till since the  commencement of the present term of this court, 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
183
and Avho have attempted to converse with this unlettered and ignorant ne-
gro upon theology, physiology, moral philosophy, and those higher branches
that pertain  more  appropriately to the schools  than  the cell or the cabin,
that, in their judgments, he is in such a state of dementia as to be uncon-
scious of the commission  of a crime.  They are  willing to beHeve the pri-
soner honest in all  he says, save in the confession that his murderous deeds
were Avrong.
  I have hinted, gentlemen, at the prominent features of the case sufficiently
for you to understand and appreciate the evidence to be adduced.  I should
say no  more but for what has  fallen from the prisoner's counsel during the
progress of empanneling this jury.  They have insisted  that a fair and impar-
tial trial cannot be  had in this county ; that the public mind is so enraged
at the prisoner's horrid crimes, that the good sense and sober judgment of
our citizens are paralyzed.  And to illustrate this assumed position, and as
if to censure the court and the  prosecution, in a reasonable effort to obtain
a jury,  upon the trial of the simple question of a  juror's indifference, they
have stepped aside  to portray in fancied colors, the excitement of the public
upon the arrest of their offending client.
   Gentlemen, I am willing to concede that some excitement, yea, even that
great excitement did exist.  Nor am I certain that I Avould like a residence
in the  community, if such an one there is, that would not  manifest excite-
ment, even great excitement, Avhen four cold-blooded murders are perpetra-
ted in its very heart!  The society that has been robbed in numbers of its
brightest ornaments;  the neighborhood called to  mourn over the lifeless bo-
dies of its most beloved family, with every corse exhibiting the marks of the
assassin's knife, that would not be excited^ must be bereft of all sympathy,
and of the common  feelings of humanity.
  Yes,  gentlemen, the public was excited!   Society was convulsed!  But
that excitement has subsided, and sunk into a quiet grief that still lives, and
must long live, to wet with its tears the turf now growing upon  the common
graA'e of a venerated mother, a  kind husband, an affectionate  wife, and a
lovely child, whose  corses are now mingling with the sepulchral ashes of the
dead.
  While you are called upon to  perform the most solemn duty of your lives,
I will not ask you to forget the  dead, whose virtues daily call  up  the ten-
derest  emotions  of the living, for I should be asking more than any one
who may sit in judgment upon the offender can do.   I cannot ask you to for-
get considerations that are due to society and to humanity. But, gentlemen,
if any of you shall have imbibed prejudices against the prisoner, I call on
you respectively to  eradicate them now.  If you have any worse feelings
than of pity and compassion for  this miserable culprit,  and if you have any
desire but to arrive at the truth  in the investigation of  this charge, I call on
you, for his sake and for yours, for the sake of justice to him and to your-
selves, justice both temporal and eternal, to drive them from  your minds. 
184
THE TRIAL OF
The people do not seek the blood of the innocent; public justice does  not
demand it;  nor- shall you, with the consent of the prosecution, become the
instruments of shedding it.   No;  and notwithstanding the public excitement
to which counsel have so often alluded, and which has doubtless existed to a
great extent, I am  more ready to hope, and more wiUing to believe, that you
will acquit than convict the prisoner, unless his conviction, in view of all the
facts, shall be required by impartial justice and the stern demands of laAv.
   Gentlemen, much has been said by the prisoner's counsel, not only on the
motion to postpone the trial, but  during the  investigations to ascertain the
indifference of jurors, about the verdict of the jury upon the trial of the pre-
liminary issue.   The jury Avho rendered that verdict, and the court that  re-
ceived it, have both been arraigned by  his counsel, and in your presence
have received his censure.   This, gentlemen, I regret.   I can readily over-
look, and forget, and forgive aU that has been said and hinted against the
prosecution.  Whatever has fallen from counsel that savored of severity or
unkindness,  has  been regarded  as the ebulHtion of uncommon zeal, warmed
into being by a cause of unusual  magnitude, and has fallen harmless at our
feet.   But so far as the integrity of the jury that rendered that verdict, and
the impartiality  of the court that  received  it, have been questioned by the
counsel, I deeply regret his course.  I have referred to  the law that governs
the court when the plea of insanity is interposed preliminary to a trial upon
an indictment.   There is no particular manner in which the court is bound
to test the question.  It is sufficient that the court,  in any of the modes pre-
scribed, satisfies itself of the prisoner's present sanity.  In this case the mode
was taken deemed  most advisable  by the court, and which was  the choice of
the prisoner's counsel.  The result of that trial, patiently and impartially
conducted for two  weeks, satisfied the court that the accused was in a suita-
ble condition to be tried for his offence.   With that the counsel should have
been content.  We claim not for that verdict that it should influence you in
the one  you are to render.  We claim for it no  merit but that of deter-
mining that the prisoner is in a suitable condition to be tried upon the  indict-
ment preferred against him.
   Gentlemen, I  have warned you against  the indulgence  of prejudice  to-
wards the prisoner.  I have no fears that  any thing counsel may have said
has created  any against the court  or the  prosecution.
   I have now said aU that I deem necessary, upon the introduction of the
cause, against the  prisoner at the bar.  While I have much more upon my
brief of what I had noted during  the progress of what has here occurred in
regard to it, I will save  your time by  withholding it,  and not exhaust the
patience you will be required to exercise in the future  progress of the trial.
And, in  conclusion, I have only to add, that when  you  shall have heard the
evidence, the comments of counsel who  are to folloAv the Avitnesses, and the
charge of the court, from whom you are to receive the  law, you will render
such a verdict as your judgments  shall direct, and your consciences approve. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
185
  Dr. Joseph T. Pitney was then called and SAvorn, and on being interro-
gated by counsel, testified as follows :  I am a physician and surgeon, and re-
side in the village of Auburn.   On the night of the twelfth of March I was
called to visit the house of John G. Van Nest, in Fleming, about three miles
south of this village, where, it was said, murders  had been committed by
some person then unknoAvn.  I arrived there a little  after midnight, and
found John G. Van Nest, Mrs. Van Nest, and  a little boy, said to be their
son,  lying dead  in  the  house.  I also found a  man by the name of Van
Arsdale there, wounded, and Mrs. Wyckoff", the mother of Mrs. Van Nest, at
Mrs. Brooks' near by, also wounded.   The body of Van Nest lay upon the
kitchen floor, that of his  wife, on  a bed  in the north-west part of the house,
and that of the boy on a bed in the dining room.   Van Arsdale was lying
upon a bed in a room said to have been occupied by Mrs. Wyckoff, wound-
ed, yet  living.   His wound appeared to have been inflicted with a  knife,
which  had cut the  cartilages of the ribs, and entered the left lobe of the
lungs, just above the heart.  Mrs. Van Nest had  also  been stabbed in the
stomach, in the left side  and above the umbilical region.  She was enciente
at the time.   The boy was wounded through the left side of the  abdomen.
The wound Avas deep and the intestines badly cut.   Van Nest had also been
stabbed, and his wounds, as well as those of the other persons, indicated that
they had been inflicted with a knife.
  After looking  at  the  wounds on the bodies of  Van Nest, his wife, and
child, I attended to Van Arsdale, whose wound was bleeding profusely.
From indications, some two or three quarts of blood had already escaped,
and he was very faint.   After prescribing for him and dressing his wound,
I proceeded to the house where Mrs. Wyckoff' was.  I found her lying on
a bed with a severe wound in the left side, and of the lower part of the
abdomen. From this wound some portion of the intestines were protruding.
She had not bled much.  I examined her, but found no wound in the pro-
truding intestine, but from the symptoms which folloAved I have  no doubt
that  some of the intestines were  Avounded.  Violent inflammation ensued,
and she died on the Saturday following.  The affair at Van Nest's occurred
on Thursday night.  I attended there again on Saturday, when, at request,
I made  a post mortem examination of John G. Van Nest, by opening his
chest.  I found  an  exact correspondence Avith the external wound, in the
right cavity of the heart.  The  external wound was in the left side of the
breast bone, betAveen the fourth and fifth  ribs from the top.  The wound
was from one to one and a half inches in breadth, and from three to four
inches  in depth. I found no other wound on his body.  The wound de-
scribed was sufficient to have caused his death, and I am fully satisfied that
his death resulted from  it.  Such a wound  could  not have  resulted  other-
wise.   He could.not have lived many seconds after having received such  a
wound,  and I doubt whether Van  Nest breathed three times after the knife
reached his heart.   He must have expired instantly.  The blade exhibited 
186                          THE TRIAL OF
may have caused the wound.  From the appearance of the Avound I should
say that it might Avell have been inflicted with such  a knife.
  Cross Examination.  The direction of the wound was oblique, not per-
pendicular  nor horizontal.  I made the examination about two o'clock  on
Saturday.  I Avas examined before the coroner's jury, called at the time.   I
did not count the ribs, but should think the wound  was between  the fourth
and fifth  ribs, counting doAvnward from  the upper one.  The Avound on the
child extended from the left side in front, entirely through his  body, and
came out on the left side  behind, dividing several portions of the intestines.
I examined the body of John G. Van  Nest immediately after I arrived at the
house. He Avas lying upon the floor near the kitchen door. I do not recol-
lect now how he was dressed in all respects, yet I think he had on linen, a
vest and pants, but no coat.  I did not examine his pockets then, so as to
know whether they contained any thing or had been rifled.   There was a
hole in his clothing, indicating that the knife had passed through it
  When  I made  the  post mortem examination on the body, I took from his
pocket a wallet which contained about nineteen dollars, I think, together
with some siher  coin. I took from his  pocket a watch, also, and handed it,
with the wallet, to  the coroner.  I think the wallet also contained seAreral
smaU papers.  They did not appear to  have been disturbed.   I do  not  re-
coUect of any other occurrence at the  house of Van Nest, that it is important
to mention  here.
  Robert  Simpson was next called  by the district attorney, and after be-
ing SAvorn, testified :  I am a turner and  chairmaker, and reside in Auburn,
and have a  shop near the Auburn and OAvasco canal dam.  A day or two
before the murder of Van Nest, the prisoner came  to my shop and wanted
me to grind a knife for him.  He presented the knife to me.  I replied that
I had not time to grind it for him, and handed it back to him.  He hesitated
a moment, and then  said he Avished I Avould grind it.  I told him I had not
time to do  it for him, but would  put the belt on the wheel so that he could
grind it himself.  I then set the grind-stone in motion, and he ground it him-
self.  (The  district attorney here exhibited a knife, the  blade of which had
been broken.)   The knife produced is the same  one  that he  ground at
my shop, as I noticed it there after it had been ground.   After grinding he
rubbed it upon an oil stone, then laid  it  down and turned his back to me, put
his  hand  in his pocket, took out three cents and laid them on the work-bench,
and went out.  I recognize  the handle of the knife as one which I turned
out for George W.  Hyatt, a blacksmith.   The  next morning, whilst I was
standing  at my lathe, the prisoner came into my shop and spoke to me, but
I did not understand him.  He then had a large hickory club in  his hand.
I think this Avas on the morning of the murder, or the day before.   When he
spoke to  me I turned round towards  him and told  him that I didn't under-
stand him.   He  passed to the Avork-bench at the opposite side of the shop,
took up a brace and bit, and held it up. I nodded  assent that he  might use 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
187
it.  He put the club in the vise and went to boring in the end of it.   After
boring some minutes he  turned to do something which I took  to be to fit
something,  which I could  not see, into it.  When  he Avas using the bit his
side Avas tOAvards me, but  Avhen he seemed to be  fitting something into the
end of the club, his  back Avas tOAvards me, and I could not see what he was
fitting into  it.  When done he took the club  and went out.  About twenty
or thirty minutes  afterAvards he came back and asked  me if I had a larger
bit.  I went to a tool-chest and got him a larger one, Avith Avhich he Avent to
boring soon after at the  vise.   After Avorking there aAvhile he  Avent out of
my shop, and I saw no more of it until after the murders, Avhen it was brought
to me.   On seeing it then, I recognized  the knife.
   Cross Examination.  My shop is on the OAvasco  creek,  above  the vil-
lage of Auburn, and, perhaps, sixty or one hundred rods from the dwelling
of Mary Ann NeAvark.  I had seen the  prisoner  frequently pass back and
forth, but cannot tell how long before the murders.  I know him as I know
other colored people.  I had noticed the peculiarity of his posture in respect
to the  hanging doAvn of  his head.  I noticed that at  my shop.  When he
spoke to me, he turned up his eyes but did not raise his head but Httle, if any.
I never saAv him  doing any kind of Avork whatever, only standing  around
or passing by.  I never saw  him chopping Avood.  I never saAv  him in any
amusement.  I saw him when he came  into the  shop, but he  didn't then
speak to me.  He asked another person for the man of the  shop.  Had a
knife in  his hand which I saw when he came  in.  When he asked me to
grind it he turned the handle towards me.  He raised his eyes and came
pretty  close to me and spoke low.  He said, " will  you  grind my knife ?"  I
took it, saw that it had been  ground some, and told him I hadn't time.  He
then said, " I wish you would grind it."  He seemed to hear Avhat I said to
him.  I told him I had not time to grind it, but would put the belt on and
he might grind it himself.  I put on the  belt and he went to  grinding it.
Nothing more was said then. He Avas some time engaged In  grinding, pro-
bably from one half to three quarters of an  hour.  When he spoke to me
first about  it, he wanted it ground edging on  both  sides.   After grinding he
used the oil stone, laid down three cents and went out without saying any
thing more.  When he came in the next morning  he advanced  towards the
lathe where I was at work.  I could hear a sound  but could not understand
him.  I did not boAV, shake  hands with  him, or call him by name.  When
he spoke I  turned and told him I didn't  understand him.  I noticed that he
held his head doAvn.   He went across the shop  and took up a  brace and bit,
held it up,  I nodded assent and he went to using it.  I saw no knife that day.
He had  the club, which he put into  the vise, and I cannot say that he had
any thing,  yet he seemed to  have something that he was trying to fit into it,
from the motions which he made.   He neither paid, nor offered to pay any
money that day.  From that time, I did not see him again until I saw him
in court.  John G. Van Nest lived about three  mUes from my shop.  I can- 
188
THE TRIAL OF
 not tell whether he Avalked fast or sIoav ; think his gait was  ordinary.  He
 did not take off his cap.  I observed him closely enough to  recognize him,
 and I have no doubt that the prisoner is  the man.
   Dr. Samuel Gillmore was next called, and being sworn, testified :  I
 am a physician and surgeon by profession, and reside in Fleming.  I assis-
 ted Doctor Pitney in the post mortem examination about which he testified.
 I saw the Avound, and but one AA-ound in the body of John G. Van Nest, and
 that was on the left side, between the third and fourth ribs, I think.   It di-
 A'ided the  cartUages of the fourth  rib.   The wound proceeded imvard,
 pierced the pericardium, and entered the right ventricle or cavity of his heart
 The  depth of the wound was about four inches, and Avas  inflicted Avith  a
 sharp cutting instrument.  The external wound corresponded in size Avith the
 blade of the knife now presented by the district attorney.  I am satisfied that
 the wound described, caused the death of Van Nest, and that he must have
 expired almost instantaneously.  When I saw him, he was lying on his back
 in the kitchen of his house.  The locality of the external wound was two or
 two and a half inches on the left of the navel.  The direction of the wound
 as it was pursued imvard, went from the left to the right a little, wounding
 the mesentery and the liver in the inferior part.  We found three or four
 quarts of blood in the abdomen.  It  was about ten o'clock when I got there.
   Cross Examination.  The body of John G. Van Nest was lying from
 five to seven feet from the steps.   He had his pantaloons, vest, and, I should
 think, his  roundabout on.   There was a wound in the Aest and  the  shirt,
 which was bloody, yet the effusion was slight.  The body wras placed on  a
 table, Avhere we made the examination.   A part of his clothes were removed.
 In the pockets we found a wallet, containing  about nineteen dollars in bills,
 Avith some small pieces of silver coin, a pen-knife and some keys; also a sil-
 ver Avatch.  The prisoner was not there on Friday, and on Saturday  I was
 not there.  I never saAv the prisoner until he had been lodged in the jail.
  George W. Hyatt, called and sworn, testified : I am a blacksmith, and
 manufactured the knife which is now presented me by the district attorney.
I sold it to the prisoner  on Monday preceding the murders. The young
 man who worked for me told me that the  prisoner, who had come into the
 shop, Avanted a knife.   I went to my desk where I kept blades ready made,
 and shoAved him four or  five  knives.  He selected one, and enquired the
price  of it.   I told him the price was two  and sixpence, or  three shillings.
He asked  me if I could afford it, or Avould let him have it, for one and six-
pence.  I told him I couldn't afford it for that. I, hoAA'ever, told him he
might have it for that price.  There was very little said.  He said he wanted
 a handle put on.  I put  one  on.  I think I showed him this handle, and
 asked if it would answer.  He said it would.  I then put it on.  I think
 something was said about a ferrule.  I told him it wouldn't split without one.
 He wanted I should grind it.  I then went to the grind-stone.  He turned
the grind-stone and I held the knife.   After grinding  it I  gave him the 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
189
knife, but he ground it more for himself.   He didn't state how he wanted it
ground.  I ground it to an edge.   It was not  ground on the back when I
got through.  The knife was made of a file.  He Avent aAvay and  returned
in one or tAAro hours.  He first came at nine or ten in the morning ; he came
before tAvelve the second time.  He had a large jack-knife, Avith the blade
out, and wanted me to put the blade into it.  He asked me what I would
charge him to put in the rivet  I told him sixpence.   He said something
about my  doing it for three cents.  I told him I Avould make the rivet, and
asked him if he couldn't put it in himself, and he said he could.  I made the
riA-et;  I might have put it in ;  he finished it.  I might have riveted it some
myself. He paid me a sixpence and I gave him three cents back.  He then
went aAvay. I noticed that he  Avas  hard of hearing.  I was told that he Avas
in the  first place, and I discovered it in talking with him.  I saAv him in the
street afterAvards.  I had to talk quite loud in  order to make him hear.   I
had to use considerable exertion of voice.   I had to hold  my head close to
him.   I spoke  louder than Mr. Sherwood does now to make him hear.   I
don't  recollect Avhat kind of coat he had on; don't recollect AA-hether he had
whiskers on or not.   The first  time, he Avas in the shop about half an hour;
about the same length of time the second time he came.  I saw him in jail
three or four weeks after he was put in.  I asked him if he kneAv me, but he
made  no  answer.  I beckoned to  him.  He leaned  forward  and said he
couldn't hear ; he was deaf.  When I asked if  he knew me I spoke louder
than I did at the shop.  When he leaned forward he was three or four feet
from me.   I spoke the second time about as loud rs I could;  he made the
same  reply. I have related all the conversation I recollect at the shop.  He
gave me two shilHngs and I gave him sixpence ba.k.
   Cross  Examination.—I have lived in Auburn since November  last.  I
never saAv Freeman until he  came to my shop.   Never  heard of him.  I
work in the back part of the shop.  I was informed by David Harnden that
Freeman  wanted a knife.  I call the knife  a butcher knife.  Don't know as
I  saw Freeman come in at the door.  Don't recollect of his speaking to
Harnden.   Freeman came up  to  me.  He did not  call  mc by name.   I
showed the knives before he spoke to me.  He carried his head rather doAvn,
as it is in court here.  When I spoke he inclined his ear to, me to hear.  He
seemed to Avork at the riveting as though  he had some  experience.  I had
been  told by Mr. Doud that he worked at the  blacksmith's trade in prison.
I didn't notice  Hoav he  did his work.  Have thought  of the ferrule since I
swore here before.  Can't recollect  particularly Avhat was said about it.  Was
pretty close to  him Avhen I talked  to him; Avithin a foot some of the time.
Think I saw him have  more change  than  he  paid me.  Saw no bills.  He
had nothing Avith him when he came.  I think he went off with the knife in
his open hand.   Doud said Freeman had been in the shop a number of times
to hire out.  The knife  was a large jack-knife, with one blade.   I think he
put it in his pocket.   Should think it was rather dull.  Can't say whether 
190
THE  TRIAL OF
 he talked with Harnden.  He took the sixpence from his pocket.  I saw no
 more money then.  Am not certain where he put the jack-knife.  He made
 no salutation when he went out.  In the jail he Avas chained in the back part
 of the cell, when I saAv him.  He leaned fonvard as if trying to come to me.
 He gave me no salutation.   He said, I can't hear; or, I am deaf.  His head
 Avas  downcast, then.  I thought his appearance Avas different in jail from
 what it was before.   There seemed to be no inclination, on his part, to no-
 tice any one.  He had his eye in one direction.  When he stepped back, he
 didn't look at  me.  At one time, I think, he came Avithin  four feet of me.
 When I spoke loud at the shop, he heard me.  In the jail, his  hand was in
 a sHng.   He held his head and eyes down, in jail.  He carried his head about
 the same  in the shop.  I have no  recollection  of his looking up.  It is my
 impression he turned his eyes up, without raising his head.  I haA'e no doubt
 this is the man that bought the knife of me.
   Joseph Mokris, called  and SAvorn, testified :   I  reside on  Seminary
 avenue, in Auburn.  I am a blacksmith.  Have seen the prisoner.  Suav
 him first at my shop, about a week before the murder.  He came in there on
 Thursday, and asked me if I would make him a knife.   I asked Avhat kind
 of a knife.  He picked up a piece of iron and scribed out Avhat he wanted.
 I supposed he Avanted a knife to stick hogs, sharp on both edges.  I asked
 him if he  wanted a  knife to stick  hogs; he said that was not the  kind.  I
 told him he had better Avhittle out a pattern of the knife he wanted.  I looked
 for a bit of soft Avood.  I told him to go to the  carpenter's and get a piece.
 He said  he would go  and Avhittle out a pattern.  He went, and Avas gone
 fifteen or twenty minutes, and returned with one.   The stick  produced is
 the pattern he brought.  He asked what I  should charge him to make such
 a knife.   I first asked him what kind of steel  he wanted it made of.   He
 asked what I Avould charge to make it out of good cast  steel ?  I told him
four shillings.  He said I  could afford to make it for two shillings.  I told
him I could not.   He staid about an hour.  He finally said  he Avould give
four shillings, if I Avould grind it and put a handle to it.  I told him I wouldn't
 do it.  He staid some time.  Went off and left the pattern there.  I said to
 him,  " What do you want to do with the knife ?"  He said nothing.  I said,
 " You want to kill  somebody, don't you ?"  He  said,  " It is none of your
 business,  so long as you get your pay for it."  That is about aU the conver-
 sation. The conversation  was all had  at the same time.  He came back to
 my shop the next  Saturday.  I had no conversation with him.  I don't think
he talked  to my boys then.
   Cross Examination.—-I  haA'e  lived in Auburn sixteen or seventeen
 years. Don't  recollect ever seeing him before.   My boys told me he used
 to live with Mr. CadweU; but when that Avas said, it didn't call him to my
 recollection.  He had on a roundabout when I saw him.  He kept his head
 about as  he does  noAv—down.  He cast his eye up.  He carried his head  «
 about as he  did in the  streets.  I saw  him in the streets before, but didn't 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
191
know his name.   I saw him  a short time before he came to my shop.   He
carried his head down more than persons ordinarily do.  I don't recollect as
he held his head close to me.  One of my boys told me he Avas deaf, and I
must speak loud to him.   I talked louder to him than ordinarily.   I scribed
out a sticking knife.  He said that Avas not the kind he wanted.  I asked  if
he wanted a knife to stick hogs.  He replied, No.   When he Avent away he
handed me the pattern.   I laid it up on the forge.  It was  taken aAvay the
day after the  murder.   I asked if he Avanted it made  of good  cast steel.
He said, Yes.  I said to Thomas, " I guess this negro is going to kill some-
body."  There was  no other conversation Avhile  he was in  the shop.   He
said he would  give me four  shillings to make and  grind the knife.   I told
him it would be more trouble to grind it than to forge it.  He didn't  call me
by name.   I had  no  conversation with him the second time.  I asked Smith
who the negro was.  He  said he didn't know.  My shop is near Genesee
street.  The street on which my shop is runs up to the Theological Seminary.
I think likely I spoke to Smith about his fetching the pattern to me.  I don't
recollect the words.   I have thought a good deal about seeing the negro about
there.
   Joseph; W. Quincy called and sworn, testified :   I live on Genesee street.
Am a barber.  Am partially acquainted Avith Freeman.  I saAv him the same
week of the murder.  He came to my shop and Avanted his Avhiskers shaved
off.  I told him I didn't shave colored people.   He had a Webster coat on,
of a brownish color, and a  cap.  It was between eight and nine in the
evening.
   Cross Examination.—I knew him in  November last.   Saw him in the
street.  I asked one of  my  men Avho he Avas.  I saw him almost every day
passing by my shop.  I have seen him sawing Avood.   I never talked with
him except that time in the shop.   He was in my shop about tAvo weeks
before.  I met him coming  out as I went into the shop.  He didn't speak.
He had a stooping, doAvncast look.  He carried his head doAvn.  That  made
me observe him.  He didn't appear to notice me when I told him I couldn't
shave him, until I spoke quite loud.  He stood in the middle of the floor and
asked me to shave him.   When I told him the  second time I couldn't shave
him, he turned and went out of the shop.   I saw him in the jail and spoke
to him.  He didn't appear to hear me.  I didn't go into his cell.   He Avas
standing in the back part of it, and appeared then as he looks noAv—his head
bent forAvard and down, as usual.   He didn't speak to me when  I came up.
I  asked him if he knew me.   He made no  reply.  I spoke twice, and louder
the last time, but he said nothing.  He looked up.   Since  then, I have not
seen him, only in court.   He was not in my shop more than three minutes.
He  had a little  hair under his chin, and  hair on his  upper lip.  I should
think he could have heard in the same tone of voice I spoke in at the shop.
   Peter W. Williamson, called and sworn, testified:  I resided in Flem-
ing at the time of the murders spoken of; a mile and a quarter, or half, from 
192                         THE TRIAL OF
    Van Nest's.  I spent the evening at Van Nest's the night of the murder.
    Van Nest, his Avife, three children, Mrs. Wyckoff, Helen Holmes, and Van
    Arsdale, constituted the family.  They were not  all at home Avhen  I first
    went there.  I went there about five o'clock in the  evening.  Mrs. Van Nest
    and Mrs. Wyckoff were not there ; they came  in about six o'clock.   I re-
    mained until near half past nine.  Mrs. Wyckoff and the children, and Miss
    Holmes, had retired before I left.  Mrs. Van  Nest left the room a few mo-
    ments before I did, and went out into the back kitchen.   We sat in the
    sitting room.  I went out the front  door of the sitting  room to the  road.
    Van Nest and  Van Arsdale were in the sitting room when I left.  When I
    had got about one hundred rods from the house, I  heard the dog bark very
    fierce two or three times;  then I heard some one halloo, or shriek.  I then
    went ten or fifteen rods further, and supposed I heard some four or five voices
    shrieking.  When I had got Avithin about half a mile of home and three
    quarters of  a mile from Van Nest's,  a few rods east of the church, I heard
    some one coming behind me on a horse.  As he passed me, his left leg brushed
    my right arm.  He  then turned his head to the left and looked me in the
    face. Then I looked him in the face, in return.   I supposed him to be either
    a negro or a man disguised as a negro.  He  had no saddle on the horse.
    All that I discovered he had to guide the horse with, was a halter.  After
    he passed me a feAv rods, he put the horse on a fast trot, when I discovered
    whose horse it  was.  At the moment he  passed me, a cloud obscured the
    moon.   The horse was Mrs. Wyckoff's.  I saAv him when he  turned the
    corner at McFarland's.  The horse went by the road.  He came back, and
    took the road to Auburn.  I had to come about half a mile from McFarland's.
    I saw him about half way from McFarland's to my father's.  He went about
    a rod past the  turn of the road.  I went home and told  father what I had
    seen. I got my horse, and  started  back to Van Nest's.  I run my horse
    until I got within  about fifty rods of the house, when I saAv a  light at the
    front gate.   Just before I got to the gate, a gentleman  raised a light above
    his head, and pointed a gun tOAvards  me.  The gentleman Avas Montgomery
    Turnier, who recognized me, or the horse, before I did him, and Avanted to
    know hoAv I heard  the news so soon.  I told him I had  heard  no news—
    suspicion drove me there.   I Avent into the house,  and  saw Van Nest lying
    in the back kitchen.  He was lying on his face, Avith his right arm over his
    head.  His left hand, I took it, was in his pantaloons pocket—it seemed to
    be there.  His right foot was lying on the second step; he was dead.  I went
g   into the sitting room.  Van Arsdale Avas sitting in  a chair, wounded, and it
    was  with some considerable  difficulty that he could breathe.  I found Mrs.
    Van Nest on the bed in the bed room, in the north-Avest corner.  She Avas
    dead.  The  child was on the bed in the sitting room, and was living.  I
    started to alarm the neighbors. I Avas gone about half an hour,  and I went
    home before I returned.  I found Mr. Turnier, Mr. James Easton, his two
    sons, Edmund and James, Adam Ocobock, and WilHam Brooks there  when 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
193
I came back.  I was gone to alarm the neighbors about two hours.  Van
Nest's body was not moved while I was gone.  I alarmed Mr. Waring, Mr.
Cox, and  others.  I met the horse betAveen my father's  and John Fries'.
Harrison Masten had the horse ;  Jesse Cox and Brooks were with him.  He
was muddy on the left side.   It must have been about two o'clock when I
met the horse.  I looked at my  watch  after I heard the dog bark.  It was
precisely half past nine.  I didn't notice the mud on the horse until Masten
spoke of it.  I then saw he was muddy.  The mud extended to his hip and
shoulder.  I noticed  he had  a halter on.  I saw no blood.   I saw  a place,
about twenty rods south of the four corners, where the horse had been down.
I should think he had fallen there.  There was snoAv by the sides of the road,
but it  Avas pretty much  gone in the road.  It was over a foot deep on the
sides of it.  When the prisoner passed me, I  saAv what I supposed to be a
club in his hand—a  stick  with  the bark pealed off, or newly shaved.  He
carried it in his left hand.  I saw two feet of it below his hand.   I didn't
notice it above his hand.   The horse was  a black horse, with a white stripe
in his face—Avas old, and possessed not much power of fleetness.  The negro
had a Webster coat on when he passed me.  I could not tell the color of it;
not black, nor lighter than those dark sheep's gray.  He had a cap on, or a
Ioav croAvned  hat.  I supposed it to be a cap.  Did not see Freeman  when
he was brought back from  Schroeppel.
   Cross Examination.—Q.  How did you know the  place you speak of
was a place where the horse  had fallen ?
   A.  From the looks of the marks in  the snow and mud.  Mr. Van Nest's
horses  were better and more -valuable than the one he took.   Mrs. Wyckoff'
was a woman of considerable property.  No search was made to ascertain if
money or property of her's had been taken.  Mr. Turnier Hves about a quar-
ter of  a mile from there, with Mrs. Brooks.   Two of the other horses were
in the  stable.  Did not go  to Mrs. Brooks' that night.
   William H. Brooks, called and sworn, testified:   I live about half a
mile south of the house of  John G. Van Nest.   I was there on the evening
of the murders, between nine and ten o'clock, and after Mrs. Wyckoff came
to our house.  I was in bed when she came there.  She had on a night gown,
an old pair of stockings, but no shoes.  I didn't see her knife, yet I saw a
butcher knife at our house with her name on it.   I went immediately down
to Van Nest's house, but not before  Helen Holmes reached our's.   Easton,
Winslow, Ocobock and, afterwards,  Turnier went down there.  Julia, and
the one on the bed, George W.,  that was stabbed, were there. He was alive
when I left to come to Auburn for the  doctor.  As I was coming to Auburn,
I saw Mrs. Wyckoff's horse lying down a little south of the corners beyond
New Guinea.   I got Doctor Pitney to go up, who went up before me.  Har-
rison Masten took the horse  back.   The horse was muddy and had got up-;.
his shoulders and side were muddy.  I saw blood on the halter, but not on
the horse  Next day I saw blood on the manger where the horse was taken
               13 
194
THE TRIAL OF
from.  Tavo or three days  afterward, I noticed  that the horse Avas  stabbed
just back of the fore shoulder.  When I got back, the body of Mr. Van Nest
had been moved.
  Cross Examination.—T am fourteen years of age.  I was asleep Avhen
Mrs. Wyckoff came in, and they waked me up.  Mrs. Wyckoff complained
of being stabbed.   She had on a night dress.  I Avent to Mr. Van Nest's on
foot.  Mr. Turnier, Easton, and Ocobock  were in the road coming to Van
Nest's, when I went out.   After coming to our house, Mrs. Wyckoff' went
immediately to  bed.   I did not notice  the clock to see the time  then.  I
didn't see Mr. Van Nest's  rifle there that night.  Forget how Miss Holmes
was dressed.  Julia was in her night clothes, and Peter was asleep.  Julia
is the oldest.  I did not remain  there  long  before I came for the doctor.
Some one got the horse for me to ride.  Mrs. Wyckoff said to us that they
were all stabbed down at their house—that she  was stabbed also.
  Harrison Masten, called  and sworn, testified:   I came down to Au-
burn  after the doctor, and found the horse near New Guinea.  I took the
horse back.   He was muddy on the left side.   When I returned, I took the
horse back.   He was muddy on the left side, and appeared to have fallen at
the sluice-way.  I  saw no blood upon him, only on the halter.  He Avas put
in the stable.  I saAv  Freeman when he Avas brought back in the covered
carriage.  The horse had fallen into the sluice-Avay, from the appearance of
things.
  Cross Examination.—I liA-e a little over three quarters of a mile from
Van Nest's  place.   It Avas half past ten  when I was called.  When I got
there a  number of persons Avere in the house.  Van Nest was lying in the
kitchen, on his back.  He  had on a loose  linen roundabout and a vest.   I
staid there about fifteen minutes.   I did not see Van Nest's rifle that night.
I saw Freeman the Saturday when he  was taken up there  to the house.  I
was within  thirty  feet of him.  Didn't hear him speak.  He rolled up the
white of his eyes at me  and smiled.  He knew me.   I judged  that he did
not hear.  They were then bringing him to the jail.  There were a great
many persons back of him, and some ahead of him.  I heard no SAvearing or
hallooing after him.
  William B. Patten, called and sworn, testified:   I reside  in Auburn.
I know the prisoner, and have knoAvn him during the last winter before the
murder.   I saw him at the Seminary sawing wood, and saAv him at the mar-
ket.  The night of the murder I came past  Van Nest's house, a little after
nine o'clock.  I met Freeman south of the house, rather more than half way
to Brooks' house.   I was in a cutter, but he was on foot.  He had something
under his coat, and on his  arm, Avhich I supposed Avas a gun.  I saw it stick-
ing down by the side of his left leg.  He was directly in front of me at first,
 and then he sheared off'to the left side, leaving his left side to me.  He had
 on a Webster coat of a mixed color, as  I took it.  He turned out to the side
 of the road.  He kept his  eye straight ahead.   He had a cap on.   The color 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
195
of the gun, or Avhatever it was, Avas of a dark color.  It was a rnoon-light night.
His coat Avas buttoned up, and his gun or club was under it.  I didn't notice
any thing like a blade.  He carried his hand by his left side, around his coat.
As I  passed Van Nest's house I noticed a light  there, and I saAv persons
moving by the Avindow.
  Cross Examination.—The  day spoken of  I had been to Venice,  and
was returning home.  There was a light at Brooks' house also, when I passed
it, but I saw no persons there.  I met the prisoner just opposite the corner
of the Avoods, where the road is quite narrow.  I couldn't distinctly say it
was a gun that he had, but I thought so then.   I noticed it particularly be-
fore he came up to me, and I Avas a little  startled at it.  I drove on a trot
after I got to the Sand  Ikach. I heard of the murder the next morning.   I
have no recollection of Freeman Avhen he was a boy.  I saw him at the market
in the winter.   I never spoke to him. I knew his father, mother, uncle Sid-
ney, &c.  Sidney is universally admitted to have been crazy for many years.
I saAv Freeman at the Seminary saAving Avood.   There Avas no  person in the
wood shed Avith him.  I saw him in the market  only once.  I didn't enquire
his name.   Don't knoAV as I ever  heard his name prior to the murders.   I
don't remember any  thing about his history or manners before  he Avent to
prison.  I went to Van Nest's house the day of the inquest.  His body was
then lying in the kitchen, near the Avest door.   He was laid out as a corpse.
I have no doubt Freeman is the man I met that night as I Avas coming from
Venice.
  Nathaniel Hersey, called and sworn, testified : I knew  Freeman last
Avinter.  He made it his home at John De Puy's.  He boarded a Avhile at
Mary Ann Newark's.  He had butcher knives  to my knowledge before the
murder.  I saAV him at Ncav Guinea.  I lived then with my mother.  He had
the knives at Mrs. Newark's.  He didn't  tell  me what he Avas going to do
Avith them.   He brought them out and gave me the new one which he bought
in town.  I showed it to Mr.  Worden, the man I Avorked for.  That  knife
is noAv at Waterloo.   It was  a straight knife, turned up at the point.   He
also had a couple of old knives, about a Aveek before the murder.   I saw him
once at Gale's grocery.  I didn't see him have any straight knife.  The one
he gave me  Avas done up in a piece of paper.  He  said, at Gale's grocery,
that he meant to kill  John De Puy,  because he went around and told them
not to let him have liquor.  John De Puy  was at Gale's the night he said so.
I don't know whether Gale had refused to let him have liquor that night or
not.   Freeman said he had found the folks that put him in prison, and  he
meant to kill them, because  they put him in prison.  He said  they Avere
Van Nests.  He said John De Puy turned him out doors when he worked
at Port Byron, because he would not give him his money.  This Avas a week
before the murder.
  Cross Examination.—I am twenty-three years old.  My  mother's right
name is Miss  Hersey.   She goes by the name of Willard.  Jack Willard, 
196
THE TRIAL OF
 her husband, is in  prison.  I can't tell Iioav long she has lived here.  I saw
 wood and do any thing I can get to do for a living.   I was put in jail once,
 for fighting.  I never was in State Prison except to visit it  I kneAV Free-
 man when he Avorked for Dr. Hamilton; that was about seven  years ago.
 He was a lively, smart boy ; he laughed and played, and was good natured.
 I thought he could understand as much as any body.  He heard Avell and
 could teU a story right  off.  He didn't talk  a great deal  unless some one
 spoke to him, or he was  playing, but then he talked like other folks.  I saAv
 him last fall; he held his head down as he walked along.  He knew me, and
 wanted to knoAV hoAv I did.  He  said he was  glad to see me.   His hearing
 Avas pretty hard then ; I had to speak pretty loud to him.  He also appeared
 to be quite stupid.  I asked him Avhat ailed him.   He said he was deaf; that
 they rapped him on the head at the prison.   I saw him again in about three
 weeks.  He had the  same appearance then.  I saAv the knives after I had
 the talk at Gale's.   He  said he had found the folks who put him in prison.
 He said he had found Van Nest's folks; and I asked him who they were.
 He laughed about  it.  He said he was going to kUl Mr. Van Nest's folks.
 He said nothing about a man or woman, or a widow, that I remember. This
 was all that was said  at that time.  I think  Esq. Bostwick asked me, on the
 examination of this case, whether I had heard Freeman threaten Van Nest,
 and I said I didn't  hear him threaten him.   That was about a week after the
 murder.   I believe I was under oath then, but am not sure.
   Re-Examination.—I told Mr. Stephen Titus, the same night, that Free-
 man said he was going to kiU John De Puy, and he said he was going to kill
 Van Nest.  On the examination  Esq. Bostwick said he Avanted me to teU
 what I knew about it and not injure myself.  I then  told him what I recol-
 lected.  I didn't think  of this, and  another  thing I forgot all about.   He
 asked me about his threatening to kill, and told me to tell all I knew about
 his killing the  folks, and he asked me if I knew any thing about his threat-
 ening to kill Van Nest.  I told him I believed he didn't mention any thing
 about it.   I didn't think  of it then.   I Avas not arrested, but John Gabriel,
 my brother-in-law, was taken up, and I was examined as to Gabriel, but I
 didn't know as I was examined as to  Freeman.  He said  he meant to kill
 John De Puy because he went round  and told them not to let him have any
liquor, and because he took his money away when he went to Port Byron,
 and turned him out  of doors.  He said he had found Van Nest.   I asked
him who, and he said Mr. Van Nest's  folks, in reply.   He said he meant to
kiU them because they put him into prison.
  Thomas  F. Munroe, called and sworn, testified: I am a police  officer.
 I was at Van Nest's house the night of the murder.   The body of John G.
 Van Nest was  lying  in the back kitchen with  one foot on the step.  His
 hand was under him,  but not in his pocket.   I assisted in taking his coat off
from him.  We laid two  piUows on the floor and put the body on them.   I
 observed the hole cut in his breast.   I saw the prisoner in jail the  Sunday 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
197
following.  I don't recollect the clothes which he had on so as to describe
them particularly.  I think the knife in court is the knife which I saw there.
The point of the blade broken off is five inches long by measurement.  The
balance of the blade is three and a half inches long.
   Cross Examination.—I arrived  at the house about half past twelve
o'clock Friday morning.  Doctor Pitney had not got there ;  but Mr. Easton
and Mr. WinsloAv were there.  I saw  a gun hanging in the kitchen  in the
passage.  A  man standing up where Van Nest's head was, I think could
reach the gun.  Mr. Van Nest had on gray pantaloons.  His  A^est Avas but-
toned, but his roundabout Avas not.  Mrs. Van Nest was in the north-west
bed room.  A blanket had been laid  over her.  I only saw her head  and
feet.  She had shoes on.  I saw the horse which  Masten  was taking back to
the barn, said to be Mrs. Wyckoff's, but did not examine him.  I made some
effort to find the prisoner, and to get  others to aid in the search  for him.  I
kneAV Freeman when a boy.  In his youth he was quick and active, and not
much different from other black boys.
   Daniel M. Turnier, called and sworn, testified: I reside over a quar-
ter of a mile  south of Van Nest's.  I got there  a little past ten o'clock.  I
was at Mrs. Brooks' and let the widow Wyckoff in when  she came there.
The lights were not extinguished.  She had on her night clothes, and was in
her stocking feet.  She had a butcher knife in her hand.  When she came
I was in the  wood shed.  I first heard a noise at the  gate, and then heard
her say, " this way, quick, for God's sake."  I picked up  my lamp and went
through the house, and told my wife there was some one out door in trouble.
She took the light from me and I went to the front door.   She was on the
stoop.  I asked who she was;  she told me and said they were  all murdered
down there.  I asked how many there were.   She said she  saw two  and
thought there were half a dozen men there.   She seemed to be very much
frightened, and said she was wounded.   I didn't see any wound myself, but she
remained there until  Saturday morning, when she died.  As she came in I
took the knife from her, and I went to Winslow's to get assistance, and then
went doAvn with Mr. Winslow, Edward Easton, Adam Ocobock, and Wil-
liam Brooks, to Van Nest's house.   We found Van Arsdale sitting in a chair.
Van Nest was on the floor in the back kitchen, dead.  Mrs. Van Nest was
in the bed room, dead.  The child had been stabbed but was alive.   I  saw
Williamson when he  came there.  I had a  lantern and a gun  which I took
down with me.  I had the gun in my right hand, but don't know as I held
it up.  As he came up I asked him hoAv he heard of it so soon.  He said
suspicion brought him there.
   Cross Examination.—Mrs. Wyckoff had on a flannel night  gownAvhen
she came, and had socks on.  I carried her into Mrs. Brooks' room and Avent
off.  When I got to Van Nest's, I found Ocobock, Brooks, and  Easton there.
I saw a gun hanging up in the kitchen, nearly  over Mr. Van Nest's head. 
198
THE  TRIAL OF
I examined to see if he Avas alive.   I  put my hand under his side to see if
his heart beat.  Van Arsdale was in the sitting room on a chair.
  Helen Holmes, called  and SAvorn, testified:  I lived at  John G. Van
Nest's at the time of the murders.  Mr. WiUiamson Avas there that evening.
I retired before he left.  I slept in -the north-west bed room.  Julia A'an
Nest slept Avith me.  Mrs. Wyckoff' had retired.  She slept in the north front
room, and Peter  slept Avith her.   The bed Avas  in the south-Avest coiner.
Mr. Van Nest, Mrs. Van Nest, and  George slept in the sitting room; A'an
Arsdale up stairs.  The first knowledge I had of the assassination Avas the
shriek of Mrs. Van Nest in the yard.   I had not then been asleep.  I then
heard the dog bark.  I raised the AvindoAV and asked Avhat the matter was.
She came.to the windoAv and said she  was stabbed, and they  Avere all going
to be killed.  I then left the Avindow, ran to the front door, unlocked it and
let her in.  She went directly into  my bed room  and  reclined  on the bed.
I re-fastened  the door, and staid in the bed room about a minute.  I then
Avent into the north front room.  Mrs. Wyckoff got up and went out into
the hall.  Soon after that I heard a noise, indicating scuffling  there.  It con-
tinued but a  short time, and I went out soon after it subsided.  I heard a
noise up stairs, also, before I went  out.  The  noise in the hall occurred be-
fore that up stairs.  I don't know whether Mrs. Wyckoff had a knife when
she went into the hall or not.  She had a butcher knife, and  generally kept
it in a cup board in her room, and I saAv it Avhen I got up to Mrs. Brooks'
house, after the murders.
  When I Avent out I passed through the sitting room into the kitchen.   I
saw Mr. Van Nest lying on his face upon the floor, with one foot on the steps
leading to the kitchen.  He was dead.  There  Avas no light in the sitting
room then, but there Avas in the kitchen, where Van Arsdale Avas.  I found
the back kitchen  door open and  fastened it, and then Avent back to the sit-
ting room, leaving the light in the kitchen.  As I came into the sitting room
I saw a negro looking through the front window.  I went to the  hall door,
leading from the hall to the sitting room, Avhich was  open.   Van Arsdale
then spoke to me and told me not to stand before the window.  He Avas then
in the sitting rooni, near the kitchen door.   The negro then Avent to the
Avindow on the north side of the door.   I remained where I was.  He re-
mained at  the Avindow but a short time looking in, Avhen he stepped to the
edge of the stoop and looked down north.   I then saAv his face distinctly.
He then stepped  up to the door and kicked it open; then Avent to the north
end of  the house  and looked into  the north  windoAv.   He looked into the
north window long enough to look  around the room.  I saw his face then,
but-not as distinctly as Avhen he was on the stoop.  I could see, hoAvever,
that he was a negro.
   I saw him again when he  was brought to the house on Saturday, and I
haATe seen him in court since.  The prisoner is the person.   After looking
into the north windoAv, he returned to the front side of the house and went 
                         WILLIAM FREEMAN.                     199

doAvn to the gate.  I observed in his hand Avhat I thought was a gun, but
don't remember in which hand he carried it.   He went north until he got
near the barn yard gate, and I saAv no more of him that night.  I then went
to Mrs. Brooks' house.   I think Van Arsdale Avas standing up Avhen I left.
The child Avas  living;  it groaned  but didn't make much noise.  I Avent to
Mrs. Brooks' quickly, and run part of the way.  I got there before the men
came to Mr. Van Nest's.  Mrs. Wyckoff Avas there and was Avounded in the
abdomen, and one of her fingers Avas cut.  She was sitting up.   I didn't ob-
serve that  she was wounded any where else.  I returned  to Van  Nest's
house again, betwen ten and eleven o'clock that  night.   Mrs. Brooks' went
doAvn Avith  me.
  About a week before this affair, I saw the same negro at Van Nest's house,
It was on  Monday of the Aveek previous.  He came  in through the barn
yard, and  back door yard, into the back kitchen.  He knocked  at the sit-
ting room  door.  I let him in.  That is the door where Van Nest lay dead.
He asked Van Nest if he wanted  to hire a man to Avork.  I believe he said,
" Do you want to hire a man ?"  Mr. Van Nest replied that he did not;  that
he had a man engaged, and asked the prisoner if he lived in Auburn.  The
prisoner said he was staying around there, and had no work.  Mr. Van Nest
told him perhaps he could get work further up the lake.  To this the pri-
soner made no reply.   Nothing  more was said.  He  remained  there not
over five minutes.  He was hard of hearing, and said he was deaf.  When
Van Nest spoke to him, he held his head doAvn and said he must speak louder
for he Avas  deaf.  He went out of the house the  same way he came in, and
Avent north. Mrs.  Wyckoff 'was  a lady of wealth, and was in the habit of
loaning money.  Mr. Van  Nest was, also, in good circumstances.   The two
youngest chfldren were in the room when the prisoner came there for work,
but Van Arsdale was not there.   He came there  to stay on Thursday night.
Mrs. Van  Nest Avas  alive when I left the  bed room, but was dead when I
returned from Mrs. Brooks' house.
   Cross Examination.—Mrs. Wyckoff was an aunt to my mother.  I went
there to live about se\'en years ago, when my uncle, Peter Wyckoff, Avas aUve.
I don't know  the  Avidow Godfrey.  I saw her in court Avhen she was here,
but never saAv her before.  I knoAV of no relationship existing between the
Wyckoff or Van Nest families, and Mrs. Godfrey.  I knew nothing about a
horse being stolen from Mrs. Godfrey, until after the murder.  I knoAv noth-
ing of Mrs. Wyckoff or Van Nest's making any complaint  against the pri-
soner for  stealing a horse.  Van Nest was  a justice of the peace.   He Avas
supervisor of  Fleming. I knew nothing of Van Nest or Wyckoff  having
had a horse stolen in 1840 ; nothing of any of the family having been a wit-
ness against Freeman.   Mrs. Wyckoff had considerable property, and kept
her money and papers in the north front room, in a desk.  She  had forty
dollars at  that time, which was brought in the Saturday night before the 
200
THE TRIAL OF
murder.  Mr. Van Nest kept his papers and money in a desk in  the back
room.  The family had respectable clothing, and respectable furniture.
  The prisoner, when he came to get  work, had  on a cap, and the same
Webster coat he had when  arrested.   He did not caU any one by name;
nor did any one call him by name.  He  stepped tOAvards the stove; I handed
him a chair and he sat down.  His head hung doAvn, but he turned his eyes
up.  He  sat near  Van Nest.  He asked Van  Nest if he wanted to  hire a
man.   Van Nest immediately replied to him.   He  didn't hear, and told
Van Nest he must talk  louder; and leaned forward;  he asked no more
questions.  Van Nest told him he had hired a  man ;  that perhaps he might
get work further up the lake.  When he heard this he went off.  I had mo-
ney, and kept it up stairs.  No money or clothing  were missed; nothing
but the halter and  horse.
  I Avent to my room about half past nine o'clock, and before Williamson
had left  the house.   I left Van Nest and  Williamson in the  sitting room.
He had on gray pantaloons, a vest, and a roundabout not buttoned. I heard
Mrs. Van Nest shriek when I had been  to bed but a short  time ; when I had
been in my room perhaps five minutes.  Mrs.  Wyckoff had retired  previ-
ously.  I think it Avas not over five minutes from the time I heard Mrs. Van
Nest shriek, and the dog  bark, until the negro went away.  It all occurred
in a very short period of time.   He saw no money when he was at the house
to get work. I  knew the night of the murder that he was the same negro
who came there for  work.  I saw no knife in his  hand,  but I saw what I
thought was a gun.   On Saturday following the murder I saw him.  The
officers brought him to the house.  He  had on the  same dress he had when
he came to get Avork.  He was there ten minutes on  Saturday, while I was
there.  I didn't hear him speak. His head was down, and he looked up as
he does noAv.  He didn't  smile.   He was standing up a part of the time, with
his head down in the same way.  I saAv him in jail  the second day of court;
he was standing up.  I didn't go into the ceU.  His head was down the same
as now; didn't speak.
  Re-Examination.—Mrs. Wyckoff had  no wound on her temple.  I saw
nothing indicating that the prisoner  was crazy.  I heard no Avords when the
scuffle took place in the haU.  Mrs. Wyckoff said nothing.
  Cornelius"Van Arsdale, called and sworn,  testified:  I was at Van
Nest's  the day of  the murder.  Williamson was  there that  evening, but he
left before I retired.   I retired soon after he went away.  After I had been
in bed four or five minutes  I  heard a woman shriek.   I raised  up  in bed
and looked out of the window; saw no one, and laid down  again.  The
shriek  appeared to be out of doors.   In about a minute after that, I heard
Mr. Van Nest ask some one what he wanted.  I think  he said, " What do you
want here in the house ?"  I next heard something fall heavy on the floor.
I then got up  and put on my pantaloons;  but while putting  them, or my 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
201
stockings, on, I heard the door open.  Some one spoke, and asked if there
Avas a man up there.   I was  then  stooping over putting on my stockings.
I rose up and said there Avas.  I then beheld a  negro, with a butcher knife
in his hand, like the one here, coming up the  stairs.   As he  came  up, he
stabbed me in the breast, but the  knife glanced off on the left side of the
breast bone.  As he stabbed me I pushed him back, and he fell doAvn stairs.
He had a candlestick in his left  hand, Avhich I wrested from him, and Avith
Avhich I struck him.  I then  folioAved him doAvn, and  at the bottom of the
stairs I found a broom stick, which I seized, and with  which I "struck  him
tAvo or three  times.  He made a quick  retreat as  I folloAved him up.  He
Avent out of the front door of the sitting room, and I closed the door.   The
front hall door was open.  As I looked out, I saw the negro about half way
from the house to the gate.  Mrs. Wyckoff, at this time, was on the last step
of the hall door steps.  I said  to her that she had better come in to the house,
but she went on tOAvards the gate;  and at or near the gate, she came up to
the negro, and there they had a short scuffle.  I saw her strike at him, but
saAv nothing in her hand.  He had hold of one of her arms with his hand,
and she appeared to be striking at his Avrist.   They Avere there half a minute,
perhaps, and then she went south and he went north.  I closed the door
when she went through the gate, but I think I didn't fasten it.  I  then went
to the door leading  to the kitchen.   Miss Holmes came in, and said the ne-
gro was looking through the window.  I told her to step one side, so that he
couldn't see her.  I sat down on the floor, behind the stove.  He was then
looking in at the  south front  windoAv.  I saw in his hand what I then  sup-
posed to be a gun.  He held it in his left hand.   Couldn't tell whether it was
a gun or a club, but took it to be  a  gun.  He then kicked the  door open,
and went to and looked in at the north window. After he kicked the door
open, I got up, and started to go into the kitchen, when Helen said he had
gone north.  I then saw Van  Nest  on the floor, dead, as I supposed.   I took
hold of Van Nest and turned him partly on  his side, but he rolled back on
his face.  Helen then asked if she should go and alarm some of the  neighbors.
I told her to do so.   I remained  in the sitting room most of the time Avhilst
Helen  was gone; but was  in the  north room,  bed room, kitchen, and up-
stairs, some of the time.  When  I went into the north-west bed room, Mrs.
Van Nest was alive, but she was speechless.   She died before I left the room.
I carried the child from the sitting room to the bed room, where  its mother
Avas.   I didn't know then whether she was hurt or not.   Its mother breathed
tAvice after I took it in.  I then took the child back to the sitting room and
gave it to Julia, who carried it across the room once or twice and then put it
on a chair. I saw that its bowels protruded, and I put it on the bed.   I then
sat doAvn in the chair a few minutes—then went into the kitchen—then came
back, and Avent up stairs and put  on my boots. My Avound Avas bleeding
profusely.
  From the time I went to bed  untU Helen started to go to  Brooks', was 
202
THE TRIAL OF
from  ten  to fifteen minutes.  Mrs. Van Nest went into the back  kitchen
before I retired;  and Avhen I retired, Mr. Van Nest was  standing by the
stove.   The prisoner is the negro who stabbed me.  I saw him again on the
Saturday following the murders.  I  recognized him as the man.  He was
brought to the house to be identified.   The bodies were not then removed.
   Cross Examination.—I Avas not related to Mr. or Mrs. Van Nest.  I
had been absent from that neighborhood five or six years.' Had known them
twenty years or more.  I am a half brother of Van Arsdale Avho married a
sister of Mrs. Van Nest's.  Don't know Mrs. Godfrey.  Never heard of her
before the murder.  There is no relationship between her and the Van Nest,
"Wyckoff, or O'Hara families.   Van Nest was generally at home, unless he
had business aAvay.  He was a domestic, sedate, and grave man.   I had
never heard of Freeman before the  day the murder was  committed; but
Van Nest had said to me, that a negro man was there on Mondav of the week
before, and Avanted work ;  but I don't recollect as he told  me any thing he
said.  He said the negro was deaf. He didn't call his name, or say he kneAV
him.  Van Nest said he didn't know who the negro was.   I don't know as
there  was any money in the house.   I supposed there was a little,  as Van
Nest was a man of property.
  The night of the murder, I Avent to bed  about twenty-five minutes past
nine.  Mrs. Van Nest had gone out.  She might have been out about five
minutes, when I went up to bed.  Van  Nest had on gray  pantaloons, dark
vest, and a light roundabout.  He generally had his wallet in his  pocket.
Mrs. Wj-ekoff's money was found in a small trunk in the closet, not locked.
About five minutes elapsed from the outcry before he kicked the door  open.
He inflicted  aU the Avounds in about five minutes.  I heard no reply  when
Mr. Van Nest  asked,  " what do you want ? " but in half a minute I  heard a
faU.  Mr. Van Nest had three horses, and Mrs. Wyckoff had one, which was
twenty or thirty years old, and worth little  except for his shoes  and hide.
One of Van Nest's horses in the stable Avith  Mrs. Wyckoff's horse,  sold for
ninety dollars.  When the negro was brought to Van Nest's house, after the
murder, he was tied.  He sat down.  He didn't speak.  He stood still—was
chained—his head doAvn, and he rolled up his eyes, as he does now.   My
bed was at the head of the stairs.   When he looked in at the windoAv, I don't
know as the negro saAv Miss Holmes or me.  I think he did not.   He didn't
come into the room Avhen he kicked the  door.
  Re-Examination.—I didn't think he saw Miss Holmes  when I spoke to
her.   I don't recognize Mrs. Godfrey, as I look at her now.   I saAv the  blade
about tAvo hours after I was stabbed.   Some one brought it to me, from the
hall door.   Spoke to old Mr. Van Nest about coming down.   Mr. V. N.
said he  picked up the blade.  Saw the prisoner best part of an-hour that
Saturday.  Saw nothing to make me  believe he was crazy.
  Zephaniau Winslow, called and sworn, testified:  I reside in Fleming,
a quarter of a mile from Van Nest's, south.  I was there  the night of the 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
203
murder, between nine and ten o'clock.  I Avas in bed, when somebody came
and rapped, and told me that Van Nest's family were murdered.  I then got
up, and Avent doAvn there as soon as I could.  I saAv Van Arsdale who was
Avounded and weak.  He said Van Nest and family Avere murdered.  John
G. Van Nest Avas lying flat on his face, Avith his left hand in his pantaloons
pocket.   I took hold of him, and found that he Avas dead.  His rioht hand
Avas partly under him.  I found Mrs. Van Nest in the north bed room, dead.
I covered her with a quilt.  I came back to find the little boy.  I Avent into
Van Arsdale's room, and found him.  He was not dead.  His boAvels were
out, and bloody.  He expired in half an hour.
   Cross Examination.—I never saw the prisoner before the murder, nor
until Saturday after the murder.  I saw him there then, and Avhen they put
him into the carriage.  The dead bodies were then  in the house.  They
were buried on the  Sunday folloAving, in the burying ground at Sand Beach
church.  Mrs. Wyckoff died on  Saturday afternoon, and Avas buried with
them.   The door of Van Nest's house was shut when I got down there that
night.   I didn't see  any gun.  Didn't examine his person to see his pockets,
or what Avere in them.   I have lived in that  neighborhood fourteen years.
I knew Peter Wyckoff and John  G. Van Nest all that time.   Never knew of
their having a horse stolen in 1840, nor of their being witnesses on a horse
trial; nor of their being in any way connected Avith a horse trial.  I don't
knoAV Mrs. Godfrey.  Don't know  what hired man or help Wyckoff" had in
1840, except old Mr. BlacltAvell.  Isaac Devoe was the name of hired man.
Blackwell was about sixty years  old.   Don't knoAV how long he has been in
this county.  He is  now at Weedsport.
   Frederick Bennett, called and sworn, testified>:  I  reside  two miles
south of Auburn.  I recollect that a man named De Puy Avas there at Wyck-
off's farm, in 1838,  and I recollect a boy was living there with him, and that
the boy's name was William Freeman.   At that time the boy's mother lived
Avith Dr. Clary, near my house.
   Cross Examination.—When Freeman used to come  to Dr. Clary's to
see his mother, I thought he  was not a very active boy.  Didn't notice
Avhether or not he was playful.   He Avas rather young then.  John G. Van
Nest Avas a sober, steady, grave man, and pretty much always at home.
   James Aaios, called and SAvorn, testified:   I have some acquaintance with
prisoner.   First saw him at my house last fall, at  Schroeppel, in the county
of OsAvego.   He came with four of De Puy's boys.  Those De Puy boys reside
in Schroeppel, half a mile from where  I live.   I had a husking bee, and the
boys  came  doAvn to the tavern,  and thence  to the barn, and the prisoner
came Avith  them.   He stayed there and  husked  corn till Ave got through.
They then went into the house—eat pie and cake, and then left.  The next
time I saAv him was on the thirteenth day of last March,  when I saw him at
 Schroeppel.  I saw him as I Avas driving up to the taA'ern.   He came out
and asked  me if I Avanted to trade horses.   He led the horse which  he 
204
THE TRIAL OF
 wanted  to trade aAvay.  It was a gray horse, and had on  a plaid blanket
 Avith Avhite lining, and surcingle.  He had on a leather headstall, or halter,
 but no bridle.  I told him I didn't want to trade  horses.   He then asked if
 I wanted to buy a horse.   I told him No.   He then Avent around the sleigh
 to Corning, Wallis, and Brundage, who  were there, and offered the horse to
 EdAvin Corning for eighty dollars.   Corning looked at the horse, and asked
 him if that was the lowest  sum he Avould take.  He finally told Corning he
 would take fifty dollars for the horse. Corning then came to me and asked
 if I kneAV him.  I told him I had seen him, but couldn't call him by name.
 Corning then said to him, " Where did you get the horse ?"   He said he had
 a horse given to him, and he had traded round and got this one.   Corning
 then said, " I guess  you stole the horse."  The by-standers then  said, " I
 guess he did, too."  The prisoner said he hadn't stolen him.  Corning then
 remarked, " Amos, you'd better  stop him—he shouldn't go any further if I
 lived here."  Others said the  same.   Corning then had hold of  the halter,
 and the negro told him to let go.  Wallis and Brundage then took hold of
 it also.  Freeman had hold of the halter, and jerked one way—and the oth-
 ers jerked the other way.  The negro  then kicked Wallis and  Brundage.
 After  a while, they asked me (stiU holding the halter) to detain the man.  I
 walked up and told them to let  go the  halter, and I took hold myself, and
 asked  him to go a step with me down the road.  He went with me a step or
 two, when I told  him I  had suspicion that it wasn't his horse.   He said it
 was—that he had a horse given him, and had traded round and got this one.
 I then said to him,  " I see youv'e got your hand hurt; how did you do it ?"
 He said he got it.  hurt, but didn't tell me how.  I did not discover that he
 was hard of hearing. »[ had strong suspicions of his having stolen the horse,
 and told  him so.  He said, " It's my  horse, and you know me."  I replied,
 " I know you by sight, but  not by your name."  He said his name was Bill
 Freeman.  He then told me he husked corn in the barn last fall, for me.  I
 then remembered him.   I asked him more  about his hand—whether he
 hadn't been in a fight, and hurt his hand.  He said he hadn't.   I told him
 that I  didn't think he came honestly by the horse.  He said that he could
 satisfy me that he did come honestly  by it.  He said he could satisfy me by
 the De Puy's.  I then got some boys to go down to De Puy's, and fetch them
 np.  He  tried to have me let go of the horse, and said he Avished to go along.
 I refused to let go.  He got a little wrathy, and kicked me, and I had con-
 siderable of a tussle with him.  Finally I told him I should put the horse in
 the barn  and feed him, and would  feed him, too, if he wanted it.  He held
the horse by his left hand.  His right hand was in his breeches pocket.   His
coat Avas  shorter than this one ; it was a Webster coat, of a dark broAvn color.
When he kicked, I saw his  hand.  There was an old cotton handkerchief
 around it.  He made no use of his right hand.  He Avouldn't let me put the
horse in the barn, and was determined to go  on.  I then made up my mind
to take the horse from him.   So I took hold of his thumb and pried it back. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      205
I got the halter out of his hand by force, and handing it to Corning, told him
to put the horse in the barn and lock him in.  He did so.  I then asked the
prisoner to go into the house.  During the scuffle, he told me that if he had
a knife he Avould  gut me.  He declined going into  the house.  I took hold
of his collar, and he  kicked me; but I dragged him along.   He tripped me
up once,  and I fell on one knee.
  When  he came  there, it lacked five minutes of two o'clock in the afternoon.
I thought that he Avas very strong.  I didn't get him  down.   He got me down
on one knee.  When De Puy came, I asked him if he knew the prisoner.
He said he did.  I told him that I had stopped him, and had taken a horse
from him, supposing that he hadn't come honestly by it, and asked De Puy
to go and see the  horse.  He went; and I showed him the  horse, and asked
him if Freeman ever owned  such a horse.  He said he didn't knoAV that he
owned such  a horse—that he guessed he couldn't  own such an one.  He told
me that Freeman had stopped there as he came  along, and that they drove
him off, suspecting he had stolen the horse.  I then asked Wallis, Brundage
and Corning if they would keep him till I went and got a  warrant for him.
I got a warrant from Esquire' Burke, and came back.  I  arrested him.  I
discovered no deafness in him then.   After I had him under arrest, I asked
him if he wanted some supper.  He said he did.   I  told Gregg, the landlord,
to get  him some  supper, and he did  so.  He went in and  sat doAvn, and I
went too.  We had  sat  there, may be, ten minutes, when  Taylor  came in.
Freeman was  eating.   I cut up his victuals for him, as his  hand was badly
cut,  and he could not well do it.  I had no conversation with him at the ta-
ble, only to  ask him what  he Avould have to eat.  The wound on his wrist
was where the scar is noAv.  Taylor came into the room, and stepped around
and  asked him if his  name  was Freeman.   The  prisoner made no reply.
Taylor called him a murderer, and used rough language to him.   He called
him  a damned murderer, and said that if he had a gun he Avould bloAv  his
brains out.   Taylor then told us of the murder of  the Van Nest family.
Freeman said nothing in reply.  Taylor spoke pretty loud ;  as loud as I had
previously, and louder.  He was  quite excited, and laid  off his coat, and
throwed out some chains, Avith which he was going to bind him.  I told Tay-
lor that I had arrested him.  He then waited tiU Freeman had got through
eating, and then he  bound him in every way he could.  He then took Free-
man out of my custody.
   Cross Examination.  WTien I  first saw Freeman, it was about two
o'clock, p. m., of Friday. My husking bee was in the latter part of Novem-
ber, 1845, in the evening, after dark.  I remember seeing Freeman there.
 Should not have  remembered him if he hadn't told me of it.  At the husk-
ing bee I had no conversation Avith him, but to hand  him something to eat.
We  had been husking an  hour and a half when they came in.  We began
about  dusk.  He went away from the house, that night, betAveen ten and 
206                         THE TRIAL of
eleven o'clock.  I noticed  that he  appeared very still, said  but little, but
husked corn.  He Avasn't free in conversation, and w;i< a  stranger to me.
He did his AA'ork, eat Avhat  Avas given him, and behaved perfectly Avell.  I
didn't notice his hanging his  head forward then, nor on that Friday when
he Avanted to sell the horse.  I Avas giving my horses water Avhen  he came
up close to me.   He didn't call me  by name—didn't ask hoAv I did—didn't
tell me who he was.  The first thing he said, was, " Do you want to trade
horses ?"  I didn't notice his head.  He had an oil cloth cap on.   I said, No.
He then said, '• Do you want to buy one ?"  I ansAvercd, No.   He then went
to the other men.  I can't be positive  of Avhat  he said to Corning, except
that he mentioned about buying a horse.  He said he would take eighty
dollars for him, I think.  Corning took hold of the halter, and looked at him,
and  asked if he Avould take  less.   The negro  answered, " I'll  take fifty."
They stood side by side.  Corning was on the left side of him, and close to
him.  Corning then stepped to me, and asked if I knew him.  I replied, that
I couldn't call  his name.   Corning  then  asked him  Hoav he came by the
horse. The negro told him he had a horse given to him, and traded round
and  got this one.  Corning first said, " I guess  you stole the horse."  The
negro replied, " No, I didn't"   Then Wallis took hold of the halter and told
him he believed he had stolen the horse.  He told me that I kneAV him.   He
said, " You knoAV me."  I then had hold of the halter Avith him.  He said,
" I husked corn with you in your barn last fall."  I said, " I see you've got
your hand hurt;  how Avas it done ?   I guess it was in a nigger fight."   He
said, " It  is my horse ;  I haven't stole him."  I told him I should like to be
satisfied about it.  He said, " I can  satisfy you."   I  asked  hoAv.  He said,
" By the De Puys, doAvn here."  Then I said  I  Avould put the horse in the
barn, and did so.   I sent Gregg's boy to De Puy's, and Abram De Puy came
up.   When I got back, it Avas five or six o'clock, or about dusk.  I read the
warrant to him.   He didn't make much reply,  I  don't think.   I am not a
constable;  but  was deputised  to  serve that Avarrant.  I Avaited  on him at
supper, and cut up his  meat  I noticed he didn't use his knife, and so I cut
his victuals.  I didn't notice any stooping look.  He had been eating ten or
fifteen minutes  Avhen Taylor came in.  He had  more hair on  his head then
than now.  Taylor came  directly on to us—took hold of his head, and said,
" Ain't your name Freeman," and called him " a damned murderer."  Bill
muttered  something  Avhich  I  could not understand.  I Avas struck Avith as-
tonishment when  Taylor  said he had murdered  a Avhole family.  He spoke
loud and  sharp, but the negro sat at the table  and ate his supper.  I looked
at him Avith astonishment   He continued to put victuals into his mouth and
to eat, He seemed startled, yet raised his fork and continued eating.  Tay-
lor Avas much excited,  and  proposed to take Freeman away from  the table
at once.   I told him to let him alone—I had  arrested  him.   Taylor after-
wards searched his clothes, his pockets, and his boots;  and made a thorough 
                          WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      207

examination.   He  found one cent.  Nothing else but his clothes.  Then
they bound him.  The prisoner said nothing.   They staid there an hour, and
Taylor then took him aAvay.
  Re-Examination.—He said something about another horse, but I can't
say Avhat  I  think he acknoAvledged stealing the horse.   I saw in him no
symptoms of insanity.   I was Avith him about an hour, before I got the war-
rant ; and altogether I Avas Avith him four hours.
  Alonzo Taylor, called and sworn, testified: I am a constable, andAvas
last March.   I found Freeman at Gregg's tavern, eating supper, about five
o'clock in the afternoon of Friday succeeding the murders.  I had not then
been to Van  Nest's house.   I arrested him by virtue of a scrip issued at the
Tocsin office.  I called  him a damn'd  black  scoundrel, and accused him of
murder.  lie denied it.  I asked him about the other horse.  He said about
murder,  " I  don't  knoAV any thing  about  it"   He said, " they've got the
horse."   He  didn't speak very loud.  He  said the  other  horse fell and  he
left it.  After that, I couldn't get any thing more out of him.   I coaxed him
to tell me about the murder, and Avhy he killed the child.   I Ic said he didn't
knoAV it avus a child.  Herrick and Parker took him into  another room.  I
was called in, and he grumbled about their cuffiing  him.   He said, "I don't
like the treatment; they are cuffing and beating me."  Nobody succeeded
in getting any  thing from  him further.  After I Avent into the room they
came out.  I then  put him into a sleigh and carried him to Phoenix.   They
said they hadn't hurt him.  He complained of being deaf, but Parker and
Herrick said  they hadn't hurt him.  He said nothing more.  I brought the
horse along.  It Avas Burrington's.  Freeman said he got the horse east of
Auburn.  He talked very little.  We staid that  night at Phoenix.  Wil-
liams, a tobacco peddler, assisted me about keeping  him over night.   I rode
on  horseback, and he rode in  a waggon.   I had another  negro Avith me to
pilot  me.  I  brought this other negro  back, and I left the horse Avith Bur-
rington.
   Cross Examination.—I live at Cato.   I started for  Syracuse at first.
The slip from  the Tocsin  office induced me to go.  There is  a family of
Freemans  living  at Syracuse.  I inquired if they knew Bill Freeman, and
they said they did, but  were no connection of his.  lie was eating when I
found him.   I told him that he was a black, infernal scoundrel.  Bill rolled
up  his eyes and laughed.  This was while he was eating.   He said he kneAV
nothing about the murder.   I said, " you black rascal, you do."  He smiled,
and I  drew my cane to strike him.   They said, don't.   He  said nothing
more to me.  He was in the room with Parker and Herrick a few minutes.
They Avere searching him part of the  time.  He was there in my presence
half an hour.  We searched him in the kitchen; pulled  off his boots and
cap, and made a thorough search.  We found one cent upon him, and left
it Avith him.  I told him to stand up.   He said not a AA^ord, only when they
called me in ; he complained  that they were cuffing  him and kicking him 
208
THE TRIAL OF
 around.  I said I guessed they hadn't hurt him much, but he said they had.
 Some of them said he can hear quick enough now.   I took him to Phcenix,
 and while going we tried to get him to say something.  He told us that no-
 body Avas Avith him at the murder.   I asked him how he could be so cruel as
 to kill that little innocent child.  He replied, " I didn't know it Avas a child."
 He said of the horse, " I left him when he fell with me."  When I asked him
 about his arm that was cut, he had a chew of tobacco on the  Avound.  He
 cheAved tobacco.  He didn't complain of his wound.   The cord  of his thumb
 was cut.  The doctor put a cloth around the wound.  I staid over night at
 Phcenix, and set up all night.   He laid still and quiet. I supposed  he was
 asleep, for he said nothing and  made no complaint.  I went with him up to
 Van Nest's house.  He said nothing there.
   George Van Nest, called and sworn, testified: John G. Van  Nest Avas
 my son.   I reside about one quarter of a mile this side of his house.   I Avas
 called to the house at the time of his death.  I found the point  of  the knife
 there.  Miss De  Groff hit the point Avith her toe.  I heard  it jingle on the
 sill of the door, and I went and picked it up.   The blade  exhibited appears
 to be it.   Miss De Groff' was carrying the chair into the other room for  Van
 Arsdale.  The blade was more  bloody then than it is noAv.  I saw no black
 man that evening, but my wife  did.  I don't know what clothes my son had
 on that day.  He had a double breasted  vest, and the one  in court is the
 one, I think.  There is a hole  through it;  through both parts, where it Avas
 buttoned.   He Avore this vest about that time.
  Cross Examination.—I was seventy-four years of age in April last, and
 have lived there  thirty years.  My son  John  Avas brought  up  there.  My
 wife is living.  I knew of no relationship Avith Mrs. Godfrey; never heard
 of her or her husband till after this affair happened.   My  son John G. Avas
 my only son, and was all my dependence in my old age.
  Mrs. Van Nest, called and  sworn, testified: I am  the Avife  of George,
 and mother of John G. Van Nest.   I remember well the night my son was
kUled.  I, that evening, saw a black man in the  yard of  our house, about
 eight  or nine o'clock.  It was a moon-light night.  I saw nothing in his hand
nor did I notice his dress.  He came by the large gate, and turned and Avent
away  towards my son's.  He then came  back again and stood by the fence
a while.  He then turned around and Avent towards my son's, as fast as he
could  walk, and I saw nothing more of him that night.  I thought he had
a cap  on, but I couldn't discern whether  he  was a black or a  white man.
He put  both hands on  the fence.  I feared he wished to do something that
wasn't right.  I afterwards found my son dead  at his house.   He was lying
in the door, with his face on his right arm.  His left hand was in his pocket.
This is the vest, and this a little piece of the muslin of the shirt he had on.
 (Exhibiting them.)  John was forty-one years  old,  and was  married about
ten years ago. He lived at our house about three years after marriage.  I
never heard of Mrs. Godfrey before, nor  of this negro.  My son was living 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
209
with me in 1840.  He was very steady, grave, and reserved.  He was never
away from home except on  business.  He never had any enemies in  the
world.  My son was justice of the peace, but held no office in the church.
I was in the house, up stairs, when the negro  came there that ni°-ht  I
blowed the Hght out, intending to see what he would do.  I was in the  up-
per room,  and the window looks towards John's.   There is  a large  gate at
the wood-pile, two or three rods from the house,  and the negro stood there.
I saw nothing in his hand.  The lights'were aU out.  He stood there a very
short time.  He had got half way into  the yard to the door when I saw him.
He turned and walked away middling fast.  I staid there till he came back.
He went away straight towards John's, and we didn't lose sight of him until he
returned.   I saw him by the front door gate ; he put both hands on the fence
and looked north and south.  I saw nothing in his hand.  He staid there a
little whUe, and then went up towards my son's.   I then retired to bed, and
had just forgot myself when I was called.
   George Burrington, called and sworn, testified : I remember the time
of the murder.  I lost a  gray mare that night, and found her at Baldwins-
ville.  I missed her on Friday morning.  Her halter, blanket and surcingle
were taken with her.   They were all delivered back again to me.  The mare
was very  fleet, and  was worth eighty  dollars.  Freeman had looked at her
about a week before, as he passed me  in the street.  I resided about a mile
and a half from Mrs.  Godfrey, and west from  her house.  I know her by
sight.  She lives  about four  mUes from  Auburn, on the middle road.  My
house is near the  highway, and the  barn stands partly in the road.
   George B. Parker, called and sworn, testified: I reside at Baldwins-
viUe.  On the  thirteenth of March I was at Phcenix, attending a  law-suit.
I saw Amos  there;  his business there was for a warrant.  He made appli-
cation to the justice.   Said he wanted to arrest a person, to him unknown,
on suspicion that he had stolen a horse.  Three quarters of an hour after, I
heard of these deaths.  I went to Gregg's immediately, and saw the prisoner.
Had conversation Avith him there.  Walter D. Herrick Avas there also.   He
resides at Syracuse.  No others were present, I think, until the latter  pai t
of the time.  I inquired of him in reference to this  murder, whether  and
Avhy he had committed it, Avhether he had accomplices, and Avhat his object
Avas.  I asked how his hand was cut.   It was not  until repeated inquiries
had been  made that I got any ansAver.  Finally he ansAvered that he had a
knife and was whittling there.  I asked where the knife was.  He answered
that he  believed he left it in the yard there.  I asked  him where he staid
the night  before, and asked him repeatedly.  He said along the road there,
somewhere.  I asked him what place he came  through before  he reached
here.  He said he came to Phcenix, I believe.   Phcenix is on the direct road
from Syracuse to Gregg's.  He said he came through Syracuse.  I asked
what time he came through Syracuse.  He said  about five o'clock.   He said
there was some lights at Svracuse.   I asked what place he came through be-
                    1-1 
210
THE TRIAL OF
fore he came to Syracuse.   He  said he beHeved they called it Nine Mile
Creek.  That is on the road from Auburn to Syracuse.  I then asked him
what place before Nine Mile Creek.  He said he beHeved they called it
Elbridge.   That is on the  direct route, also.  Then I asked him what
place before Elbridge.  He hesitated some time, and I asked if it Avas Sen-
nett.   He said,  " I shan't answer any more; if they can prove any thing
against me let them prove it."  I told him I didn't care about his making
any confessions in this matter; that there was proof enough  against him.
He took offence at me.  I found that he appeared to hear much easier some-
times than others.  It was difficult to make him hear at aU at first, but when
I got him on the track he heard without effort.   He then refused to answer,
and wouldn't pay any attention to me.  Herrick then commenced question-
ing him. He got over his feeling, and then I commenced questioning him.
I asked him about the horse.  I remarked in a laughing way, " That was a
bad horse that feU doAvn with you."   He  said, " He did."  The mud was on
his clothes; he looked at it and said, " He did."  I asked why he didn't take
a better one.   He said he was in  a hurry, and smiled as he said it.   I asked
him why he murdered the chUd.   He said he didn't know that there was a
chUd there.  That was all the answer he gave me.  I asked  whether he
knew Van Nest.  He said he didn't know any thing about him.  I pushed
very hard for the reasons he had against Van Nest.   He said, " I don't know
who you are talking about; don't know any thing about him."  He  also said,
'' I suppose you know I've been in State Prison  five years.   I was put there
innocently.  I've been whipped,  and knocked, and abused, and made deaf.
There won't any body pay me for it."  And there he stopped.
  I couldn't get him to admit he'd kUled  any body.   I tried him very thor-
oughly ; yet he admitted he knew something of the transaction.   I boxed his
ears, and he caUed for the  constable.  My feelings got the better of  my
judgment, and I puUed his hair  a Httle.  He spoke to the constable, and
asked  if he suffered persons under his  charge  to be  cuffed in that way.
Taylor said he guessed  he wasn't hurt.  I got him to confess nothing there,
nor did Herrick, in my hearing.  I saw no signs of  insanity.   It didn't oc-
cur to me  that he  was insane.  I thought he'd  played a very strong  game,
and seemed to rely upon silence for  his fortification.
  Cross Examination.—The concealment which he practiced was of ge-
neral knowledge pertaining to the transaction.   I asked him whether he was
put up to it, or Avas paid, or hired, or employed to do it.  He said he knew
nothing about Van Nest.  The principal and only answer I could get out of
him, for the cause of committing the crime, was, that he had been put in
prison.  When he commenced this narration he  went through it of his own
accord. He didn't say how he had been abused, nor  that he had applied for
payment to any body; but said, " there wouldn't  any body pay me."  It's
rather my impression that he said he was put in prison for steaHng a horse.
I asked whether Van Nest had any thing to do with putting him there.  He 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
211
 said, " I don't know any thing about Van Nest."   I repeatedly told him that
 it could be proved, but I wanted he should tell  me of his accomplices.   I
 asked if the De Puys were his accomplices.  He said he  didn't know any
 thing about it.  I mentioned no other name.  When he declined answering,
 I boxed his ears, and then he took offence. I  took him by the hair and
 beard and gave his head a Httle shake.  When I asked where the knife was,
 he said, " I beHeve it's over in the yard there."   These answers were given
 in quite a low and monotonous tone.   I was excited highly against him.   I
 attributed it to his playing possum, and was wrought up pretty high, and he
 abruptly declined answering.  It didn't occur to me that he was insane.
   Augustus Pettibone, called and sworn, testified: I am sheriff of Cay-
 uga county.  I saw the prisoner the day he was brought into jail, and was
 present at conversations between him and Ethan  A. Warden.  Warden
 asked  the prisoner what he  kUled those people for.   He said, " they swore
 me into prison."  Warden  told him  he was mistaken that it was  another
 family.  He said in reply, " was it ?"
   Dr. Leander B. Bigelow, called and sworn,  testified: I  am a physi-
 cian and surgeon, I have been in practice over twenty years.   I know the
 prisoner and have had occasion to visit him several times in jail  to ascertain
 the state of his mind.   I began about the first of June, and continued my visits
 until week before last.   Have  put many  inquiries to him  about this crime.
 I have inquired how he prepared  and what he used in kUling  this family.
 He said with a knife.  I asked where he procured his knife.  His reply was,
 " I got it of a blacksmith right down there by the Exchange." He had pre-
 viously said he had a knife  in a club, which was about four feet long.   I
 asked where he fitted the knife to the  club.  He  said, " At the place where I
 boarded."   I asked  where  he got the club.   He said,  " I fixed  that  up
 by the big dam at a shop."   I asked what he did with the  knives.  He said
 he bought two knives and they didn't suit him.   He said " I gave one to
 Sam or Clem Hersey."   I then asked  what he  did  with  the other knives.
 He said he sharpened them,  fixed them and laid them away.  I  don't recol-
lect his  language  exactly.   I think at this stage  I asked  what  next.   He
said he carried the stone to Hiram.   I asked what stone.  He said a whet-
stone which he had.   I then asked what  he did with the knives.   He said
he took them up where he boarded and put one under the head of  his bed,
and the other  under the bed.  I asked him in conversation about going to
Van Nest's at the time of the murder.  He said he went up stairs  and got
his things, carried them down and hid them in or under the wood.  I inqui-
red what he did then.   He said he went back into the house.  I asked what
he did in the house.  He said, " Nothing, but stood round there and thought
about it; didn't know what to do, but finally thought I'd go, any how." I then
inquired what he did then.   He said he  went out  and got his things and
started off up the road.   In this conversation I next asked how he carried
the knife which he  kiUed with.   He put his hand to his  breast, left side, 
212
THE TRIAL OF
 and said, " In here."  I next inquired who he kUled first.  He said Van Nest,
 I asked what Van Nest said. He said " nothing" at first, but continued, " He
 asked me what I wanted."   I should think he  related no further conversation
 that took place then.  In one conversrtion I  asked where, on his person, he
 stabbed Van Nest.  He looked up, then cast down his eyes and showed me,
 to the left of the breast bone.   I asked hoAv many he killed.   He said five.
   He said about taking the horse, when I  asked  why he took the  horse,
 " WeU, my wrist was cut and I thought I could go quicker."  I asked where
 he left the club when he went to Van Nest's.  He said " Out by the gate."
 He said he rode the first horse down near New Guinea.  I  questioned him
 untU he got into his story that  the horse  fell  there.   I asked why he didn't
 get on again and go on ; his answer was  " he wan't good for nothing."   I
 asked if he did anything to the horse; he said yes, he stabbed him.   I asked
 him why he stabbed him ; he said he feU on him and hurt him.  I asked him
 where he  went then.  He said, " I came down into the viUage and went up
 the side walk to the middle road toward Syracuse."  I asked if he got an-
 other  horse.  He said  Yes.   I asked where.   He  said  " on the middle
 road."  I  asked how far from the viUage.   He said a nule or mile and a half.
 I asked where he went then.  He said, " WeU, down back there by Phcenix."
 I asked him if he went to  Syracuse.  He said, " I did."  I asked what was
 the time he passed through Syracuse. He said, " About daylight."  I asked
 what he did with the club  with the knife in  it.  He said " I threw it away
 little this side of Syracuse." I asked him  what he went down to Phoenix for.
 He said, " WeU, my hand was cut, and I thought I'd go down back there till
 I'd cured  it up."
   Cross Examination.—I have been a surgeon to the State Prison about
 seven years.  I recoUect of  Freeman's calHng twice at the Hospital.  The first
 time he came was I think  in January, 1844 or '45,  and complained of ear-
 ache and was prescribed for; he came again in June or July and complained
 of costiveness, I gave him a cathartic.  I have indistinct recoUection that he
 was deaf.   I  don't recollect how I answered  on the preHminary trial as to
 his deafness.  I think I answered as now; I may have answered that he was
 deaf, and now I say I don't know to what degree he was  deaf.   These con-
 versations above  took place since the court commenced, and they were had
 Avith reference to his  sanity,  at the suggestion of the District Attorney.
 Luke Freeman  was present at one examination.  I asked WilHam how old
he was; don't know that Luke was then present.  He said twenty one the first
of last September.  I'm not positive as to what time.  I asked how long he'd
been in jail;  he said about three months.  Luke pointed to a  scar on his
wrist and said he got it in Weedsport.  At first Bill said, " No, it was another,"
and showed his right arm where was a scar; as to the other cut, he said " I
got that up to the Lake where I was."  I asked  him what were the names
of the days of the  week;  he  answered, Monday,  Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and hesitated;  then said Sunday.  I asked him 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
213
 whether one day was better than another.   He said, " I don't know as one's
 any better than another."  I asked if we ought to go to meeting.   I think
 he said, " Well, I s'pose we ought to go to meeting."  I asked when.  He said,
 " The Sabbath."  I asked him how many days in a week. He said six; and
 after hesitation, " six days and the seventh."  I asked him How many weeks
 in a month; his answer was four.  I asked how many hours in a day;  he said
 twelve.  I asked him how many in a night; said twelve. I asked how many
 in both; he said twenty four.  I asked how many shiUings in a doUar;  he
 said eight.  I asked how many cents  there were in a dollar;  he said one
 hundred.  I asked him how many days there were in  a year; he said,  " I
 don't knoAV exactly."  I asked how many months there were in a year;  he
 said twelve. I asked when he came out of prison; he said, " Twentieth of last
 September."  I asked how long he was in prison; he said five years.   I
 asked would it be right for me tokUlLuke now;  he said " I don't know how
 you could kill him."   I asked if it would be right if I should.  He  replied,
 " I don't know."  I asked if he would like to see me do it; he said, " I should
 not think any thing about it."   I asked if he was lonesome;  he said, No.
 I asked him how many he killed; he said five.   I asked whether they were
 men, women or chUdren; he said, " Two men, two women and one child."  I
 asked whether  he expected to be hung for  it.  He said, " I don't think any
 thing of it."
   I said, " Are  you afraid you shall be hung ?"  He said, " No, sir."   I asked
 what made him kiU that famfly.  He answered, " WeU, to see if I couldn't
 get revenge, or get some pay for being in State Prison about a horse; and I
 didn't do it."  I examined his  pulse and found it seventy-seven at the com-
 mencement, and at this stage it was eighty-one, as he was standing.  I asked,
 " Why did you not kiU the widow Godfrey first ?"  He said, " I got it in
 my head that I would go  up  that way first, and then go round there."   I
 asked, if on that night he went to widow Godfrey's.  He said, " I did."  Then
 I asked why he didn't go into the house.   He said, " Because my hand was
 cut, and  I couldn't think to go in and handle my hand."   I asked how  he
 went into widow Godfrey's yard.  He said, " I rode right into the yard."
 Then I asked, " Whose horse did you  have ?"  He said, " I don't know
 whose."  I asked, " How did  you get the  horse ?"  He said, " It was to a
 barn; my hand was cut, and  I didn't  know what to do; and I went into a
 barn, took a horse, and thought I would ride him."  I asked, " Did you have
 another horse ?"  He  said, Yes.  I asked where he got it.   He  said, " Up
 there where I was."  I said, " When  you killed  the folks ?"   He said, Yes.
 I asked where  he  got the second horse.   He said, " I got him out on the
 middle road, towards Syracuse." I asked, " Are you sorry you kiUed that
Httle child ?"   He said, " I don't think much about it." I then repeated,
 " Are you not sorry you kiUed the little child ?"  He  said, " I don't know
but it was hard—it was little—I rather it  was bigger." My next question
 was, " Do you not know it is not right to kiU folks ?"  He replied," I s'pose 
214                        THE TRIAL OF
it aint right to kiU folks."   I asked, " Who was keeper of the prison when
you was there ?"  He said, " Captain Cook was keeper when I went there."
I next asked him whether there was any other keeper.  His answer was,
" Mr. Doubleday was keeper."  I next asked him whether there was  any
other.  He said, " There was another one."   Then I asked what his name
was.  He said, " I don't know what his name was ; the same that is over there
now."  I next asked, " What was the keeper's name in the shop where you
worked ?"  He said, " Captain MUls."  His pulse was then at eighty-six.
  Tuesday evening, 24th of June, I examined him again, and this examin-
ation was alone.   He sat on his tub, and held the candle.   It was during the
preHminary trial.  He had been in court that afternoon.   I asked WiUiam
where  he had been.  He said in  the court house.  I asked what he went
there for.   He said, " I don't know;" or, " WeU, I can't teU what I  did go
there for."  I asked if he went alone.   He said, " Two went up first time,
and one the last time."  He'd been in twice.   He said, " I think 'twas  sheriff
went with me."   I asked Avho he saw there.  He said to this purport, " I saw
a good many there."  I asked him if he knew any particular ones there.  I
think he said, " I knew Mr. Wood, who used to be jafler."  I asked how he
knew him.  He observed that Wood came round and talked with him.  Then
I asked whether Wood talked with him in the court house.  He said, " No ;
he came round and talked to me in my cell, here."  Then I asked if he was
in jail when Wood was jailer.  He said, "Yes; I was in about a horse."  I
asked him how long  ago.  He  said, " Five years ago the twentieth  of last
September.  I mean, I went to prison five years ago, from here." Then I
asked if he saw  any body else, that he knew,  in the  court house.  He said,
" I saw Mr. Doubleday."  I asked what they were doing in the court  house.
He said, " I didn't know exactly what;  they was talking;  that is aU I could
see."  I asked what he kiUed the Van Nest family with.   He said, a knife.
I asked where he got it.  He said he got it of a blacksmith, right by the Ex-
change.  I asked how he fixed it to kUl them.  He said, " I had one in the
first place;" then paused, and said, " I had two in the first place, and gave
one to  Sam Hersey;  I didn't like 'em."  I asked what he did with the other
knife.  He said he fitted it to a stick.  I asked him what then.   He said, "I
sharpened it  up to  suit  me and  laid 'em aside, and let 'em lay there."  I
then asked what then.  He said, " I took the stone back, and gave it to Hi-
ram."  I asked what stone.   He said, " A whet stone I had of him." I asked
what then.   He said, " I stood round and thought about it, and didn't know
whether 'twas best to go or not.   I thought I would go, any way, and I started."
Then I asked what then.  He said, " I went to the house—up stairs—got my
things—hid them under the Avood, and Avent back into the house." Then I
asked, " VTiat did you do then ?"  He said, " Nothing.  I stood round there
untU I went  up  to the lake."  I asked him who he killed first.   He said,
" Van Epps, I think they called him."  Then I asked who next.  He replied,
" A woman;  don't know Avho  she Avas.  I saw  her pass by the window." 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
215
Then I asked who next.  He said, " A little child lay on the bed; I kUled
him  next."  Then I asked Avho  next.  He said, " A man  up stairs; but I
didn't kiU him, for I saw him afterwards."
  I saw nothing to satisfy me that  the prisoner was  insane; not enough to
satisfy me. I find him a man that I consider of low,  degraded intellect, and
of very limited knowledge.   I suppose he was put into prison at fourteen or
fifteen years of age, and had little chance there.  At one examination, he
stated that he went to meeting some.  From my examination I have made
of Freeman, I am satisfied that he is deaf  in one ear, and partially so in the
other, and can hear but few words that are addressed to him.
  The counsel for the people here rested.
  Mr. Wright then opened the case to the jury,  on the part of the pri-
soner, in substance as follows:
May it please the Court—
  Gentlemen of the Jury: We have now  arrived at  that stage of this much
protracted and  exciting trial, when it becomes the duty of those having
charge  of the defence, to  explain to the court and jury the nature and
grounds of that defence.  And first, gentlemen, I may be permitted to speak
in relation to the reasons of our  appearing here as counsel in making a de-
fence in this case.
  I very weU know,  gentlemen, that we  have  been censured, and in no
measured terms, by those who wish to be considered as good citizens, and
worthy, and honest, and laAv-abiding men, for appearing at all in defending
the prisoner at the bar.  But not so have we learned our duty.
  To us, gentlemen, the prisoner was a stranger until after his incarceration
in yonder jail.   His defence has not been sought for by any of us.  My re-
spected, learned,' and most distinguished  friend, who leads in this defence,
engaged therein after frequent and urgent application by those who, as we
think, honestly and firmly believed that Avhen the fatal blows were given by
the prisoner at the bar, he  was bereft of that reason, the possession of Avhich
alone could render  him  amenable to this tribunal for his acts.  And as re-
gards myself, you well know, that the onerous and unpleasant  task was im-
posed upon me by the court, whose directions, in that respect, I was scarcely
at liberty to decline.   But I must, in justice to myself, say, gentlemen, that
however much I may and do respect the authority  of this court,  yet, Avhat-
ever might have been the consequences to myself, I never would have con-
sented to act as counsel for the prisoner in this  case, had not my own mind
been firmly, aye, beyond any reasonable  doubt, convinced that the prisoner
is not now, and  was not at the time of the deaths of his victims, in any pro-
per sense of the word, sane, or accountable, and that he, therefore, was not,
and could not be guilty of murder.  Although we appear here as  counsel for
the  accused, and as such are bound to do all in our  power  to prevent an un-
just or an illegal conviction, yet,  gentlemen, we, too,  are the fellow citizens of
those Avho were so unexpectedly cut off from  amongst us, and we  cannot, 
216
THE  TRIAL OF
nor need we deny, that we do feel our responsibUity as citizens, whUst acting
here in the capacity of counsel;  and for myself, I can most solemnly assert,
that my duty as counsel in  this case, is not incompatible with my duty as a
citizen, for I do most conscientiously believe, gentlemen, that the conviction
of this man, (if man he can yet  be called,) by reason of public clamor, or
public excitement, and contrary to the evidence which has been, and which
shaU be given  in  the cause, would be a much greater calamity to our com-
mon country than the death of those who have faUen by his insane hand.
  And this, gentlemen, brings me to the defence interposed here.  I need
scarcely say to you, gentlemen, that that defence is insanity.  And why have
Ave interposed that defence ?  It is none of our work.  It has not been got
up by the ingenuity of counsel, for the purpose of saving the guilty from the
effects of his crime.   That defence was suggested by others, before any one
of us was in any wise connected with the case.
  Men, eminent  in this branch  of medical jurisprudence, men who were
called to visit the jail in which the accused was confined, without any refer-
ence to him or his offence, saw  him there, and  became satisfied that there
was at least reason to doubt his sanity.  Further examination convinced them
that there was no doubt in the case, and hence, it became a duty Avhich the
citizens of this county owed to pubHc justice, that that question should be
examined ; and I need hardly say to you now, that the  further examination
tended but to confirm the previous impressions, until  that which was but
conjecture, became conviction.
  You have been told by the learned gentleman who opened this case on
the part  of the prosecution, that  he, as  also the  learned and distinguished
pubHc functionary who leads in  this prosecution, saw at once, upon their
first interview  with the prisoner, that  there  was no insanity in the case.
We  do not say either of those distinguished  gentlemen have, in the least,
mis-stated his impression;  but we do say that others, quite as well qualified
to judge upon that subject, and quite as likely to be impartial in their judg-
ments, and correct in their conclusions, came  to a very  different conclusion,
in which we fuUy coincided.  And hence, gentlemen, we did interpose the
plea of insanity;  a plea which, although it may  now and hereafter be, as it
heretofore  has been, ridiculed as the device of counsel on behalf of those
Avho have no other defence,  yet it is  one, which,  of all others, should, when
honestly  interposed, be treated with deference and respect, and examined
with  caution and without prejudice ; a plea  which, if false,  is the most dif-
ficult to sustain, and, if true, should be the last to be disregarded.
  But, gentlemen of the jury, this is no  new plea; it is, and for centuries
past has been, weU known to the common lav/, and it is noAv  also incorpora-
ted into and forms a part of the statute law of this State, which declares that
" No act done by a person in  a state of insanity, can be  punished as an of-
fence ; and no insane person can be tried, sentenced to any  punishment, or 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
217
 punished for any crime or offence, whUe he continues in that state."   (2 R.
 S., 697, Sec. 2.)
    Hence, you wUl see, gentlemen, that it is not the plea itself which  our
 opponents can make  the  subject of their ridicule, or, justly, of complaint
 But, say they, it has already been tried and disproved.  Disproved, indeed!
 and how, and when, and where ?  Was it when the accused was brought into
 court to hear the offence  with which  he was charged read to him, by the
 district attorney ?  There were some who were convinced that he either did
' not hear, or that he could not understand the nature of those charges.  That
 he heard, was evident; at least we wiU not presume that the prosecution
 would put a sane man upon trial for his life, without first, in some way, com-
 municating to  him fuU knowledge of the charge which he must meet; and if
 he did hear, he  must certainly be either more or less than human, to have
 shown such stolid indifference.  But let that pass, gentlemen.  But, say the
 learned counsel opposed, that question has been passed upon and decided
 by the previous jury.   That we deny;  we deny that that jury, by their ver-
 dict, have passed upon the issue submitted to them.  Look for one moment,
 gentlemen, at  the verdict they have rendered.  I wiU read it to you; they
 say, " We find the prisoner at the bar sufficiently sane in mind and memory to
 distinguish between right and wrong."  And is that sanity ?  I wiU venture to
 assert, that there is no court claiming to act according to any civiHzed notions,
 that wUl so hold.  At any rate, we do know that the courts of this State do not
 so hold.  The lowest  standard which is ever required in questions  of  this
 kind, is, that the accused  shall be able to distinguish right from wrong in
 regard to the particular transaction in question.  We tell you, gentlemen,
 that the finding of that jury is no verdict; and we shall treat it accordingly.
    [The counsel here referred to the motion which had been made to postpone
 this trial, and of the trouble and difficulty of obtaining the jury, &c, of the
 chaUenges to the jurors, and the result; and deprecated any unkind feelings
 which might have arisen in the minds of any of the jurors thereby; and ex-
 pressed the hope that  the accused should, at least, receive at  their hands a
 patient hearing, and an impartial trial.   He then proceeded.]
    The learned district attorney has told us, that this is the most important
 trial that has occupied the courts of this country for the last half century.
 Indeed!  Why so ?  There is no property at stake.   The  result cannot re-
 suscitate or reanimate the forms of the slaughtered victims.  Why, then, is
 this trial so very important ?  It certainly cannot be because the life of an
 "unlearned, ignorant, stupid, and degraded negro" depends  upon it;  the
 life of one who  is by them conceded to be of very Ioav intellect, indeed—
 scarcely above the  brutes that perish.   It cannot be because a plea is inter-
 posed by counsel in a case where learned gentlemen, who are not adepts
 upon the subject of insanity, can so easily and  at a glance detect its non-
 existence.
   But, gentlemen, I  wiU not deny that this  cause is important, and as 
218
THE TRIAL OF
such we have treated it, and as such we shall continue to treat it, despite of
lamentations here or elsewhere; despite of ridicule of counsel, the contumely
of some, and the threats and denunciations of  others of our feUow citizens.
It is important.  The pubHc has suffered themselves to become excited upon
this subject; there is a demon thirst for blood, an unchristian  thirst for re-
venge ;  and it is important to ascertain whether, under all these disadvantages,
we can obtain  for this once a man, this now but a clod, a fair and impartial
trial, by and before a  jury  of our country.  It is this, and this  only, that
renders this cause important.
   The learned district attorney has suffered himself to declaim to you upon
the consequences of  an acquittal.  He has told you that the effect of an
acquittal by you, would be to discharge the accused; to release  him from
imprisonment; to turn him loose upon society  to kiU and slay your feUow
citizens.  What! a sane man, and so  dangerous ?  But, gentlemen, in this
the learned gentleman has suffered his imagination to  outrun the law and
the facts of the case.   Does he forget, that although  acquitted  upon the
charge for which he is now upon trial, yet there would remain some  three or
four other indictments for murder against him ?  For I need not say to you,
at this stage of the trial, that he is now upon trial for the murder of John G.
Van Nest, only.   How, then, is he to escape from confinement, were he to
be acquitted by you ?  I tell you, gentlemen, it  cannot be.  Whether con-
victed or acquitted, he  cannot, and, I wUl add,  he should not, be aUowed to
escape from the restraint of the law.  I concede,  nay, I aver, that he is, and
he long has been, wholly unfit to roam at  large. He would be, as he has
been, a dangerous person, if at large.   And he would be so for the sole reason
that his judgment and reason have been, and are, dethroned; because he
now is, and long has been, suffering from a diseased brain, and is  and has
been in a state of insanity.  But I do not  say this to influence you in regard
to the verdict which you shall render; that  must depend upon the evidence
as it shall operate upon your understandings. If you shaU be convinced that
he is guUty of the death of John  G. Van Nest,  of which he stands charged,
and that he Avas at the time sane, then, gentlemen, I trust, you wUl so say,
unhesitatingly, Avhatever may be the consequences.  And, on the other hand,
should you be convinced that at the time of the death of that lamented fel-
low citizen, the accused was insane, then, gentlemen, I trust, and will not
doubt, that you wUl  most cheerfully so say by your verdict, let the conse-
quences of that verdict be what they may.
  The district attorney has also suffered himself to speak of the  frequency
of the interposition of the plea of insanity, of  the difficulty of bringing of-
fenders  to justice.  Gentlemen,  I AviU ask the learned District Attorney, I
wUl ask you, if the case was  ever heard of,  where such plea was interposed
successfully, unless true in fact.  He has also, by way of ridicule  I suppose,
suffered himself to speak of somnambulism  in connection with this  subject,
and would fain carry the impression, at  least,  that the  one  was as easily 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
219
feigned as the other.   But such declamation is nothing new; it has been used
before,  and doubtless will be so used again.   In speaking of the trial of
Louis Lecouffe,  Avho was tried at Paris in 1823, Doct  Ray, in his Medical
Jurisprudence, (Sec. 84.) says, " Against all this array of evidence, the advo-
cate general had nothing  to offer but the idle  declamation usually resorted
to on such occasions.  The attempt of the prisoner's counsel to establish the
existence of  imbecUity and mania, he reprobated in the  severest terms, as
dangerous to society, subversive of social order, destructive of morality and
religion,  and affording a direct encouragement to crime."
   Had the learned author attended this trial, he could not more truly have
described the efforts of our learned and distinguished adversaries.
   But, gentlemen, had no one testified upon the subject, methinks any one
upon reflection might be tempted to doubt the sanity of the accused.  Why
did he commit these five-fold murders ?   What was the motive ?  He had
no ill wUl against  any of  them;  they had never offended him;  his object
was not plunder;  he took nothing;  he did not attempt to take anything.
No motive whatever, not only no adequate motive, if such term can be applied
in any such case, but no  motive whatever has been, or, as I think, can be
assigned for the deed; and shaU we,  can we for a moment believe that a
sane man can thus kUl and slay his feUow man ?  I cannot so beHeve.  But I
do not therefore say that you,  sitting as jurors, to try the prisoner upon the
evidence, can safely come to this conclusion; you must have affirmative evi-
dence upon the question of this man's insanity.  And this brings me to the
question, " What is insanity as now understood, and as that  term is used in
the Revised Statutes ?"  Doct. Ray, in his work before cited, teUs us that " it
should be distinctly understood that it is, first, a disease of the brain;  and
secondly, that in its various grades and forms, it observes the same laws as
diseases of other organs."  (Sec. 92.)   He further tells us that " Mania arises
from a morbid affection of the brain."  (Sec. 93.)
   And Doct. Brigham,  principal of the State Lunatic  Asylum, at TJtica,
than Avhom  there is not a  more pure minded  man, or one better qualified
from education, habit, and opportunity to judge of  this matter, has told us,
when  testifying under the solemn  sanctions of the oath of a  Avitness, in
this cause, that insanity is a disease  of the brain;  that  " there never can
be insanity without disease of the  brain."  He says, " We say the mind is
diseased, and we have all  heard it so, and here in court, but it is  not strictly
correct;  no more than to say in disease of the lungs, that the breathing is
diseased.   The mind itself is, we beHeve, immaterial and immortal, and in-
capable of disease  or change.  If the mind can become diseased, or changed,
it may die, like other organs of the body.  But, it being connected Avith the
brain,  by Avhich it operates in this  life, when the brain becomes diseased,
the mind becomes  disordered in action; just as when the stomach is diseased
the digestion is disordered; or when the lungs are diseased the breathing is
disordered.   But  the brain  is such a delicate organ,  it cannot bear much 
220
THE TRIAL OF
 disease.   Sometimes in insanity we find but Httle trace of disease, so trifling
 as not materially to disturb the health.  Hence we find the most preposter-
 ous ideas and notions kept up for years, and but little disease of the brain.
 The brain, being the organ of the mind, when that becomes diseased the
 mind becomes disordered."
   Thus you will perceive gentlemen, this is no mysterious matter, no special
 visitation, but that to which all flesh may  be heir to; something that must be
 proven by the testimony  of witnesses, and be judged of as any other matter
 of fact.
  It is not necessary, to constitute  a man insane—nor indeed is it usual—that
 he shaU lose any of his faculties, but that some one or more of  them shall
 become deranged, disordered,  not lost or destroyed;  and so  says Mr. Guy,
 in his work  upon this subject.  He says, " The insane differ from the sane,
 not in having lost any of their faculties, but in exercising them differently."
 (Guy, 323.)
  But, says the district attorney,  this man's faculties are  all  sound.  That,
 gentlemen, is the question between  us; the question that you, and not he,
 must decide.  He says this man had premeditation; he prepared his weapons
 before hand,  and then concealed them  until he wanted them  for use.   And
 what does that prove, gentlemen, upon this subject.  Guy teUs us, that " the
 maniac, if naturally of a reserved disposition, or when impeUed by a strong
 motive, has  the  power to conceal his delusion." (Guy, 325.)  He further
 says, " The acts of the madman often evince  the  same forethought as the
 sane."  (Guy 326.)  " He is often  conscious of his state, and knows the legal
 relations  in which it places him."  (Guy, 327.)   I beHeve, gentlemen, that is
 more than is pretended here,  in regard to the accused.   I think we have
 not as yet heard from any witness, that Freeman has ever said, or done,  or
 admitted any thing, whereby it could even be suspected that he understood,
 or that he now understands, the legal relation in which the act committed by
 him has placed him.
  But, say the learned gentlemen who appear for the prosecution, he has
 memory, and  very retentive  too.   We do not deny that he  has memory,
 and retentive, too, in regard to some things.  But  was there ever an insane
 person who had not ?  Nothing short of utter  and  total imbeciHty can des-
 troy that organ; it may be very much diseased, and, in regard to some things,
 or perhaps it Avould be more correct to say, in  regard to some  class or classes
 of things, it may be entirely gone, when as to other things or classes of
 things, it may be unimpaired.  We  have many instances of the kind in the
 books.  Hear what Doct. Ray says, upon this subject; " Generally speaking,"
 he says, " after the acute  stages have passed off, a maniac has no difficulty in
 remembering his friends  and  acquaintances, the places he has been accus-
 tomed to frequent, names, dates and events, and the occurrences of his life."
 (Ray's Med. Jur. Sec. 291.)   And has Freeman shown more than  this?
Doct. Ray, further says,  " The ordinary relations of things are, with some 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
221
exceptions, as easily and clearly perceived as ever, and his discrimination of
character seems to be marked by his usual shrewdness.  His replies to ques-
tions, though they may sometimes indicate delusion or extravagant notions,
generally have some relation to the subject, and show that it has occupied
his attention." (Id.)  And now, gentlemen, apply that doctrine to this case.
AU the information we have from Freeman, has been procured by interro-
gating him; and you wUl remark, that his answers  are uniformly very short
He never converses, not even for a single sentence.  It is true he generally
answers questions that are asked, if within his comprehension, Avhich is con-
ceded to be quite Hmited, but his answers are uniformly of the shortest, and
most generally in monosyllables;  and do not his ansAvers, when asked why
he kUled these people,  most clearly indicate his delusion ?—" wanted my pay."
And was that the " pay" a sane man would want,  and from one who never
owed him—with whom he had never dealt ? Was  there not delusion here ?
But I must leave this  for another, in whose hands  it will meet much better
justice.
  But, says the learned counsel for the prosecution, when we ask what is in-
sanity,  " The law  has  settled that." Indeed! and how has it been settled ?
Why, says the district attorney, " any person who knows enough to distin-
guish right from wrong is sane."   But there are many cases, and all of the
late cases upon the  subject decided in this State, and also in Massachusetts,
which show that such is not the laAv. A person must at least have sufficient rea-
son, mind and memory to distinguish right from wrong in relation to the par-
ticular act charged against him.   Hear what Doct. Ray says upon this subject.
" That the insane mind is  not entirely deprived of this power of moral dis-
cernment, but on many subjects is perfectly rational, and displays the exer-
cise of a sound mind,  is one of those facts  now so weU established, that to
question it, would  only betray the height  of  ignorance and presumption.
The first result, therefore, to which the doctrine leads, is, that no man can
ever successfully plead insanity in defence  of crime, because it can be said
of no one, who would have occasion for such a  defence, that he was unable
in any case to distinguish  right from wrong."  (Ray's Med.  Jur. Sec. 17.)
[The counsel here  read Sect's. 17 and 18,  of Ray's work, and proceeded.]
Thus, gentlemen, you wUl perceive, the doctrine contended for by the pros-
ecution,  and which, by the by, was  the doctrine  Avhich caused and which
received the verdict of the former jury in this case, stands plainly, and pal-
pably, and flatly contradicted by the authorities of our courts, as also by the
authority of the medical writers on this subject.
  Much has  been said, gentlemen, in regard to this defence.   It has been
characterized as a dangerous doctrine, liable to great abuse;  and much, in-
deed, has been said upon the subject that  can  have but little reference to
the case before you;  for, as I have already  shoAvn you, gentlemen, there can
be no danger in this  case to society, or to individuals, should the defence
prove, as  Ave think it  should, and as we hope it may, successful.  But the 
222
THE TRIAL OF
justice of such a defence, when true, in fact, has been ably, eloquently and
truly stated, by the author from whose work I have already so liberally quo-
ted ; and I must here beg your indulgence while I read again from his able
work.
   ["The counsel then read Sections 66, 67 and G8 of Ray's Med. Jur.]
   The learned counsel for the  prosecution insist, that upon us lies the onus,
as the lawyers caU it, of this issue—that is, that we must prove the insanity ;
that inasmuch as men are generaUy sane, and  we claim the exception, we
must show, affirmatively, that  such is the case.  WeU, gentlemen, however
hard, and, allow me to add, somewhat absurd, it may appear, to  require a
crazy man to prove his insanity, yet I suppose such is indeed the law of the
land, and we must conform to it.  Then, gentlemen, how shaU we prove this
issue ? What kind of evidence shall we present to you, to convince your minds
that this man was insane at the time the offence is aUeged to have been com-
mitted ?  We shaU first show you the accused as he was in his infancy, and
in his boyhood;  that he was an active, bright, sprightly lad, in no wise ad-
dicted to quarreHng or other evU practices.  In fact, if our information  be
correct, we shall show you that he was, when young, good natured and kind
in his disposition, and that he so remained until after his incarceration in the
penitentiary for a crime which he then and now insists he never committed.
That while  confined  in the prison, he was abused, Ul treated and flogged;
that he became morose, soured in temper, and desperate, and was  so altered
upon returning to the world, that his friends scarcely knew him ; even his
mother could scarcely beHeve  it possible that this morose, surly  and  sour
young man could be her bright and cheerful boy, from whom she parted but
a few years before.  This change alone,  gentlemen, you wUl find, from the
medical books which we shaU produce before you, and from the testimony of
the medical gentlemen whom we shaU examine upon this subject,  to be one
of the most unfaiHng symptoms of insanity; so much so as to be considered
a test in all such cases.
   [The counsel then spoke of  the ignorance of the accused; of his want of
opportunities for improvement; of his isolated position amongst us, by reason
of the wicked and unchristian prejudice against him and all others of his
kind, by reason of their color;  of the wrongs he had  suffered, the hardships
he had endured, and the  cruelties which had been inflicted upon him; and
was  amazed that we should now hold up our hands in holy horror at the
result of our own treatment of this  " unlearned, ignorant, stupid and de-
graded negro."]
  Yes, gentlemen, those epithets, as used by the learned district attorney, are
all applicable, and yet there  are men, even in our  profession, who dare be-
lieve that " God made of one blood aU the nations of the earth;" and that
notwithstanding  aU his ignorance,  and stupidity, and degradation,  he has
been a brother  man, made in  the image of his Maker, and might have so
continued but for the brutal  treatment received by him amongst this Chris- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
223
tian  community.  That notwithstanding  all this, he is  yet entitled, and so
far as the efforts of his counsel can secure it, he shaU have a hearing as can-
did and as patient, a trial as fair and impartial, as could be accorded to him
were he the son of an ex-president.
  But, gentlemen, there is another species of testimony, which is allowed by
the laAvs of the land, and of which we intend to avaU ourselves in this case.
I allude to the testimony of medical witnesses ; of those who have been  ac-
customed to  the  society and treatment of the insane.   And we hope you
wUl cast aside aU prejudice, if any you now have, against these gentlemen,
or the evidence which they have already given, or shall hereafter give.
  You have been cautioned by the learned  counsel opposed, against  the
evidence of these witnesses.  You have been told that there is great differ-
ence between  " testimony" and " evidence;" that " testimony  is but  the
declaration of witnesses, and becomes evidence only when it carries convic-
tion."   That may be a very comfortable doctrine for a juror who is desirous
of rendering a certain kind of verdict; for if this view be correct, I will
guarantee conA-iction AviU not folloAv, unless the declaration of  the Avitnesses
shaU correspond with the wishes of the juror.   I trust, gentlemen, nay, I will
not doubt, that you wiU at once reject a doctrine so absurd and so dangerous.
Again, the learned counsel who here represents the county, has warned you
most earnestly, and  with much solemnity, against placing reliance upon  the
opinion of Avitnesses.  And in this connexion he most unnecessarily, and, as
we think, rather rudely, arraigned before  you the most estimable and worthy,
and  not more estimable and worthy than learned, principal of our Lunatic
Asylum, and also against the president of the State Medical Society.  Gen-
tlemen, I know not your feelings or views upon this subject, but to me there
appeared something so grating to the feelings, and so repugnant to the good
taste, and so foreign to the courtesy that should in all cases  govern counsel
when speaking of those who are, by the process of the court, and at great
personal sacrifice, compeUed to attend as witnesses upon this trial, in behalf
of one who can in no event, nor by any possibUity, remunerate them, even
with the small pittance of his thanks, that I knoAV it will be unnecessary to
do more than merely allude to the circumstance, to cause even the learned
counsel to regret that in the hurry and excitement of his opening speech, he
should  have sneeringly compared the  opinions of these and other eminent
gentlemen, whose testimony has already been heard in this defence, to the
belief in necromancy, divination, &c.
   The learned gentleman  told you  to start Avith no mysterious notions in
regard to this matter of insanity ;  that it was not men of  letters, those who
were crammed with theories, who should give the laAV in such  cases.   Wny,
gentlemen,  what would the learned counsel have in this case ?  Our poor
senseless client is so ignorant, it would  almost appear, from the learned coun-
sel's estimate of  him, impossible that he ever could have changed  for the
worse,  and without  some  such change argues the counsel, he cannot be in- 
224
THE TRIAL OF
 sane.  On the other hand, our witnesses are so learned, or so crammed with
 theories, (to use the language of the learned gentleman,) that they are un-
 safe judges in relation to the question of his sanity.  No matter that they
 have devoted the energies of a weU discipUned and cultivated mind to the
 diseases of this of all other the most peculiar and sensitive of the human organs;
 no matter that they have for many years devoted their time and attention,
 their sleepless nights and their Avatchful days, to the care and attention of
 these, the most unfortunate of the human race; no matter that Avith phUan-
 throphy unbounded, they have devoted themselves  solely to the  study and
 alleviation of " the mind diseased."  No matter for all that—yet because their
 learning, their experience, and may I not add, gentlemen, their wisdom, does
 not happen to coincide with the opinion of the learned counsel, in regard to
 the condition of the mind of this particular subject—this  " unlearned, igno-
 rant, stupid and degraded negro"—they must be the subjects of his  ridicule,
 and that science,  the most difficult in the range of human studies,  is compar-
 ed with the exploded errors of a barbarous age.  But, gentlemen, I was glad
 to hear the learned counsel, in the warmth of his address to you, refer to the
 scene between Festus and the great Apostle to the GentUes.  Nothing more
 apposite to the present occasion, could have been selected from that inspired
 volume  than this most memorable scene.   " Festus said with a loud voice,
 (I wonder gentlemen if he had  ever been district attorney,)  Paul,  thou art
 beside thyself, much learning doth make thee mad;" and so  says the learn-
 ed district attorney, to the mildest and gentlest of spirits, whose learning is
 doubtless as much beyond  the  comprehension of the learned counsel,  in
 this case, as was that of Paul's beyond the comprehension of the most noble
 Festus, in regard  to the matters about which Paul was then pleading.  And
 well might Doct. Brigham answer his  accuser in the same language as was
 used by the great Apostle on that  occasion, and with strict truth :  " I am
 not mad, most noble Festus, (most learned district attorney,) but speak forth
the words of truth and soberness."  But, gentlemen, I must bring  this part
 of the subject to a close.  It is, you are aware, the sheet anchor of our hopes
 in this case, and I must  therefore  be pardoned for the time I have spent
 upon it; and I know that I could not express my own feelings and opinions,
half so well as they have already been expressed by the author from whom
I have already and so liberally quoted.  I wUl therefore  close this branch
of the subject, with reading an extract from his invaluable work. [The coun-
sel then read to the jury, Sects.  29  and 30, of Ray's, Med. Jur.]
   And now, gentlemen, in conclusion,  I must beg, nay entreat of you, in the
name of that justice which you are caUed upon to administer, to  cast aside
any prejudice which you may have imbibed against the prisoner, his coun-
sel or his defence  ; to give to his witnesses a fair and impartial examination ;
 to his defence a fair and impartial scrutiny, and to his counsel a fair and im-
 partial hearing.  And as  you hope to have meted out to you, so do you mete
 out to this wretched imbecUe the same measure of justice.  And should you 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       225
    conscientiously come to the conclusion that he now is, and at the time of the
    perpetration of the deaths of his victims, was of sane mind, whatever may be
    the consequences to him, or to others, so declare by your verdict.  And, on
    the  other hand, gentlemen, should we succeed in bringing to your minds that
    conviction which now acts upon ours, (and which enables us, as you must al-
    ready have seen, to labor zealously, and, as we trust, in all faithfulness ; not-
    withstanding we are surrounded with the multitude in which we can scarce
    recognize a smiUng face, or an approving look towards  us; notwithstanding
    our  professional prospects may be, and perhaps must be seriously affected by
    our zeal in defence of this " unlearned, ignorant, stupid and degraded negro;")
    that he now is and for months, nay for years before the fatal transaction re-
    ferred to, was an insane man, and whoUy irresponsible to this or any other
    court for his acts, I wiU not, I dare not doubt that you wUl for one moment
    hesitate so to declare by your verdict, whatever the consequences may be to
    yourselves, or to him.
       Warren T. Worden was then caUed as a witness on the part of the
    prisoner, and being sworn, testified: I have resided in this viUage for twenty
    years, and  am a counsellor at law by profession, and for many years have
    been in practice.   Having heard much of this prisoner, I was induced to
*   visit the jaU where he Avas confined, for the  purpose of satisfying myself
    whether he had mind enough to be held legally responsible for his acts.  Se-
    veral persons, among whom was Dr. Briggs, had represented to me that he
    was a singular personage, and by his invitation I went to the jail, in April
    last, to see  him myself.  We were accompanied by Doctor Fosgate and an-
    other gentleman, who professed to be a phrenologist, and who appeared anx-
    ious to  examine the prisoner.  Whilst there, at the jail, Dr. Fosgate dressed
    the prisoner's wounded arm, and ordered a fire to be made near his ceU, as
    it was then cold.  His manners first arrested my attention,  as I discovered
    that he appeared very different from other people, whilst his arm was being
    dressed.  He appeared to be indifferent  and insensible to pain.   He  exhi-
    bited no feeling whatever, when his wound was dressed.  It did not seem to
    hurt him any, although the wound was severe, and appeared to be one that
    must have caused pain to any other person than the prisoner.  His conduct
    was so strange that I had a curiosity to converse with him, if possible, with
    a view  to  ascertain what he knew  about the crimes he Avas charged with.
    After Doctor Fosgate had concluded his duties there, as a physician, he left
    the cell, and I remained to make an examination in respect to his  mental
    condition.   I began by inquiring  what took place at the house of Van Nest.
    I tried to  get him to  teU me about the  affair, but I could not; and I was
    obliged to  put him questions to which his  ansAvers, when he gave any, were
    generally Yes, or No.  With but  very few exceptions  all his answers were
    in monosylables, simply Yes, or No; and these not very plainly spoken.  I
    asked him if he went in  at the front door, and he answered Yes;  and at
    another time I asked him if he went in at the back door, and  he gave me
                        15 
226
TILE  TRIAL OF
the same answer.  To both questions he said Yes; and I therefore conclu-
ded that he had no very correct idea about it.  I asked Avhere his hand was
hurt—whether it was hurt in  the hall; he answered Yes.  I then asked if it
was out at the gate, and to that he said Yes.  I asked where he stabbed Mrs.
Wyckoff—Avhether in the haU; he answered Yes.  I then asked whether it was
out at the gate, and to that he said Yes.  I asked  if he saw Van Nest when
he went to the front door.  He answered Yes. I  asked what Van Nest said
to him, but the prisoner gave no  answer.  I changed the question and asked
him if he went into the  house.  He hesitated, and then answered Yes.  I
then pressed him to teU  what Van Nest said to him.   After a while he re-
pHed that Van Nest said, "If you eat my liver, I'll eat yours."
  I was urging him to tell what Van Nest said, and once he gave the words:
" If you're going to eat my liver, I'll eat yours,"  as near as I could under-
stand him.  Both answers seemed to be to the same import.  I think I asked
liim when he kUled Mrs. Van Nest; Avhether it was before he went into  the
house, and he answered Yes.   WThen he told me what Van Nest said to him,
I asked him in, the same connection, whether he stabbed him then.  He an-
swered Yes.   I tried to ascertain from him how he got out of the house.
I don't recoUect  precisely the question I put to  him, but I recollect that I
asked him at one time whether  he went out of the front door, and he  an-
swered  Yes;  and at another, he gave the same answer when I asked him if
he went out of the back door.
  In my conversation I  repeatedly tried to get him  to continue along; to
teU the story himself, by asking  him to go on.  Apparently he could not go
on with any connected account of the affair.  He several times repeated
what Van Nest said about eating his liver, in nearly the same terms, but he
did not continue  the conversation, or the relation  of his story.  I asked him
why he left there before he had  killed them aU.   He said he hurt his hand.
I asked him again, when he said, " My hand Avas hurt."  Sometimes he said,
" I couldn't kiU any more."  I asked him  why he kiUed them, or  what he
kUled them for.  He answered by asking me " what they sent him  to State
Prison for, when he was innocent," or " wasn't guilty."  He seemed agita-
ted when he said this, trembled, and acted as if he was about to cry.  He
shook very considerably, and the muscles of his  face were some distorted,
but he did not cry, however.   I told him that he had  stolen a horse,  and that
was the reason why he Avas imprisoned.  He denied it, and  said he  didn't
steal it.  I Avas at the jail a long time, and  put to  him many other questions
to which I tried to get answers, but faffed.   It was evidently difficult for him
to hear and understand.  I asked him if he knew what he was in jail for.
He said he didn't.  I asked if he knew what they were going to do with him.
He said No.  I told him that he would be hung for kilHng those people, and
asked  him if he was not aware of it.  Once he  answered No; but did not
seem to understand much about it.  He appeared stupid, and when talked
to about the slaughter of the Van Nest family, he didn't show any feeHng; 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      227
nor did he show any when I spoke about what he probably would have to
suffer for that deed—none Avhatever.
  His  appearance and manners Avere very singular indeed.  He laughed
frequently whilst Ave were there; laughed when we went into the ceU, and
laughed Avhen we laughed; but it was not loud, it was only a smile.   It was
an unmeaning, unnatural smile, yet it was frequent in his cell.  It gave  to
his  countenance a singular expression, and was the  same that I saw on his
face during the preliminary trial.  From Avhat I saw I formed  an opinion
then that he kneAV nothing, and expressed it.  I do not believe him sane.   I
don't beHeve he understands what is going on around him.   He does  not ap-
pear to be capable of distinguishing right from wrong, and, in my judgment,
he would laugh upon the gallows as readily and  freely as he did in his cell.
He would probably know as much as a  dumb beast that was taken  to the
slaughter house, as to Avhat Avas to be done with him.  If that state of mind
and knowledge constitutes insanity, then he is insane.
  I do not believe his appearance Avas a feigned one, nor  do I believe that
he  pretended insanity to deceive me.  I Avas  there with him a considerable
time;  watched him closely during that time,  and I am confident that I was
not deceived.  I Avas in court when he was arraigned.  He then said, to the
questions put to him by the district attorney, " No," and " I don't know," and
leaned forward.  Other indictments beside the one in this cause were read to
him, or the substance of them was stated,  at the same time, and the same
questions put to the prisoner, to which he gave about the same answers.  He
appeared stupid then, and did not appear to understand what Avas wanted
of him.  I do not believe he  has intellect, consciousness, or moral  feeling
enough to  distinguish right from wrong.  He might, perhaps, be taught a
particular thing, yet he could not reason upon it at all.  With my present views
concerning his mental condition, I do not believe him a responsible being.
   Cross Examination.—My opinion, respecting the mental condition of
the prisoner,  is firm and fixed;  yet I think it would yield  to evidence that
went  to prove his condition otherwise  than  as I have described it.   I  am
aware of the verdict of the jury on the preliminary issue in this case, but
it has  not changed my opinion or caused it to waver.  The jury had the ben-
efit of my testimony on that trial.   They found him capable  of distinguishing
ri^ht from wrong, but my opinion was and now is, variant from their verdict.
I first saw  the  prisoner in April;  can't tell whether early or late in  the
month, and from the appearance  of his wounded wrist, as  Avell as from ru-
mor, I judged that it was soon after the murder.  His wrist was quite sore
when  I saw it.  At the time I went to the jail,  my immediate object was to
comply Avith the invitation of Dr. Briggs.   I had theretofore declined to go,
and until then I had never been.   I also had another object, Avhich was to
satisfy myself whether the negro was really  irresponsible.   Upon arriving
 there, I thought his appearance indicated that he was irresponsible.  It was 
228                        THE TRIAL OP
 not such as can be easUy described further than it has been, yet it was
 striking and unusual.  I don't know as I had thought him  insane before I
 went there.   I had the impression before, that he was stupid and wanting
 sense,  but had no personal knowledge whatever about him.   After I had
 observed him awhile, I came to the conclusion that he was insane, or that
 he knew nothing; which medical men denominate a species of insanity, in
 cases where knowledge once existed.
   Q. How do you know that the prisoner could not relate the occurrence
 at Van Nest's house ?
   A.  I judged, from his manner, that he tried and did not, and I concluded
 that he could not.
   Q.  How do you know that  he tried ?
   A.  Because I think he was  not capable of deceiving me.
   Q.  What particular indication did he give that he Avas  trying ?
   A.  I can hardly mention any one indication in particular.  His whole ap-
 pearance and manner  at times were such as are usuaUy manifested when a
 momentary effort is made.
   Q.  Suppose him to have been unwilling and not unable ?
   A.  If unwUling, I don't think he  would have tried.
   Q.  Did he know you ?
   A.  I cannot say further than that when I asked him  if he knew me he
 said No.
   Q.  Did he know Dr. Briggs ?
  A.  He appeared to, and I think he said he did.
   Q.  When you first asked him what took  place at Van Nest's, what did
he say ?
  A.  To my  first question, I think he made  no answer.
  Q.  To what question did he first  respond ?
  A.  He answered Yes, when I asked him if he went in  at the front door.
   Q.  Did you infer that he was insane from that ?
  A. I did not.
  Q. Did you infer insanity from his second answer ?
  A. I did not infer insanity, yet I noticed the inconsistency of  the two
answers ?
  Q. Did you infer insanity from the third answer ?
  A. I did not form any opinion from any one answer that he gave, but
from all his answers, together with his stupidity and insensibility, I did.
  Q. How do you know that he did not feel pain ?
  A. Because he indicated none.
  Q. Are not some men more  insensible to pain than others ?
  A. There is a difference, I presume,  yet most men would manifest some
sensation when such a wound was dressed.
   Q.  How do you know that he had no fear  of being hung ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
229
   A. I derived my knoAvledge from what I saw.  I came to the conclusion
that he had not knowledge sufficient to appreciate or comprehend any thing
that was said about his being hung.
   Q. Do you not think he has some knowledge about a gallows ?
   A. Perhaps he has some if he ever saw one, but not much if any more
than a brute.
   Q. Did you regard his want of manifestation of pain as very curious ?
   A. I did, somewhat so.  It was extraordinary to me.
   Q,. Did you ever see two persons who were precisely alike ?
   A. I never did see two that were, in aU respects, precisely alike.
   Q. Do you not know that some wUl  endure pain with composure, when
others cannot ?
   A. I do, and there is a great difference in people in that respect.
   Q. Have you ever heard of people being burned at the stake ?
   A. History furnishes many instances  of the  kind.
   Q. Was John Rogers executed in that way V
   A. He was, if the accounts of his death be true.
   Q. Was he a sane man ?
   A. I suppose he was.
   Q. Do you believe that Commodore Lawrence  was insane ?
   A. He was sane, no doubt
   Q. Do you beHeve Major Ringgold was insane ?
   A.  I have no reason for believing that he was.
   Q.  Can  you say  whether brave  men  are less sensible to pain than
cowards ?
   A.  I cannot say, yet they may be, for any thing I know to the contrary.
   Q.  Do not men  become indifferent of small wounds, who expose their
lives in deeds of daring ?
   A.  It is very Hkely that such men care less about them than  some other
men.
   Q.  May  not Freeman be more insensible  to pain than other men, and
yet be sane ?
   A.  I think he felt no sensation at all.
   Q.  What suggested the questions  which you put to him in the cell ?
  A.  The object I was trying  to attain.  I put such questions as occurred
to me at  the time.
   Q.  Did his laugh satisfy you that  he was insane ?
   A.  Not alone, nor did that strike me then, as it has since.
  Q.  Did the phrenologist examine his  bumps in  your presence ?
  A.  I did not go in with him.
  Q.  Was it remarkable that the prisoner laughed in his cell ?
   A.  I thought it rather more so that he should laugh than that I should.
  Q.  If his  answers and his laughing did  not lead you to  beHeve him in-
sane, can you teU what did ? 
230
THE TRIAL OF
  A.  His whole appearance and behaAaor.
  Q.  Did he appear the same as when he was arraigned ?
  A.  Very much the same.
  Q.  What was there in his appearance and behavior at the time of his ar-
raignment that made you think him insane ?
  A.  Why,  his position, the expression of his face, his inability to under-
stand much that was said to him—aU was strange, and altogether he did not
act like a sane man.
  Q.  Did not you understand him ?
  A.  I think nobody could haAre understood much, nor do I beHeve he could
make any body  understand better than he did me.
  Q.  Did you not understand him when in his cell ?
  A.  I did not fully, yet I finally made out some of his answers, as I  haA'C
testified.
  Q.  If a month after you saw him in the cell he made others understand
him, what would you think of  that ?
  A.  I should think he was a different being from what he was when I saw
him.
  Q.  Was not his arraignment like other arraignments ?
  A.  It was not.
  Q.  Wherein  was it unlike others ?
  A.  When he was asked whether he demanded  a trial, he answered No ;
and when he Avas asked if he had counsel, he said, " I don't know," and the
court  directed the clerk to  enter a plea for him.  I had never seen such an
arraignment  before, and—
  Q.  Would a guilty sane  man, who knew that his offence could be proved,
want a trial ?
  A.  Some would; and I think any sane man would act and would answer
differently.
  Q.  If a sane  man did not know that he had counsel, would he not say as
the prisoner did ?
  A.  A' sane man would  be  Hkely to know whether he had counsel em-
ployed or not.
  Q.  If he were in doubt whether he had or had not retained counsel, would
he not express that doubt, if he said any thing ?
  A.  He might express it, but not in the manner the prisoner did.
  Q.  Did his manner in  court at the time of his arraignment indicate in-
sanity ?
  A.  It indicated that he had not changed for the better  since I had seen
him in jail.
  Q.  If a sane  poor man were arraigned in court for a crime, and had not,
and could not pay counsel, would he not say so ?
  A.  He would be likely to speak the truth.
  Q.  Do you believe the prisoner was able to pay counsel ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
231
  A.  By no means.
  Q.  Then did he not speak the truth ?
  A.  So far as the question is concerned, I have no doubt that he did.
  Q.  You say he inclined forward ; do not deaf people usuaUy do so ?
  A.  They sometimes do.
  Q.  He is deaf, is he not ?
  A.  I have no doubt he is; very deaf.
  Q.  If he did not answer at all would you rather infer that he didn't hear
or was sullen, than that he could not answer ?
  A.  I cannot say ; it would depend upon other circumstances.
  Q.  Would you infer that he was bewildered ?
  A.  If I inferred that he could ansAver some questions, and that he had an-
swered as far as he could, and indicated embarrassment, I might, under some
circumstances, infer that he was bewildered.   But I don't think he could un-
derstand much if he did hear.
  Q.  If he has been convicted by a court once, and by a court sentenced to
the  State Prison, do you not think he  knows what a court is ?
  A.  I think he may know that this is a court, but I don't believe he knows
what the effect of a court is.
  Q.  Suppose him to have attended Wyatt's trial, last February, three days,
would not that alter your opinion ?
  A.  It would not as to his capacity now for knowing the character or pow-
ers  of this court.  If he Avere here I don't think he heard.
  Q.  Suppose he leaned forward and  appeared to be listening ?
  A.  I don't think he heard from where they say he stood, unless his hear-
ing was better then than  it is now.
  Joseph L. Richardson,  (a member of the court,) was next called, and
being SAvorn, testified: In September, 1840,1 was first Judge of this county,
and presided at the  term at which one William Freeman was convicted of
stealing a horse.  I cannot positively state that the prisoner is the man who
was then tried  and convicted, but have not much doubt that he is.   By re-
ference to my minutes of that trial, I find that Martha Godfrey was the pro-
secutrix, and Avas a witness upon the trial.  Marcus Doty and a colored
man were also Avitnesses.  It was proved on that trial that William Freeman
was concerned  in the offence, and he  was convicted, and sentenced to con-
finement in the State Prison for five years.
  Mr.  SeAvard here proposed to read the minutes of Judge R. to the jury.
  Objected to and objection sustained.
  Dr. Blanchard Fosgate, called and sworn, testified: lam a physician
and surgeon, and  reside  in the village of Auburn.   I commenced practice
eleven years ago.  On Monday, the sixteenth day of March last, I Avas called
to visit the prisoner, Avho  was then in jail, and to dress his arm. It had been
severely wounded in the joint of the wrist, with some sharp instrument, Avhich 
232
THE TRIAL OF
 I presume was a knife.  The tendons were cut off down to the radial artery.
 The artery itself was not wounded.   [For also read not, in fourth line of page
 49.]  The wound was a bad  one, and  needed care.  It had received one
 dressing then, but the bandages were displaced, and his  arm and hand were
 considerably SAvollen.   The adhesive straps were in their places, but had be-
 come very tight  from sweUing.  I removed them and  dressed the wound.
 In three days  I called again and dressed it, and then there was considerable
 swelHng.  After the dressing it continued to get better.
  Whilst there, several circumstances attracted my attention.  At my first
 visit he appeared very morose and  perfectly indifferent.  I concluded that
 as there were persons continually  coming to  the grating and calling him
 names, that  that was the reason of his moroseness.  People standing there,
 so much darkened the grate  that it was with difficulty I could see to  dress
 his  hand.   On my  next visit I observed that his demeanor had changed.
 He had an idiotic smUe on his face, without  any perceptible  cause.  He
 seemed to  manifest no sense of pain.  He seemed to have no conversational
 powers, and answered only in monosyUables.
  I asked  him if he  had enough to  eat.  He said Yes.  I asked what they
 gave him.  He said pork.   I asked  what else.   He said potatoes.   I asked
 what else.   He said bread.  He had heavy irons on his feet.   I inquired
 whether his feet  were  hurt.  He said No.  I asked whether there was pain
 in his arm from  the wound.  He said No.  I asked how many blankets  he
 had to  sleep on.  He said  two.  I inquired if his hand was better.  I re-
member no  reply, but he  never complained.   He never asked whether  it
 was better; whether it would get  well, or whether he would ever recover
the use of his hand;  nor did he even speak to me unless  spoken to.  Dr.
 Hurd asked him what  he kUled those folks for; whether  he went for money.
 He replied, " They put me in  State Prison."  Dr. Hurd repeated the ques-
tion.  I heard no reply.
  I look upon him as  a person who is sinking into idiocy.  I think he does
not comprehend  the idea of right and wrong—that he has  no moral sense
of accountability.  As to his capacity to distinguish between the consequen-
ces of kilHng a man  or a beast, I should think it was immaterial to him ; and
that he was incapable of distinguishing between the moral  consequences  of
the two acts.   I think  him  incapable of comprehending his situation  and ac-
countability.   My reasons for this opinion are, his insensibility to pain, for
he must have  suffered a very great  degree of pain, judging from others  in
simUar circumstances; his  never inquiring relative to the prospect of his
hand recovering, seeing he had  to Hve by work ; his irresistible  propensity
to laugh, under the circumstances in which he is placed, his laugh  amounting
only to a smile; his indifference to remorse or fear ;  and his indifference to
sympathy.  I  recollect telling him  one day, if he wanted any thing, and
would let me know, I would get it for him; or if he was sick, and Avould tell 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
233
the jailer to send for me, I  would come up; and although I spoke as kindly
as I should to one of my own children, he made no manifestation of gratitude,
nor did he  say any thing in reply.
   Cross Examination.—I have practised ten or eleven years.  For about
four years I had regular practice; the remainder of the time I practiced of-
ficiaUy.  When I was practicing without going out, by giving opinions as to
patients or  diseases, I was in the drug business.   I  gave opinions on any case
brought before me.  I was Hcensed to practice, and took my degree eleven
years ago.  Four or five years ago I  became a member of the Medical So-
ciety in this county.  My degree gave me authority to practice medicine.
   I don't recollect whether there was any thing  else, of note, on  which I
founded my opinion, without it is the similarity of his manner—the  carriage
of his head, motions and actions—to other insane persons whom I know.  He
holds his head in a dejected position, merely raising his eyes when he replies
to questions. I do not recollect any thing else from which I drew the in-
ference that he  was insane.   I presume he now holds his head in the natural
position of persons in his condition of mind.  I think a sane man, after mur-
dering four people, Avould sometimes hold his head up.  Whether he would be
talkative or silent, would depend upon his disposition and habits, and the natu-
ral character of his mind. As near as I can recollect, I have given all the con-
versation that I swore  to on the former trial.  I think he said his hand was
better.  He tried to move it, at my direction.  I asked how deep it was cut.
He gave me to  understand that the joint moved.   I cannot say how he indi-
cated it—whether by talking, or showing me his hand.
   I swore before that I asked if he slept warm, and he said Yes.  I at  one
time asked if he had enough to eat.   I do not know whether he had pork, or
bread, or potatoes.   I  infer insanity from every thing together;  not from
those answers alone.  AU the answers I knew of, were correct, Avith the ex-
ception relative to pain.  I  did not infer that he was a brute.   I take him to
be a human being, with some intellect, and that in a measure deranged.  I
consider idiocy a species of insanity.  I know Dr.  Brigham.  When I know
he is correct, I think he is good authority.  When my own knowledge does not
contradict  his opinion, I think his authority as to insanity is of the very high-
est order.  I understand idiocy to be partial dementia, or entire dementia,
or fatuity.   If Dr. Brigham thought differently, I should think the difference
consisted mainly in a different classification of diseases.
   If the laAv should say that idiocy was not insanity, then I should think that
the laAv could not impose any rules or regulations  upon the human constitu-
tion, as it is given by the Almighty, and would not make any difference with
the fact. I think the fact of his indifference to pain, taken with every thing
else, is evidence of derangement.  A sane person, suffering as he must have
done, would not have endured it without complaint.  If it should be proved
that he complained of pain, and requested a doctor, it would not change my
mind.   I said I didn't  think he knew the difference  between kUling a man 
234
THE TRIAL OF
or beast  He would know a man from a beast, by the external form, and
by name.  So far as any moral principle is concerned, I don't think he knows
the difference between a man and a beast.  The  mere statement that he
knows that the}' hang people for killing men, and not for kUHng a beast, would
not change my mind.  I do not suppose he  thinks they hang people for kiU-
ing beasts.   I think that a sane man wouldn't smUe, situated as the prisoner
was.  I believe he said No, when asked if he was crazy.  By his indifference
to remorse, I mean, he makes no signs of sorrow at his doings.  I think he
does not care for any  thing he has done.   He was only sorry that the chUd
wasn't bigger.  He  does not care for killing  this family; and that circum-
stance goes with the others to make me think he is insane.  But rejecting
this reason, I have knowledge enough of him to have this opinion.  K he had
been sane when I asked what I should do for  him, I should think he would
express gratitude, by  look or word, or in some other way.  If a dog were
wounded, and in a sound state of mind, I think he would manifest sensibility
to pain.  The last time I dressed the wound I did not think it would require
any more attention.
  Martha  Godfrey was next called and sworn  as a witness for the pris-
oner.   She testified as follows:  I reside  in Sennett, and have  seen the
prisoner.  He came to my house last March,  at two o'clock P. M., and be-
fore the murder of the Van Nest family.   He came in and sat doAvn, and
wanted to know if this was the place where a  Avoman had a horse stolen five
years  ago.  I told him it was.  He then said he had been to prison for steal-
ing it; but that he did not steal it.   I told him that was something I did not
know  any thing about; that he had been tried  and found guilty of it, and
sent to prison.  He seemed deaf, and complained of being so hard of hear-
ing that he could not hear.   He wanted me  to get very close to him and
speak very loud.  One of my neighbors  just  then came in, and I told him
to talk to Freeman, for I could not.  It was  Joseph Johnson that came in.
He asked Freeman Avhat he wanted.  He did not make much of an answer, but
said he did not know, and sat awhile. Mr. Johnson asked whether he wanted
the horse,  or what he  did  want.  He did not make any ansAver, but sat
there  quite aAvhile.  I then asked him if he wanted any thing to eat. He
said he didn't know.  I however gave him some cake to eat.  Johnson spoke
to him again, asking him if he  wanted the horse.   He sat awhile, looked
around, smiled,  and said  he didn't want the horse now.  He said he had
been to  prison for stealing the horse, but didn't steal it; and wanted a settle-
ment.  He said he had been to prison five years.
  I had a horse stolen five years ago, and was  a witness  against Freeman
on the trial  for stealing it.   I did not then know  John G. Van Nest, nor
any of his family, nor any of the persons in his house where the murder Avas
committed.   I never heard that any of them were  concerned in the trial in
any Avay.  They were  in no way related to me or my family.  I never  heard
of them until after the murders Avere committed.  He remained at my house 
        ,                WILLIAM FREEMAN.                     235

about an hour.  The witnesses against Freeman on the trial for stealing my
horse, Avere Marcus T. Doty,  and a negro,  named Jack Furman, I believe.
The trial was in this court house.
  My husband's name was John Godfrey, junior, and he was in no way re-
lated to  the Wyckoff's,  Van  Nests  or Van Arsdales.   The  next morning
after the murder there were horse tracks in my yard.
  Cross Examination.—There was company at  my house the night of
the  murder, so that I did not retire that night until after ten o'clock.  After
we  retired there were no lights burning  at my house to my knowledge.  A
brother  of mine, and a young man avIio boarded with me and went to school,
were there.  The next morning after the murder of the Van Nest family,
Ave  saw  horse tracks where some one had been.  There was snoAv on the
ground in my yard where the  tracks were.   The afternoon when the pris-
oner came  to my house, was during the trial of Henry Wyatt, for the mur-
der of James Gordon.  I did not  think of his  being  crazy then. When
Freeman  was tried here in order to see whether he ^was insane or not, I
was here at court as a witness and saAv him.  I see him now in court.  He
looks different from some colored  men.   Now he smiles and  looks silly.
When he was at my house, I was afraid of him.
  [Here the  counsel read the minutes of his former conviction.]
  JonN De Puy was next, called, and being sworn, testified:  I was brought
up  in Owasco; moved to  Auburn  fourteen years ago.   My wife is a sister
of the prisoner.  Her maiden name  Avas  Caroline Freeman.  Some  years
ago I worked for Peter Wyckoff, and Hved in a little house west of his own,
but on his farm.   From there I moved to Auburn, and have lived here ever
since.   The prisoner has Hved with me some.  When I went up to the Lake
he  lived with  me, and also after I came to Auburn; but I don't now recol-
lect how long.  He was then an active, smart boy.   He was as lively as any
other you could  find.  He was playful, talkative, and a good boy to work.
Set him to Avork any where,  and he would do it.  He Avas sociable, and un-
derstood himself, and had some learning.   He could  read in the spelling
book, pretty well.  He could read it off' in reading, smooth and decent.  I
have heard him read a good  many times.  Up to  the time  he went to the
State Prison he made my house his  home, and I saw him a great deal.  I
knew of his attending balls and parties.
   Whilst he was in prison, I  saAv him five  different times.  His mother re-
quested me to go.   His mother  told me that  she had heard  that somebody
had struck him on his head, and that it was going to kiU him.  He had been
in  a year before I first saw him.  I didn't speak to  him.  He was carrying
something on his back like a  knapsack, and walking back and forth in the
yard.   He Avould walk a little way and  turn  round.  I perceived an altera-
tion in  him.   He didn't appear as he  did before he went to prison.  He ap-
peared  stupid.  Took  no notice of any thing.   I  don't know  whether he
kneAV me or not.   I was near to him; don't think he knew me; took no no- 
236
THE TRIAL OF
 tice of me.  I saw him after that in 'prison;  when he was at work and when
 he wasn't doing any thing.  I thought he didn't appear to be in his right
 mind.   I thought there was something the matter with him.   I don't think
 he was  in his right mind ;  and told my Avife  so.
   I saw him the day he came out.  KnoAving that his time  was out, I went
 over there to fetch him home with me.  I waited in the prison  hall till he
 was dressed to come out.   When he did come, he passed me as if he didn't
 know me.  He said nothing; I went  up to him, touched him and asked if
 he knew me, and he kind o' laughed.  I fetched him out with me.  He got
 some money—four half dollars, I think—Avhich was given him by the officer
 in the clerk's room.   When he came  along as far as Applegate's carriage
 shop where I was  at work, he sat down on a pile of boards, whilst I was
 helping raise a building.  He sat there, and acted very stupid and dull, and
 said nothing.  They asked me " what  dam'd fool that was,  who was sitting
 there."  I knew and I remembered it.  He staid  there a good while, sitting
 down.   He didn't know the value of his money.  He thought his half dol-
 lars were quarters.  He wanted a cap  to  wear,  and we went to a hatter's
 shop to  get one.   I picked out one, for which they asked four shillings.  BiU
 threw down two halves for it.  I took  up one of them and handed back to
 him and told him to go with me.  After he came out he told me that he
 hadn't paid for his cap; that they would make some fuss.  I told him he had,
 and that it Avas all straight there.  He took the pieces to be  two shillings
 each.  After he got home, I talked with him and asked how they had used
 him in prison.   He said  they gave him enough to eat, and sleep on; and
 told about a fuss he had there.   He said a keeper named  Hoskins kicked
 him and knocked him  around, and that he thought he wouldn't stand it;
 that he warded off the blows and weighed out Hoskins one.   He said he
 struck Hoskins with his left hand and faced  him around,  and  then he came
 the butcher's chop on him;  that he dropped  his left hand over his face, and
 struck him with the right.   That's what he called the butcher's chop.  He
 said Hoskins fell and hallooed murder; that prisoners took him off.
   After this, the prisoner told me  about Captain  Tyler, a keeper in  the
 prison.  He said Tyler used to strike him and kick him generally when he
 passed him; that he made up his mind that he might just as well be dead as
 alive, because they were constantly knocking and pounding him, in  the
 prison.  He said he had a difficulty with Tyler, and that Tyler struck him,
 or something; and that  he struck back.   He said that Tyler  called  the
prisoners, who came and clinched him, and that  Tyler then took a piece of
 a board and struck him across the ears; and that was  the reason that he
 couldn't hear; for it knocked the hearing off,  so that it never came back to
 him again.   I asked him if they did any thing for his deafness.    Pie said
they did;  that they put salt in his ear; but that it  didn't do any  good ;  for
his hearing was gone; was all knocked off.
  He told me about another affair of  his in the prison, when  he said they 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
237
threatened to put him back there again when his time was out.  He said he
broke a knife in the prison, for which they made that threat.  BiU then asked
me if they could put  him back there for that.  He said it was an old knife,
and that he broke it while eating.
  I knoAV  Jack Furman, and knew him when Bill Avent to prison.  I beHeve
his right name is John Willard.  I heard about the horse being stolen in the
time of it.  They said  Jack stole the horse, but the prisoner was taken up
for it.  I know he was at my house all that night that the horse was said to
be stolen.   [The last sentence was objected to and  excluded.]   Jack is now
in the  State Prison.  Bill frequently inquired for Jack after he came out of
prison.  I told him he was in there, a convict.  He  said he had not seen him.
He said he had been there five years for nothing and Avanted  his pay for it.
He said several times that it was wrong for them to send him (the prisoner)
to the  State Prison ;  that they sent him for nothing, when he wasn't guilty.
He wanted to see Jack, about sending him to prison, and said he wanted pay
for his time there.  He  said he  wanted pay from the folks.  I told him the
folks were gone away.   He asked if there Avere any Esquires here, and  said
he wanted a warrant, for he must have his pay.  He said he must go down
and get a warrant, for they must pay him; that he couldn't make any gain
so.   I  told him Avho the magistrates were.  I named Bostwick  and Paine.
He went down to get a warrant, but  came back and said he couldn't get one ;
that they told him to come again.  He went again, and when he came back
he said he'd got it all fixed, and  wanted me to go down and see that he got
his pay right.  Then again he  told me he couldn't do nothing with 'em—
couldn't get nothing.  He said  they would cheat him all the time, and he
couldn't live so.  Once he went away somewhere two or three days and came
back.  In November I went to  Skaneateles, and Bill went away to work.
He soon came there to see me.   He'd been at work and boarded with Adam
Gray.   He said to me that he'd  been sawing wood  for a Mr. Conklin, a har-
ness maker, for which he was to give him three shillings, but  wouldn't give
him but two; that he throwed the two shiUings at him, and came to  see me
to see  AVbether he should whip  him, or what.  I told him not  to do it; that
they-'tl put him in jail if he did.   He said he couldn't take him up,; that there
wasn't any law for him ; they wouldn't  let him have  a warrant,  and  they
cheated him all the time.  I went to see Conklin.  After  that  I told him to
take the two and I would give  him  another.   He said he couldn't live  so ;
he  couldn't make any gain so.  He said, likewise, that there Avas another
man that  wouldn't pay him.  His name was Murfey.  I went to  see Mur-
fey, but he said he had paid him all he agreed to.  I gave him the balance,
because he thought he Avas wronged. He was around here after that,  and
got his arm cut once.  He said  he fell on his axe.   He lived at Mary Ann
Newark's  before the murder, until his arm was  healed up.  His  mind last
winter was very unsteady.  Half of the time he didn't know what he  had
done.  He didn't seem to know  where he'd been, and yet he'd run back  and 
238
THE TRIAL OF
through the viUage.   It was said they'd given him Hquor.   He acted unlike
any body in  their right mind ; worse than before he'd drank, but he acted
bad enough  any time.  When he v. ent any where he run  pretty fast.  He
would start up and then turn and run right back.  Sometimes he ran up a
ways and then right back, without any reason for it.  On such occasions he
never said any thing  unless spoken to.  lie never commenced any conver-
sation with any body.  He'd sometimes kind o' smile.  He talked to himself
and tried to sing.
  Sometimes he would get up nights.  I have seen him up  nights a number
of times.  He's got up two or three times in a  night; would stay up perhaps
fifteen minutes, and sing a part of the time, and dance, and  be around in the
room beloAV.  He was talking one night and  said, " By G—d, I'll see  you
out."  He Avas alone in the room.  Sometimes  he wouldn't dress himself.
He didn't see any thing when he had it in his hand sometimes.  He would
try to read and asked me to hear if he read it right; but he couldn't read
right.  He'd call it one way when it was another way in the book.  When
he was up nights I would sometimes speak to him, and ask what he got up
for.  He'd say, " didn't know."   At such times he'd get up and be around a
speU and go back to bed again.  He acted so very strange  that we talked
about it at the house.  He was insane before  he came out, I think, and he
has been insane, in my opinion, since he came out of prison.  After he came
out he wouldn't talk as he used to.   He wouldn't commence, and only talked
when he  was spoken to.
  I know Sidney Freeman, the prisoner's uncle, and I knew his aunt, Jane
Brown.   They were both crazy, and Sidney is crazy now.   He got crazy in
prison.  Right away after coming out of prison he would get up nights,  and
I could see through the stove pipe hole.   He had not been drinking then.
I took care that he should not get any Hquor.  In February I heard they'd
been giving  him Hquor, but I never saw him  drink.  I told them at Gale's
grocery not to let him have it, for he did not know what to do with himself.
When he was arrested, I said he ought to be  arrested.  I was told by Her-
sey that he threatened my Hfe, but Bill never made threats to me.
  He often spoke about his pay,  and said there wasn't any  laAv for him,  and
he couldn't get any warrant.  I knoAV his mother,  SaUy Freeman ; she lives
in toAvn.  I have said that my wife is her daughter.  She wanted me to go
and see BiU Avhen he was in prison.  I did not  tell her, but I told my  Avife
when I came back that  I thought he was  crazy.  When his time Avas about
out, his mother wanted me to go  and get him home, and so  I went.   I knew
John G. Van Nest, and so did the prisoner.  I knew of no  difficulty having
taken place between him  and the prisoner.
  Cross Examination.—Freeman Hved with me when I lived up there
near Van Nest's house.  I don't recollect of ever putting Freeman in a  well
and keeping him there all day.   I don't recollect of saying that he was a
good enough boy if he would let liquor alone.  I have said I was glad he was 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       239
 arrested because any man ought to be arrested who had done such a thing
 as he had.  I was told that they had catched him, and I said I was glad of it
 I have not said that he pretended to be crazy but Avas  sane, as I remember.
 I never  said any such thing in substance.   I have said he Avas a great deal
 better when he let liquor alone.  I didn't say he was perfectly sane Avhen he
 let liquor alone.
   Q. Have you said you Avere glad he was arrested because you  were afraid
 of your life ?
   A. Not in them words,
   Q. Did you tell Vanderheyden that you were afraid of your life ?
   A. I may have told him my wife was  afraid.
   Q. Did you say that you was afraid to have him at your house, and drove
 him away ?
   A. I might have  said something like that.
   Q. Were you at  a dance with the prisoner the night before the murder ?
   A. I was at Hersey's that night pretty early, and the prisoner was there.
   Q. When did you leave ?
   A. Along about eleven or twelve o'clock.
   Q. Had the prisoner any knives then ?
   A. I heard he had in his bosom.
   Q. How late did he stay ?
   A. He  was there when I came away.  He Avas  standing out door with
 Hersey.
   Q. Did you say to Asa Spencer that he was no more crazy than you were ?
  A. I don't recollect of saying so.
   Q. Did you not in substance say that ?
  A. I have said he was ugly, but I did not say  so then.
   Q. What did you say ?
   A. I can't recollect now.
   Q. Why can't you recollect what you said to him ?
  A. I can't recollect when I'm bothered.
  Q. Did you say to Thomas Munroe,  during the  present trial, that he never
 was crazy, but was dam'd ugly ?
  A. I don't recoUect of saying that.
  Q. Should you recoUect if you did  say so ?
  A. I ought to recollect if I did.
  Q. Did you not swear on the last trial that you had  not said so ?
  A. I guess I did—believe I testified so.
  Q. Did you not say, shortly after Freeman was  arrested, and before he
was brought to Auburn, that you were glad he was  arrested, and that you
were afraid of your life ?
  A.  I might have said something  to that effect, but not in them words.
  Q. What Avords did you use ? 
240
THE TRIAL OF
   A. I said I was glad he was  arrested, but I didn't use the words about
 being afraid of my life ?
   Q. Well, what did you say ?
   A. I don't remember  what I did say.
   Q. Didn't you swear on the former trial that you were afraid of your life ?
   A. I don't know but I did.
   Q. Did you ever see the prisoner  drink spirits ?
   A. I have seen him when he was going to drink, but I took it from him.
   Q. Did you not say,  in front of the law office of Mr. Hall, that he had
threatened your life ?
   A. I don't know but I did, and I don't know as I did ;  I wouldn't swear
that I did, or did not.
   Q. Have  you not seen Freeman drink what you believed to be spirits ?
   A. I've seen him drink beer; whether there are  spirits in that or not I
can't say.
   Q. Have  you not seen him drink spirits; answer that ?
   A. Well,  I've seen him drink that that I thought was spirits a number of
times before he went to prison, but I don't know what he drank and cannot
tell.
   Q. Have  you seen him drink what you beHeve to be spirits since he came
out of prison ?
   A. I don't know but I've seen him drink  what might be spirits.
   Q. Have  you not  seen him a dozen times ?
   A. No; I have not.
   Q. Have you not  several times ?
   A. I may have  seen him two or three times; how  many I cannot say.
   Q. Have you not  seen him intoxicated ?
   A.  I saAv him once when I thought he had been drinking, after I came
back from Skaneateles.
   Q. Where was  he ?
   A.  Down in the viUage here; he and Jim Black had been sawing wood
that day.
   Q.  Did you swear that you had never seen him drink any thing that
looked like spirits ?
   A.  Water looks like gin, and like whiskey.
   Q.  I desire you to answer the question ?
   A.  I don't know whether I did or not
   Q. Did you swear that you never  saw him but once when you thought
he'd been drinking ?
   A.  I believe I did; think I did.
   Q. Did you not stop some one from giving him Hquor one day ?
   A. I stopped him  twice; can't say whether in one day or not.
   Q  Did you not say that it was at Gale's ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
241
  A.  I saw him  at  Gale's and shook my head at 'em to prevent 'em from
giving it to him.
  Q.  What did Hersey say to you about threats ?
  A.  He said Freeman told him he was going to kill Van Nest and me too.
  Q.  What time of day was this running that you speak of?
  A.  It was in the forenoon; never saw him run so in the  night.
  Q.  Had he not been drinking then ?
  A.  I don't know as he had.
  Q.  Did you turn him out of your house ?
  A.  I didn't.
  Q.  Have you not said so ?
  A.  I don't know but I have said he was turned out.  I may have said so
for the reason that my wife was afraid of him.
  O.  Were you not afraid of him ?
  A.  I never was.
  Q.  Did you not say you was ?
  A.  I did not at that time.
  Q.  How long was Freeman engaged in telling you about his affair in the
prison with Hoskins ?
  A.  It took an hour.
  Q.  Did he speak of it himself?
  A.  No;  I  asked him.
  Q.  Why did you ask him ?
  A.  Because I had heard of a fight between 'em.
  Q.  How long did it take to teU of the fight with Tyler ?
  A.  It didn't take so long.
  Q.  Did he begin to teU about that ?
  A.  No;  I  had heard that he  was struck by Tyler in  the prison, and
knocked so he wouldn't live, and I asked him.
  Q.  How long did it take for him to tell about that affair ?
  A.  I can't tell.
  Q.  Well, about how long ?
  A.  I should think near half an hour.
  Q.  You say that when you saw him in prison, you thought he was not in
his right mind.  How did you know that, if you didn't speak to him ?
  A.  Well, I thought so from his actions and the  way he looked.
  Q.  Was his dancing in the day or night time ?
  A.  I don't think I've seen him dance in  the day time since he came out.
  Q.  Have you told the prisoner what you Avould swear to ?
  A.  I never have.
  Q.  Have you not talked with the prisoner's counsel about it ?
  A.  I don't know that I have, only to Mr. Seward.   He asked me what I
knew  of the prisoner, and I told him.
                 16 
242
THE TRIAL OF
   Q. What did you teU him ?
   A. I don't remember now what I did tell him.
   Q. How many times have you talked with him ?
   A. A couple of times, I guess.
   Q. What did they say to you ?
   A. They asked me questions.
   Q. Did they write down what you told them ?
   A. I don't know; I  suppose he or Mr. Morgan did.
   Q. Have you ever told Freeman that Van Nest swore against him on his
trial for stealing the horse.
   A. I never did.
   Q. Did you ascertain that the prisoner did throw the quarter of a dollar
back to ConkUn ?
   A. Conklin told me  he did—that's all I know.
   Re-Examination.—Q. How did you happen to see the counsel for the
prisoner ?
   A.  Mr.  Seward sent for me to come and tell him what I  knew about
Freeman.
   Q. Have you talked with the prisoner since he was in jail ?
   A. I have a little—I hallooed through the grates a few words.
   Q.  What did you say ?
  A.  I asked how they used him, and he said pretty well.
   Q. Why did you ask that ?
   A. I reckoned he didn't know good usage from bad.
   Q.  What else did you say ?
   A.  I asked if he had enough to eat.
   Q. What did he say ?
   A.  I don't know.  I couldn't understand.
   Q.  Have you ever been into the jail  at any other time ?
  A.  No,  sir.
   Q.  Did Freeman ever say any thing to you about Van Nest's folks ? \
   A.  He never did.
   Q.  Did Freeman say any thing there at Hersey's ?
   A. Not as I heard.
   Q.  Did you speak to him ?
   A. I asked  him if he was going to dance, and he smUed and shook his
head.
   Q. Was Freeman angry at you ?
   A. Not to my knowledge, until Hersey told me so.
   Q. Did Freeman dance that night ?
   A. No,  sir.
   Q. Did he dance before he went to prison ?
   A. Yes, he could sing songs and dance; but now he won't sing but part
of a verse, and then be off on to another. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
243
    John R. Hopkins, called and sworn, testified:   I have some knowledge
 of this prisoner.  It commenced, however, after the Fleming murders.  The
 excitement occasioned by the affair was very great, and when he was ar-
 rested and lodged in the jail, I felt some interest in his case.  I had under-
 stood that he was a man of very weak intellect,-and Avas anxious to ascertain
 how that was from personal inspection.   A week or ten days after the mur-
 ders, I went to his cell and conversed with him.  I became satisfied that his
 mind Avas very weak indeed.  I endeavored to ascertain what his poAvers of
 mind were.   Asked him if he knew me.  He said  he did not.   He did not
 appear to recollect  that he had ever seen me.   I tried to bring Mr. Hotch-
 kiss to his recollection.  I asked the prisoner if he ever went to Sabbath
 school.  He said he had, after making several efforts to get him roused up
 so as to seem to know what I was saying.  I asked him if he was  in Mr.
 Hotchkiss' class,  and pointed to Mr. H. at the same time.  He either said
 " no," or " I don't know."  I asked what he learned at Sabbath school.  He
 said," The good."  I asked if he learned about God.  He said Yes.   I asked
 if he also  learned about Jesus Christ.  He said Yes. I asked if he learned
 about heaven.  He said Yes.  I then endeavored to ascertain what his ideas
 were about them—whether he knew Avho God is; but could get no satisfac-
 tory answer from him.  He seemed puzzled.   He mumbled something which
 I could not understand, and  shook his head.   He did that to a great many
 of tlnj questions I put to him.  What I could gather from him I must, there-
 fore, give in general terms to the court and jury, if at all.  I got an ansAver
 from him to* my question about God, but I have difficulty in giving his words.
 The effect of it was, that God is above.  I asked if God was a superior or
 supreme being, to which I could get no definite  answer.  About heaven, and
 his idea of it, I put a variety  of questions, and the effect of his answers was
 that he knew nothing about  it  The sum and  substance was, that heaven
 was above.  I asked him if he kneAV any thing about Jesus Christ,  He said
 he came to the Sunday school once.  I asked what  he did.   He answered*
 " Don't know."  I asked if he  took a  class.  He said, " Don't knoAV."  I
 asked if he preached or talked.   He Said," Don't know."   I then turned his
 attention to the idea of pay.  I asked if he had  got his pay for the time he
 was in prison.  That roused him up, and he looked comparatively intelligent.
 His whole  countenance brightened.  He said No.   I asked who ought to
 pay him.   He said, "AU of'em."  I asked whether I ought to pay him.  He
 looked  up at me with a flash of intelligence in his  face—looked intently
 conveying  an answer by the  look, and said nothing.  I asked if this man,'
 (pointing to Hotchkiss,) ought to pay him. He looked at him as at me, and
 said, " Do what's right," or « Well, do what's right."   We then spoke to him
 about his trial, and enquired of him whether he was to be tried for his offen-
 ces.   He became  stupid and dull again, and we couldn't get any thino-  out
of him.  He made no answer  that I know of.  He seemed exceedingly stu-
pid and dull upon that subject.  He satisfied us that he knew nothing about 
244
THE TRIAL OF
the trial.  He was asked if he prayed.  He  answered  T£es.   After that I
turned away from him, and did not keep the run of his answers.  They
asked him if his wrist had got weU.  He made no  reply.  I looked at his
Avrist, and took his hand, and asked Avho cut it.  He said, " A woman."  We
tried his  capacity to read."  I saw a testament there;  took it up and asked
if he could read.  He said Yes.  I gave him the book and asked him to read.
He took it, and mumbled over incoherent sounds, but  a small  part of which
could I understand.  In the sounds I recognized the words "God," " Father,"
" Jesus Christ," " Mercy," and others that I cannot now  remember.  These
words were unconnected.  His attention was directed to  a place in the book,
and I looked over him.  He pointed with his finger, as if reading, and mum-
bled over the  same.  There was no such matter there as he  seemed to be
reading.  I watched him sharply to discover any simulation, but I couldn't.
There was no deception.  If there  had  been, I should have detected it.  As
to his mind and intellect, I think  him a Httle  above the brute.  On some
subjects he has a little  knoAvledge of right and wrong.  With reference to
some  things, I don't think it unsound—as to  others, I think it sound as far
as it goes; and as to some, he is evidently deranged.  I  have  no question of
it, by comparison with others whom I know to be deranged.   He is insane
on the subject of pay.   That idea is the controlling influence of his mind.
On no other subject is he awakened at all.
   Cross Examination.—I cannot teU how long the prisoner has been in
this state.   My opinion is that he has been so since he came  out of prisonj
and that when he came out he was insane.  I don't claim to be infaUible,
but I have  the utmost confidence in this opinion.   Some of my inquiries
were at the  first visit and some at the second.  At the  second visit I became
satisfied.   I had heard that this  was the state of his mind, and I found it to
be so.  My  opinion was established by the examination.
   Q. Have you not been very active in behalf of the prisoner ?
   A. I cannot say that I have.  I have  talked about  him some, and made
inquiries of others.
   Q. Have you not taken especial pains to make these inquiries ?
   A. Not especial pains.  I have  made inquiries, however.
   Q. Did you not make them with a view to his defence ?
   A. I did not.  I made them in order to satisfy myself.
   Q. Did you tell those of whom you inquired that he was insane ?
   A. From what I had heard and seen, I concluded that he  was insane on
the subject of his pay, ever since he came out of prison.
   Q. You have no doubt of that ?
   A. I feel perfectly satisfied of it, and my subsequent investigation has not
caused me to doubt it a particle.
   Q. You have no doubts now, I suppose ?
   A. I have not a doubt of it. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                     245
    Q  Were you called as a juror in this case ?
    A.  I Avas.
    Q.  When  caUed as a juror, did  you swear on that stand that you had
 formed  no opinion as to his sanity or insanity at the time he committed the
 offence ?
    A.  I cannot answer Avithout detailing the circumstances.
    Q.  Do you remember that you were challenged on the ground that you
 had formed and expressed an opinion ?
    A.  I remember that I was challenged.
    Q.  Do you remember swearing that you had an impression, but no opinion ?
    A.  I was asked if as a juror, I should regard that impression, and I said
 No.  I was then asked if ChurchiU should  come and swear contrary to my
 own knowledge, whether I would believe my own senses or his testimony.
 Then  I was asked if as a juror, what I would do.
    Q.  Well, what further did you say ?
   A.  I  don't choose to be  criminated, even apparently, and can give no
 other answer.
   Q.  Did you swear that you had formed no opinion as to whether he was
 sane or not, when he committed the offence ?
   A. My answer is, I cannot tell—I am unable to tell.
   Q.'  Cannot tell what ?
   A.  I say that Avith regard to my examination as a juror, I answered dif-
ferently from what I answered in another capacity.  I do not now recollect
what questions, precisely, were put to me.
   Q.  Does not your inability arise from disinclination ?
   A.  My answer is, I don't recollect.
   Q.  What is your occupation ?
   A.  My daily occupation is various.  I am engaged  in manufacturing;  but
sometimes attend court.
  Q. What did you first say to the prisoner at  the first interview, from
which you discovered insanity ?                                 *
  A. I don't know that I can say.
  Q. What was the question put by you to the prisoner about his wrist ?
  A. I asked him how he hurt it, and he said a woman cut it.
  Q. I asked if he knew her ?
  A. He said he did not.
  Q. What next?
 A. I asked if he had ever seen me, or if he knew me.
  Q. What did he say ?
 A. He said he did not.
 Q. Did you not expect to testify on this trial ?
  A. I did not.
  Q. Did it not occur to you, that you probably would be caUed as a witness ? 
246
THE TRIAL OF
  A.  I am not able to  state  except with some degree of probability, from
the fact that this trial was near.
  Q.  Did not Gov. Seward  speak to you about this case ?
  A.  He did; or we had several conversations about it.
  Q.  Did that not lead you  to expect that you would be called ?
  A.  It perhaps did, when taken in connexion with the approach  of the
trial.
  Q.  Did you tell him what you would testify to ?
  A.  I did not.   I only conversed with him about the prisoner, and the
peculiarities of the case.
  Q.  Several times, have you not ?
  A.  Yes,  several.   I am unable to  say how many;  but have conversed
with him frequently.
  Q.  Have you ever studied Theology ?
  A.  I have turned my attention to it somewhat.
  Q.  Did you expect that the prisoner was familiar with that subject ?
  A.  I talked with him about the  Supreme Being; as I wanted to learn
Avhether he was  accountable and responsible for his crime, in the  eye of
abstract justice and right.
  Q.  In law, also, I suppose ?
  A.  I am not sufficiently acquainted with law, to tell  Avhether it Avas any
part of my plan to see whether he Avas legally accountable.
  Q.  How do you test accountabiHty ?
  A.  I supposed that the extent of his knowledge  was the  measure  of his
accountability, legaUy as weU as moraUy.
  Q.  Suppose him profoundly ignorant of aU those subjects; would you
consider him accountable ?
  A.  If he wanted all  knowledge, I should consider him wholly irrespon-
sible.
  Q.  Did you think Theology was the proper subject upon which to test his
knoA^ledge ?
  A.  I conceived that the test I put was as fair as any I could put.
  Q.  What did he say about Jesus Christ ?
  A.  He said that Jesus Christ came to Sabbath school.
  Q.  How was his memory ?
  A.  It was very sluggish and inactive.
  Q.  Did you consider that  his faUing to remember you was  evidence of
insanity ?
  A.  I  did not.
  Q. You say he brightened  up on the subject of pay; is that a rare thing ?
  A.  It is very rare to find people who will brighten up on the subject of
pay, in the manner and to the degree that he did.
  Q.  Did his brightening satisfy you  that he was insane ?
  A.  I think he  was deranged on the subject of his pay. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      247
   Q. How did it satisfy you ?
   A. Ills manner on other subjects, contrasted with his manner when this
subject was spoken of, convinced me that there Avas something extraordinary
on his mind ; that he was under the delusion that he was entitled to pay.
   Q. Do you know  that this is common Avith convicts ?
   A. Very many of the prisoners say they are entitled to pay, but do not
think that they are legally entitled to it.
   Q. How do you know that ?
   A. From their talking about it voluntarily, and in the manner  that
some do.
   Q. Didn't Freeman talk about it voluntarUy.
   A. No ; I inquired about  it.
   Q. Would the volunteering prove that there was  no delusion ?
   A. No; not that alone.  Freeman indicated a mania on that subject, in
his whole appearance and manner.
   Rev. John M. Austin, sworn, testified :  I reside in Auburn,  and am
clergyman of the Universalist church in this vUlage.  After the prisoner was
arrested for the murder of the Van Nest family, I visited him several times
at the jail;  sometimes alone, and sometimes in company with  others.  I
found him to be a man of  very feeble intellect, and quite stupid.   I en-
deavored to examine him with a view to  ascertain Avhat degree of knowledge
he possessed, and what his  mental condition Avas.  The first, time I caUed,
was the twenty-sixth day of  March;  but  I had several interviews, and it
Avould be  impossible for me to distinguish the subjects  of conversation at
each  interview.   The principal object of  my first inquiry,  was to  find
Avhether there was  any connexion  between that murder  and the  Wyatt
trial.  Our questions were first in regard to the murder. I inquired of him
whether  he knew Henry Wyatt, in the State Prison.  He answered No.
I asked if he knew that Wyatt killed a  man there.   He answered that he
knew, or heard,  a man Avas killed.  I asked if he knew who killed him.  He
said  No.  I asked if he was in the court house during his trial ?  He an-
swered No.   I  asked if he knew that Wyatt had  a trial.   He answered
No.   I asked  if he  knew what defence was  set up on that trial.   He an-
SAvered No.  I asked if he knew the result of that trial.   He said No.
I asked if the  result  of that trial had  any influence  on his mind in commit-
ting  this  murder.    The answer was No.   I asked if he probably would
have killed these people if Wyatt had had no trial,  or had the result been
different.  He answered Yes.
   I then put questions  to find his motives in killing that family.   His an-
swers Avere broken and incoherent, but they invariably had reference to his
being in prison innocently.  I asked if the persons he killed,  had any thing
to do with putting him in prison.   He answered  No.  I  asked  Avhy he
killed that particular family.   I got no  direct answer;  except something
about being put into prison AvrongfuUy.   I  asked if he thought it right to 
248
THE TRIAL OF
kiU people who had no hand in putting him into prison.  To this, his answer
was in effect, " Shall do something to get my pay."   At that, or some other
time,  I heard some one ask  how much pay he asked;  and his ansAver was,
" Don't know."  I asked why he entered that  particular  house.  He said,
" I went along out,  and thought I might  begin there."  I asked what ques-
tion Van Nest put to him when he went  in.   He said,  " He  asked me what
I wanted."  I asked what he said in reply.  He said, " I came in to Avarm
my hands." I asked if Van Nest said more to him before he stabbed him.
He said, " He said, if you eat my liver, I'll eat yours."
   I then asked about his religious advantages.   I asked whether he had ever
been at church.  He said, " Yes, some." I asked if he had ever been  at a
Sabbath  school.   He said Yes.   I asked  where.    He  said, " To First
church."   I asked how  he became deaf.  To this, I recollect he gave the
longest reply that he gave, and  the strongest.   I can't give his words, but
they were something like this:   " It felt as though stones dropp'd down my
ears;"  or this, " As though the  stones of my ears dropp'd down."  I could
not get the whole of it—it was so incoherent; and I was pained to hear him
talking;  and that I could not  in any way gather his meaning about his
deafness.
   During the most of my subsequent visits,  the conversation was chiefly on
religious  subjects.  I tried to convince him that his acts were wicked, and I
asked him if he did not think he  ought to ask forgiveness of the Saviour for
the act;  but I could get from him no answer that indicated that he compre-
hended me. I saw he was unmoved by any of those questions, and I aban-
doned  the  attempt to impress him with the nature of his  guUt.   While
talking to  him,  I  asked him if he ever prayed.   He said  Yes.  I asked
when.   He said, " When I was a boy."  I asked if he  had ever prayed
since he  came out of prison.  He said  No.    I asked if he had  prayed
since he  committed this act.  He said  No.  I then  said that he should
pray fervently, and asked him to promise me that he would.  He answered,
" I wUl."  I asked if he would like to have  me pray with him.  He said,
Yes ;  and I did pray with him in his cell.  I inquired of him if he would
like to have a testament.  He said Yes;  and said  that he could read.  I
soon  after  that,  carried a testament to him.   At some interview, he  said
something  about " my work;" but I could not gather what it was.  Here
I think it due to myself, and the position I occupy,  to say that when I  first
visited this prisoner I had no reference to any trial, or to any testimony  that
may be given here.   Nor was that visit  made with the purpose or expecta-
tion of testifying.  I was intent  upon  trying to do him good, and did not
note his language as particularly  as I might have done, perhaps.
   His countenance has, from the first interview, presented a  vacant appear"
ance.   He  sometimes smiled  when there was no occasion for it.  That smile
is the same I have seen upon his  countenance here in court,  and which oth-
ers have  noticed.  As to his reading I found that he was unable to do so. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
249
When I discovered this I was astonished, as he had before then told me that
he had read in the testament, which I had presented to him.  I found that
Avhen directed to read, he opened the book, fixed his eyes intently, bent his
head over and pointed with his finger, as would a  child three or four years
old.   At one time he  opened to a chapter commencing with, " In those
days came John the Baptist."  He pointed with his finger, and said, " Christ,
or God, Moses, good, come, man."   These words Avere uttered after a strong
apparent effort.
  I saw him try to count, and the effort to do so was' pecuHar. He would
spread his fingers apart and count, in a peculiar tone of voice, up to twenty-
five ;  once he got to twenty-seven, and then said, " twenty-eight,"  and then,
" eighty," and then wandered about.   There Avas on his part an  eagerness
to read and count.
  I put  to  him other questions about  kUling  the family.  I cannot give
his language in reply, yet he referred to his being imprisoned in  the State
Prison wrongfully.   I asked if he thought it right to kill the Van Nest fa-
mily,  and his answer was about the same—it referred  to his imprisonment
When I asked why he kUled the child I could get no reply which I could un-
derstand.   I don't think he was able to assign  any reason.  I asked why he
went that night.  His reply was,  " I don't know; the time had come."  I
asked why he did not enter another house, or why he entered that.  His re-
ply was, " I went along out, and thought I might begin there."  I asked what
Mr. Van Nest said to him when he went in.  He said, " He asked me what
I wanted."  I asked what else Van Nest said.   He  replied that Van Nest
said, " If you eat my liver, I'll eat your Hver."  I  asked about his deafness,
and how he became so.  In a very incoherent manner he replied something
about stones dropping into his ears.  He said, " the stones dropped down my
ears," or " the stones of my ears dropped down."  I put questions  to find his
motive for killing that family.  His answers were very broken and incohe-
rent, but  invariably referred to his being in prison innocently.   I asked if
the persons kiUed had any thing to do with putting him in prison.  He an-
swered No.  I asked if he knew their names. He said No.   I asked why he
killed that particular family.  He gave no answer, except something about
being put in prison wrongfully.  I asked if he thought  it right to kill people
who had no hand in putting him in prison.  His reply was incoherent,  but
I gathered something like this, " shall do something to get my pay."  I asked
how much pay he thought he ought to have.  His answer was, "  Don't know."
I asked if it was right to kill those innocent persons for what had been done
by others.  He said, " They put me in prison."  I  asked who did—the Van
Nest family ?  He answered No.   Then I asked again why he killed them;
whether he  thought it right to  kill that innocent child.  I understood from
his gestures in reply, that he was in a labyrinth from which he was incapa-
ble of extricating himself.   I asked again how he happened to go that par-
ticular night  His reply was, " The time had come."   I asked again why he 
250                         THE TRIAL OF
entered that particular house.  His reply Avas, " I went along out, and thought
I might begin there."  I asked if he ever called on Mrs. Godfrey.  He said,
'• I went to Mrs. Godfrey to get pay, and she wouldn't  pay me."  I asked
again about it  He continued, " I went to the 'Squire's, and they wouldn't
do nothing about it."  I put him various other questions Avhich I cannot now
recall; some of them were about his  affray in the State Prison.  He said
something about the keeper.  It appeared that he had had  some difficulty
Avith a man by the  name of Tyler.   I asked AA-hy he intended  to kUl the
keeper.  He  said, " I was caUed up to be flogged."   I asked Avhat  he had
been doing.  He said, " Because I wouldn't work."  I asked why he wouldn't
Avork, and to that he made an answer  that made an impression on my mind;
it was, " Because I Avent to prison innocent, and thought I oughtn't to work."
I don't say those were his words, but those words convey the idea.  I cannot
undertake to be exact as to his words, but give them as near as my recollec-
tion enables me to do so.
  He stated in answer to my questions, that Mr. Tyler struck or kicked him
first, and that he kicked or struck back ; that convicts were caUed to assist;
that he attempted to run, and as he was running past a bench where there
was a knife, he picked that up to defend himself with; that then the con-
victs laid hold of him; and that in the affray Tyler struck him with a board.
The remark that, " I thought I oughtn't to work," led me to believe that du-
ring his imprisonment he dwelt much upon the fact that he was  AvrongfuUy
imprisoned, and, therefore, ought not to work.  His assertion that Van Nest
said, " if you eat my liver, I'U eat yours," led  me to beHeve he was insane ;
for no such remark  could have been used by Van Nest under such circum-
stances.  Another ground of my belief was  his confused  story about losing
his hearing; his attempt to describe  it,  which he was utterly incapable of
doing.  He said, in reply to some questions, " if they'll let me go this time,
I'll try to  do  better," or something to that effect, which  showed an entire
want of rational appreciation of the nature and enormity of his deeds, and an
entire ignorance of the consequences  of his act.   I do not beHeve any man
of his age, possessing a sound  mind, could suppose that he could be aUowed
to escape aU punishment, simply by promising to do better.  He attempted
to read and count, and  appeared to suppose he could read and count cor-
rectly, when he could not  I asked him whether he could read, to Avhichhe
ansAvered Yes.  I handed him a testament,  This I  did  several times, and
he evidently could not read.  At subsequent visits I asked him if be had
read  his testament.  He  answered Yes.  He could not count  more than
about twenty regularly.   He  seemed to know some of his letters, but could
not combine them.  His inability to do Avhat he supposed he could, was an-
other ground for believing his mind to be impaired.  He evidently did sup-
pose that he  read and counted correctly, and I think no  man  of his age,
brought up here, could  suppose he did  read and eount  correctly, Avhen he
did not.   A newspaper was handed  to him to read.   He looked at it and 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
251
stated some of the letters correctly.  His  attention was  turned to a word.
He did not call it correctly, and couldn't combine letters.
  He did not dissemble.  I should suppose him the shreAvdest man in the
world if he did dissemble.   I have not the  slightest doubt that there was no
attempt to dissemble.  He was very deaf.  He did not dissemble deafness.
When I read to him from the testament, he would voluntarily place his ear
very near to me.   He is very deaf, beyond doubt.
  Previous to the commencement of this trial, I called on Governor Seward,
at his office, and conversed Avith him about this prisoner  and his deplorable
condition.  I requested Mr. Curtis  and Doctor Robinson  to  go with  me
and see the prisoner.  I may have  spoken to others.  I have felt some so-
licitude on account of this man ;  but have not done any thing concerning
him but  what  I conceived to be my duty.   I don't know  as I've done as
much as I ought to have done for the prisoner.  I inquired of the prisoner
whether he had counsel.   He  didn't giAre any ansAver,  immediately.   He
didn't comprehend the question at first  It being repeated, he finally said
No.  I asked if he. Avould  like to have Gov. Seward defend him.   He Avas
agitated and  hesitating.   At length he answered Yes.   I told Governor
Seward of this subsequently at his office.  Before the conclusion of my last
interview, I became satisfied that his mind  was in a singular  condition ; and
the result of all my intervieAvs  has led me to believe his mind is in a shat-
tered or unsound state.  I can give no technical name to the difficulty.   I
beHeve he knows  right from Avrong  in regard to common transactions Avith
which he has  been familiar; the  same  as  a little child five or six years old
does.   But on topics  involving the right or Avrong of seeking redress  for
injuries received, on the principle of retaliation, I  consider him incapable
of discriminating between right and Avrong.  I have  formed an  opinion that
he  is  especially incapable of discriminating as to the  right or wrong of
making the innocent accountable for the offences of others.  He could not
assign any consistent motive for his indiscriminate slaughter of men, women
and children.   There was indeed  no motive that would actuate a sound mind.
  Cross Examination.—Q.  Have you not been very active in the de-
fence of this prisoner ?
  A.  I have  not been very active;  not so much so, perhaps,  as I should
have been.
  Q. You have taken a deep interest in his case, have you not?
  A.  Since I became aware of his condition,  I have.
  Q.  Did you  conceive it to be your duty to employ counsel for the prisoner ?
  A.  I need  not answer that, as  Gov. Seward had previously stated to me
that he would endeavor to defend him.   I  employed  no counsel.
  Q.  Why did you feel such a deep interest for one who had slain a Avhole
family Avithout provocation ?
  A.  If  he had been sane and in prison, it would have been my  duty to
have visited him,  although guilty. 
252
THE TRIAL OF
   Q.  Did you visit him in your clerical capacity ?
   A.  For the most part, perhaps, I may say I did.
   Q.  Have you not done more in this case than  came within  the scope of
 clerical duty ?
   A.  I am not aware of having acted in any way derogatory to  my cleri-
 cal duties.
   Q.  Have you not written about this case and published your  letters in
 newspapers ?
   A.  I have.
   Q.  Have you written for religious papers ?
   A.  For one, I have.
   Q.  What one?
   A.  The Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate.
   Q.  Did your articles contain matter in opposition to capital punishment ?
   A.  Very likely.
   Q.  Are you opposed to capital punishment ?
   A.  I am, and think it very wrong, and that it is a relic of barbarism.
   Q.  Have not your views in respect to capital punishment had  some in-
fluence on your mind in respect to the prisoner ?
   A. It may have increased my  interest in his behalf, perhaps.
   Q.  Are you not opposed to his being hung ?
   A.  I should  think it wrong.  I  cannot think it right to take the life of
another, and hence I am opposed to hanging any one.
   Q. Would you not punish crime ?
   A. Certainly, but not in that Avay.
   Q. Did you not say in your  communication that the execution of the
prisoner would be very wrong ?
   A.  In that article I  may have advanced  views in opposition to capital
punishment;  but I have no recoUection of  saying that this case furnished
any argument.
   Q.  Did you not say, in effect, that this case furnished  no  argument for
capital punishment ?
   A.  I do not recollect saying so.  I think I did not.
   Q.  Have you not also written for the Auburn Advertiser, a  political pa-
per ?
   A.  I did, soon after the murder.
   Q. Did you not, in an article published in that paper, denounce this com-
munity in respect to this prisoner ?
   A.  I did not denounce any one, but spoke of the neglect of the colored
population.
   Q.  Did you not charge this community with the crimes of this man ?
   A.  I did not charge them; I said they were, to a certain extent, respon-
sible for the crimes committed in their midst, and  I think they  are, in some
degree. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
253
   Q. Is this murder the legitimate consequence of the neglect of the colored
people in this place ?
   A. It is my opinion that neglect is one of the causes that led to it.
   Q. Then you beHeve it the legitimate cause ?
   A. So far as it is a cause I consider it legitimate; but by legitimate I do
not mean an unavoidable, or a rightful cause.
   Q. If the cause lies in  the neglect of the community, the crime followed
necessarily, did it not ?
   A. I think not.
   Q. Suppose the cause were sufficient ?
   A. Their neglect is no  justification for the crime, for it cannot make the
action right.
   Q. What signature did you append to  your article published in the Ad-
vertiser ?
   A. Justice.
   Q. In  that article did  you not state expressly that this neglect was the
legitimate cause of this crime ?
   A. I might have inquired whether or no it was not.
   Q. Did you write another article for that paper ?
   A. I did.
   Q. Did you write any  other ?
   A. I did not.
   Q. Were you acting in a clerical capacity in performing that act ?
   A. It is not unusual for clergymen to write articles of that character for
newspapers.  If they should meddle with political topics I should think  it
unusual and improper.
   Q. Do you lend as much aid in aU capital cases as you have in this ?
   A. I do not know that  any other has occupied quite so much of my atten-
tion.
   Q. Did you ever before go to a jaU and ask  prisoners if they wanted
counsel ?
   A. I recollect of no other case where I ever asked that question.
   Q. How did you come  to ask the prisoner that question ?
   A. Gov. Seward suggested that I should ask him if he wanted counsel.
   Q. Did you request Ira Curtis to go to the jail with you ?
   A. I did.
   Q. How is Mr. Curtis related to you ?
   A. As  a member and trustee of my church.
   Q. Did you tell Curtis  that he would be called to testify ?
   A.  Whether I told him that or not, I am not able to say.
   Q.  When did you first  see the prisoner try to read ?
  A.  Not until after the first of June, but I had read to him from the testa-
ment before.
   Q.  Were you at the jaU with John R. Hopkins ? 
254
THE TRIAL OF
   A. I was not.
   Q. What is Mr. Curtis' scholarship ?
   A. I haA'e very little knowledge of it
   Q. Why was he called to see the prisoner ?
   A. I know of no reason why he was called upon, except for  the  reason
that he was an old inhabitant of the village, and is a  man whose statements
can be believed.
   Q. Had you heard him read before you went there with Mr. Curtis ?
   A. I had not.
   Q. Who gave him the book ?
   A. I don't recollect;  I think I pointed out the place to him, telling Mr.
Curtis to turn to some part with which we were familiar.
   Q. Did you see Doctors Willard and Clary there at the same time ?
   A. I think they were there ; yet it may be that I mistake the intervieAv
when they  were there.  «They were there once.
   Q. Did you go there  with Mr. Curtis ?
   A. I did not;  I had agreed to meet him at Doctor Robinson's office, but
found him at  the jail when I arrived there;  afterwards other persons came
in.
   Q. Did  you say to Curtis then that  the  prisoner thought  he could read,
but could not ?
   A. I recoUect of making some such remark to him.
   Q. When was this ?
   A. It was the  morning that the plea of insanity was put in;  the first  of
June, I think.
   Q. Have you questioned him in respect to the fundamental principles  of
religion ?
   A.  I have not.  My endeavors have been to soften him, and to make him
aware of the wickedness  of his offence.   I had supposed he knew the  funda-
mental truths of religion.
   Q.  Did you go there with Doctor Robinson ?
   A.  I did once, I think.
   Q.  What did he go for ?
   A.  I suppose with  a view to his testimony.
   Q.  When did he go ?
   A.  Well, during this court.
   Q.  Did you ask him to read then ?
   A.  I think I did.
   Q.  When you went the first time, was there any person with you ?
   A.  Yes; Ethan A. Warden went with me.  He knew Freeman,  and  1
went with him for that reason.
   Q.  How many times have you mentioned this case ?
   A.  I have talked about it one hundred times.
   Q.  At aU times alike ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
255
  A.  Substantially so, as my views have not been changed.
  Q.  Did you notice at any of your intervieAvs any excitement on the sub-
ject of his pay?
  A.  I cannot say that I have noticed any particular excitement  on the
subject of his pay.   Pay was the chief topic.
  Q.  Which subject did he talk about most readily ?
  A.  His pay and his wrongful imprisonment.
  Q.  What other subject did he converse about with the most facility ?
  A.  He would answer more freely about the murder than on the  subject
of religion.
  Q.  What was it that the prisoner told you about the liver ?
  A.  He said that Van Nest said, or that he thought he said, " If you eat
my liver, I'll eat your liver."
  Q.  Who first told you that he said so ?
  A.  I never heard it before from any one.
  Q.  Do you not know that it was an Indian ceremony ?
  A.  I do not.
  Q.  Why  cannot you as well conceive that Van Nest said so, and that the
prisoner told what Avas false ?
  A.  I cannot;  and the reason is that Freeman is more likely to be mistaken
than that Van Nest made the remark.  Again, a deaf man may easily mis-
understand.
  Q.  Suppose the expression to haA-e been a common one ?
  A.  That would make no essential difference.
  Q.  If it Avere  a common expression of the prisoner, would  his remark, in
your judgment, be evidence of insanity ?
  A.  It Avould lessen the force of the impression.
  Q.  Might the prisoner not have lied to you ?
  A.  I don't think it impossible.
  Q.  Suppose he had a motive for lying to you, would you think it  strange
that he did ?
  A.  Perhaps not as much so.
  Q.  Do not sane  men have motives ?
  A.  Yes.
  Q.  Do not insane men ?
  A.  I suppose  they do, but I think  sane  men act from motives that they
can explain ; whereas,  insane  men act from motives which they  cannot
explain.
  Q.  Is lying any evidence of insanity ?
  A.  I should not consider lying any evidence going to prove sanity or in-
sanity ; but I have no idea that he did lie.   His evident candor and frankness
convinced me that he was not lying.
  Q.  Do you think he lied when  he  persisted that Burrington's horse was
his own ? 
256
THE  TRIAL OF
   A. I do not think it was that kind of lying for which he is  responsible,
 and yet I suppose the horse belonged to Burrington.
   Q. You speak of a story about a fracas with Tyler.  Do you think he
 related that affair correctly.
   A. I cannot say.
   Q. If Tyler should swear to a different state of facts, would  you believe
 him or the prisoner ?
   A. I should beHeve Tyler correct and the prisoner mistaken.
   Q. Do you consider the prisoner an outlaw ?
   A. Not at aU, sir.
   Q. If it should appear he was justly condemned for horse  steaUng, al-
 though he pretended innocence, and should slaughter people, would  you
 think him insane ?
   A. That might or might not be a circumstance tending to show it, depend-
 ing upon circumstances.
   Q. Do you suppose a man insane for acting without a motive, merely
 because you cannot discover it ?
   A. No; for the actuating  motive may not appear;  yet the actuating mo-
 tive, if discovered, ought to be adequate to a man of sound mind.
   Q. Have you ever known of a motive adequate to the crime of murder ?
   A. I have never known it adequate in  a moral point of view.   I have
 known it sufficient to induce retaHation.
   Q. Well, in any sense, could  Freeman have had an adequate motive ?
   A. I think  not; and that  is one of my reasons for thinking  him insane.
 I think his indiscriminate massacre a further reason.
   Q. Have you ever heard of the Wyoming massacre ?
   A. I have read of it.
   Q. And that at Cherry Valley ?
   A. I have.
   Q. R one of those Indians was arrested, and it were proved that he had
 kiUed, would you  think him insane ?
   A. I am unable to say—morally so, perhaps.
   Q. Are pirates insane, who live by plunder ?
   A. Not if they  have a motive; they may be depraved, but not insane.
   Q. You have spoken about the subject of his pay.  Now, if he told the
 truth and was wrongfully imprisoned, was it not natural for him to suppose
 that community owed  him ?
   A. I think not.
   Q. Do you beHeve aU in prison innocent,  who say they are not guUty ?
   A. By no means;  yet I think there are innocent persons there.
   Q. If  an innocent man were imprisoned for an  alleged offence, and he
 should retaliate by killing when he  came out, would that be  evidence of
 insanity ?
   A. That an innocent man should kUl,  I should consider a strong mark of
insanity. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
257
   Q. What do you think the prisoner fled for, after  committing the mur-
 ders.
   A. I think from fear.
   Q. Did you ever know a man who thought that the law of the land was
 to hang people for doing right ?
   A. I never did.
   Q. Have you ever heard of men who expected to be pardoned on account
 of repentance ?
   A. Yes; but I should not call them insane.
   Q. Have you not seen men who could neither read nor count more than
 twenty-five ?
   A. I may have seen such men.  Yet I am quite confident that a sane man
 twenty-three years old, who cannot read, but thinks  he can—who cannot
 count more than twenty-seven or eight, but thinks he can, cannot be found
 in this county.
   Q. Do insane people commit crimes ?
   A. I believe they do.
   Q. Do they often deny the offence afterwards ?
   A. I believe they do, or often do.
   Q. Did you ask him why he denied steaUng the horse ?
   A. I did not.
   Q. Which  subject that you examined him upon throws the most light
 upon the question of his insanity ?
   A. I cannot say.  I don't think any one, taken by itself, throws much
 light upon the state of his mind; but all taken together, I think do.
   Q. If aU the light we had about it was that he prepared the knife, hid it,
 killed the family, denied it, ran  away, Avas arrested and put on trial, would
 you  think him insane ?
   A. I do not think it would decide the case.
   Q. Suppose that Doctor WiUard had given him the numbers one, two,
 three and five, and asked  him what they amounted to, and he had said nine,
 would that in your judgment be  evidence either of sanity or insanity ?
  A. I don't think it would determine the question.
  Lyman  Paine, caUed  and sworn, testified:  I have been a magistrate
 nearly twelve years.  On the Saturday or Monday before the  murder, the
 prisoner called at my office, opened the door, advanced  four or five feet
 stood a few moments with his head down, and looked up and said he wanted
 a warrant.  He advanced nearer to me, and I asked him what he wanted.
 He said, " Sir, I want a warrant."  I asked what for.  He then came nearer
to me  and spoke very loud, and said, " Sir, I want a warrant." He then
 said, " I'm  very deaf, and can't hear very well."  I then asked, in  a loud
voice, what he wanted a warrant for.  He replied that he wanted a warrant
for a man who put him to  State Prison.  I think then that I asked his name.
He told me. I asked how long he had been out of prison.  He said he came 
258
THE TRIAL OF
out last September.  I said to him then, that if he  had been to the State
Prison, he had been tried for some offence.   He said he had, for stealing a
horse, but he  didn't steal it.  I asked who he wanted the warrant for.  He
told me some name; I think it was Doty.  I then said, " Then you want a
warrant for perjury—for swearing false."  I had to talk very loud.   I then
told him that in order to get a warrant he must get at  the facts.   He then
appeared to be in a passion;  said he had been abused,  and would have sat-
isfaction.  I then told him I Avould not give him a warrant without further
information.  He stood a Httle while longer and then threw doAvn two shil-
lings, and  demanded one.   He  said, " I demand a warrant," and was in a
passion.  I then said he had better take his money and put it in his pocket;
that I should not take it, nor give him a warrant without further information.
I told him, further, that he had better  go away and find a place and go to
work.  I advised him to do so, or that he would get into prison again.  He
said, " I'm so  deaf I can't get work; people won't employ me. I've been
trying, and can't get work."  I then said to him that if he couldn't get work
he had better go to the overseer of the poor and apply for assistance.  He
remained  some time, and then took his cap and left,  and as he went out  he
shut the door very- hard.  I inferred that he was very deaf, ignorant and
malignant. This was in the forenoon.  In the afternoon he called again.
He came  in and  stood Avith his head down, as before.   I beckoned him to
come near me.  I asked him whether he wanted a warrant for a man and a
woman.  I asked this because he had used the  word " they."  Then  he
named Mr. Doty and Mrs. Godfrey.  I refused him a warrant; told him  he
had been there before on the same errand, and  that he  had better go away.
He waited a  few minutes  and finally went away.   I saAv no more of him
until he was arrested for the murder of the Van Nest family.
   Cross  Examination.—He said he wanted the warrant for the man who
put him in, or sent him  to the State Prison. He said  he did not steal the
horse he was tried for.  He said  he would  have a warrant.   The legal fee
for a warrant is chargeable to  the county, and is two shUHngs.   At that
time I came to no conclusion that he was crazy.
   David Winner was next called, and  being sworn, testified:  I  live  in
Port Byron, but used to Hve here.  I have known the prisoner sixteen years,
and knew his father and  mother.  I knew Jane Brown.  She has a sister
who is crazy, and lives at Adam Gray's.  I know Sidney Freeman, the uncle
of prisoner.  He has been crazy a good many years.  William's mother is
caUed  an  Indian woman, but she is part French and African.  I knew the
prisoner well.  When this boy was twelve  or thirteen years old, he was a
pretty sprightly lad, sensible, and very lively.  I saw no difference between
him and any other boy of sense, at that  time.  I saw  him  in prison when
he'd been there a year.  I saw him about a week after he came out.  He
was at his uncle Luke's.   He then appeared to be a foolish man.  I hardly
 knew  him.  I asked Luke if that was Sally's son.   He told me he was.  I 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
259
 said he was very much  altered.  Luke said he had just come out of prison.
 He had altered very much in his looks and behavior.   He was sitting down
 in a chair, snivelling, snickering and laughing, and having a kind of simple
 look.  I spoke to him, but he didn't speak to me.  I was told to speak louder,
 for he couldn't understand.  I saAv him during Wyatt's trial,  at Laura Wil-
 lard's.  I stayed there three nights, and  slept Avith William in the same bed.
 At night he got up and talked to  himself.   I couldn't understand Avhat he
 said.   He appeared to be foolish.   I gave him a dollar to get a quarter of a
 pound of tea and two pounds of sugar at a store, and a beef steak at the
 market  He went to the market and got it all in beef steak.   When I asked
 what he did that for, he said nothing, but laughed at me.  He got a dollar's
 Avorth of beef steak.  He got up nights  two  or three times, and I felt cold,
 and told Laura I wouldn't sleep with him any more, and I went and slept in
 the other room.   He kept on his troAvsers always, and slept in 'em.  He sung
 when he got up nights, but there was no meaning in what he sung.  This
 was three or four weeks before the murder.   He Avas sober as I was.   There
 was no Hquor there for him to drink.  He was caUed a sober man, as far  as
 I know.
   Cross  Examination.—I came from Port Byron here last Saturday eve-
 ning.  I was subpoenaed by  Governor Seward's clerk to come here. I am
 forty-seven years old.  I cannot read.  My master didn't give me no learning.
 I can't count one hundred without missing  some. I drink spirits  when I
 want it; when I don't, I don't.  When I slept Avith the prisoner  he Avas not
 at work there, but was boarding there.  I was doing the same.  I came on
 a visit to see the folks.   I saAv him some  during the days.  He sat down by
 the stove  pretty much all day, only when he went to eat.  He went of er-
 rands for Mrs. WUlard  a good many  times  in a day.  Sometimes  he'd be
 gone one  hour—sometimes two.  One night  he came home  pretty late.  I
 can't teU whether he had been drinking.  I never drank with him.  When
 I sent  after the steak by him, he ate some of it with us.  His mother has a
 daughter who is  fooHsh.
  Ira Curtis, called and being sworn, testified: I reside in Auburn.  Am
 fifty-two years of age, and by occupation a merchant.  I have known  the
 prisoner seven or eight years, but not very distinctly until the first of June
 last.  He  worked for me in the spring of  1840 a short time, perhaps a week ■
 he worked in the kitchen yard.  His disposition Avas not good; he was stub-
 born and stupid.  He was of no use to me.  If I sent him away five rods he
 would be just as  likely to bring me  the  wrong thing as the right one.  He
 Avas a dull, morose, stubborn boy, and if he  had any capacity, I could not
discover it.  My recollection  is rather indistinct  about him,  yet I  can re-
member him enough  to knoAV that he was a singular boy. Since his arrest
I have conversed about him a good deal with people in my store.  Some one
told me that I would probably be called  as a Avitness.  I had kept clear of
all the  excitement.  About the first of June I was requested  to go and  see 
260
THE TRIAL OF
him, and I went.  He was  in a tremor and seemed to  be agitated.  I Avent
up  to his cell door and talked through the grates.   I could not make him
hear without  great difficulty.  After some  attempts to talk with him, Mr.
Austin,  our clergyman, came in.  The  keys  Avere handed him, and he
opened the door and Ave went into the cell together.   I asked him if he knew
me.  He said he did, and caUed me by name.  A testament which was lying
near by, was handed to him, and he was asked if he could read.  He  said
Yes.  He was requested to read, and he  commenced, or pretended to com-
mence and read, but he didn't read what was there.   He looked at the book
and repeated, " O, Lord—Jesus  Christ—mercy—Moses,"  and  other such
words indiscriminately, and mixed up.  Some of the pretended words I did
not understand, and doubt whether they  are to be  found in  any language.
None of the words repeated were  in the place.   His  attempt was no reading
at aU.  I took the book and told him that he didn't read right.  He said,
" Yes I do."  I told him that he  couldn't read.  He said, " Yes I can."  I
looked at the place and found that it was the chapter beginning with, " In
those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the  wilderness," &c.  I then
pointed to the opposite page, and he did no better than before.  I  said, " You
don't read right."  He  said, " Yes I do."
  Finding that he could not read in the testament, I took from my hat a pa-
per, a bank note detector, upon which was the word, " admirable."  I asked
him to count the number of letters in that word. He tried, but jumbled it
up.  I pointed to the word and asked him what it was.   He looked up with
a sUly expression and said, " woman."  I  pointed to the word Thompson, for
it was Thompson's Detector, and said,  " What is  that, BiU ?"  He said,
" Cook."  I pointed to a capital letter A which he  called A, and he called
the letters along to E correctly.  I asked Mr. Austin  the meaning of BiU's
actions.  Mr. A. replied, that he thought  he could read, but couldn't.
  Mr. Austin tried to get  him to count,  or told me to ask him.  He com-
menced at one and then counted along up to  twenty, hesitating some, and
stopping to think.  He  hesitated, and then Avent along from time to  time
untU he got to twenty-seven or tAventy-eight, and then jumped to eighty.  I
told him once to say " twenty-one," but he seemed to have difficulty in say-
ing twenty-one.  He  never got  higher  than twenty-eight regularly.  He
could not combine nor multiply numbers.   I asked  him how many two times
four was.  He said, " Eighty."  I asked him how many two times three was.
He said, " Sixty" or " Sixty-four."   I asked him about killing the Van Nest
family, and whether he knew Van  Nest.  I forget his answer to that.  I
asked him how he came to be up there.  He said, " I went up south a piece,"
or  " I'd been up the lake a piece," or something like that.  I asked how far.
He said, " I  stopped at the house  beyond there."  I asked what for.  He
said, " To get a drink of water."   I asked what he went into  Van Nest's
house for.  He said, " Don't know." I  asked  if he went in to murder or
kill them.  His  answer was, " Don't know."   I asked if it was  for  money. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
261
 He said, " No ; didn't know as they had any."  I asked something about the
 child; if he killed the child.  He said, " They said I kiUed one, but, Mr.
 Curtis, I didn't, I certainly didn't," or very near that.  I asked what he killed
 them for.  He said, " You knoAV I had my work to do." I told him that was
 nonsense,  and repeated the question  loud and  distinct.   He answered,
 " Well, I don't know; can't tell."  I asked if he had any thing against those
 people, or  against Mr. Van Nest.  He said No; and then to the same ques-
 tion he said, " I don't know."  I asked  why he thought it was time to begin
 at the other place.  He said he didn't go in to kill them;  " thought  it
 wasn't time yet."  He said, " they wouldn't pay him,"  that he had been im-
 prisoned, and " they must pay me."   I asked whether that had any thing  to
 do with killing these folks.  He said, " I don't know."  He'd been in prison
 and they would'nt pay him.  He never said any thing without being ques-
 tioned, except about the  child.  He spoke very low, so one could hardly un-
 derstand him.
   I have seen him since; saw him to-day. He was asked to-day if he knew
 what was going on.  I don't remember what he said, but he didn't appear  to
 know what was going on.  He was asked what the jury were there for.  He
 said No.  He Avas asked  if he knew what the jury were there for.  He said
 No.  He was asked if he recollected meeting any one when he went up  to
 kill those people.   He said he met somebody in  a cutter.  He said he should
 have killed that person but he was too far off; it was too muddy.  I asked
 if he thought he should be hung.  He  said,  " Don't know."  I asked if he
 wanted to be hung.  He  said No.  He was asked if he'd kUl any more if he
 was let go.  He said No.  I have formed an opinion respecting him.  I do
 not honestly believe  he knows any more of the moral  character of an act,
 than a dog or a cat.  I do not think he  has any capacity, or if any, it is  as
 little as any human being can have.  He don't feel any more compunction
 than a dog or cat.   A dog or cat  may know they have done wrong, but ye^
 know nothing of the character of an act, nor feel compunction.   I think he
 does not dissemble ; nor have I seen any thing like it for a moment.  I never
 saw any thing that left any impression on my mind for half a minute that he
 was attempting to deceive.  I don't believe it is in the power of all in this
 room to teach him to carry on  a piece of deception for fifteen minutes, be-
 cause  he would forget what he set about.  He is  incapable of understand-
 ing.  He is part fool, bordering on idiocy. I think he  is idiotic  and crazy.
   Cross Examination.—My opinion respecting the  prisoner  was formed
 by seeing him that day, and to-day in the jail, and from all I saw when put
 together.  I was puzzled  that he should say he could read when he couldn't.
 Mr. Austin and myself were alone with him nearly an hour.  I asked him
some questions outside the grate  before Mr. Austin came.   I discovered no
unwillingness on his part  to answer.   This was on the first day of June, the
day this court began.  Some of the time  I thought he was foolish—some-
times that he was crazy—and sometimes a little of both.  I think now that 
262
THE TRIAL OF
he is incapable of understanding and of controlling himself—part fool, bor-
dering on idiocy—crazy and an idiot; both crazy and insane.   If all the
doctors in the world  should say he was not  a fool,  I should  not believe
them.  For a moment I thought he knew better than to answer as he did;
and then again I saw he  didn't.   When  I told Mr. Austin that  this was
queer, he said to me,  he thinks he can read but can't.  We tried him more
than once about reading.   Freeman was a stubborn boy when he lived with
me.   He was stupid—when I told him to do one thing, he'd do  another.   I
then thought he was contrary.   I think he  knows less now than then.  He
didn't go to school when he lived with me.  He was not deaf Avhen  he lived
with me, and would understand Avhat I said to him; he can't noAv.  When
he lived with me he looked like ordinary  darkies.  When I tried  him,  he
couldn't add nor multiply.  I don't know  whether he has failed since the
first of March.  I believe  he varies from one  hour to the next,  as  to sense.
As to his fixing on the price of eighty dollars  for the  horse, I should think
it was entirely accidental.  His acts in reference to the knives, don't change
my opinion any.  I don't attach much importance to the fact that he cannot
count twenty, only as  it shows ignorance.   As to his mind, I think  it is in a
singular condition.   I  think there is near relation between idiocy and insan-
ity.  If any  person twenty years old couldn't  tell how much twice  two was,
I should say he was aU but a fool.   It did occur to me once, whether the
prisoner, with his appearance of sincerity, was  attempting to play off a game
of imposition.   The thought vanished in a moment.  There was too much
before me.   I have no doubt of his sincerity.    I don't believe  it  is in the
power of aU in this room to teach him to carry  on a piece of deception for
fifteen minutes.
  Charles A. Parsons, caUed and sworn, testified:  I am  a  clerk in
Gov. Seward's office.  Sometime in the early part of last March, the priso-
ner caUed at the office and asked  if it was a squire's office;  on  being told
that it was, he said he wanted a warrant.  I didn't understand him untU he
had asked once or twice.   I asked him what he  wanted it for.   He said for
a man that sent him to prison, and  he wanted to get  damages.   I  told him
he was looking for a justice of the peace.   I told him where to go, but he
did not understand me.  He then went out.
  James  E. Tyler, called and  sworn, testified:  I was a  keeper in the
State Prison in 1841, and had Freeman under my charge for a while.   3
soon discovered  that he  didn't do quite as much work as he ought to.   I
told him he was capable of doing as much work as other men of his  size and
experience,  and that unless he did a reasonable day's Avork, I should punish
him.  I talked to him in that way several times.  I talked to him and found
it did no good. I  caUed him  up to punish him;  told him I was  going to
punish him for not doing  more work, and  should do so repeatedly until he
should do more work.  When I talked with him about doing more work, he
gave as an excuse that he was there wrongfuUy and ought not to work.  He 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
263
may have made other excuses.   I at last called him up, and told him I had
done talking  to him ; that I was going to punish him.  I turned to get the
eat,  [cat o'nine tails.] and  received a blow on the back part of my head
from him.  He struck me with his fist.  I made another step, and as I looked
around he gave me another Woav upon the back.  I then hit him with my foot
and knocked him partly over; perhaps he fell.   I think he did fall over.  He
jumped up, went across the shop and got a knife, with which he came at me.
I then had to defend myself, and also to  take  some means to cause him to
submit.   I picked up a basswood board about two feet long, fourteen inches
wide and half an inch thick,  and struck him on the  forehead.   It split the
board and one piece  of it fell on the floor, and the other, a piece about four
inches wide,  remained in my right hand.  Other convicts then came up to
him, but I told them to let  him alone—that I would attend  to him.   I then
gave him eight or ten blows with the remainder,  and told  him to set down.
I knocked the knife from his hand  with the piece of board, and it fell on the
floor.  My impression is  that  the  blow was a  little on the left  side of his
forehead. I then flogged him ten or a dozen blows and  sent  him to his
work.   He  never gave me any trouble after that,  although he never did  a
fuU day's work.   He neATer  spoke but when  spoken to, and Avas of few
words.   I considered him below the  mediocrity of blacks.  He was very
hard of  hearing  all the time he was in my shop.   He held his head down
and was rather dull and down cast.
   Cross Examination.—He was hard of hearing before the encounter
and the  bloAv.  The board with Avhich I  struck him, was kept for a tally
board in lieu of a slate.  I grasped  it at the corners and hit him on the head;
it split, and  part of  it remained in my hand, and with that I hit him on the
wrist.   He  said nothing.  I let him sit a spell before I flogged him.   He
didn't stand the flogging very comfortably, for the blows sat pretty snug.   I
was some excited at the time.    A black man's hide is thicker than a white
man's, and I meant to make him feel  the punishment.   I never punished
him after that, though he never did a full day's work.  He worked at rough
filing, preparatory to the process of japanning.  It was regarded as coarse
work.   He did his work well after that, as far as I  know.  He ahvays stood
with his head down;  had a down-cast look; more so than convicts in general.
In looking up he turned his eye and head.   I see nothing about his features
now different from what they Avere then.  I have seen him once in jail since
his arrest for murder.   I can  see  no difference in his appearance.   He is
deaf, and when I asked him in jail if he kneAV me,  he asked me to speak
louder.
   Q. When you questioned him in the jail, were his  answers pertinent and
appropriate ?
   Objected to.   Objection overruled and decision excepted to.
   A. When the  questions were  direct he could ansAver.
   Q.  Did you see any thing about the prisoner indicating insanity ? 
264
THE TRIAL OF
   A. I did not.  I never thought about it.
   Q. Did he work regularly when in the State Prison ?
   A. He never lost a day whfle under me.
   Q. Had you seen a number of insane men  in the prison, and  did you
have any difficulty in detecting insanity ?
   Objected to.  Objection overruled and decision excepted to.
   A. As a general thing, I did not.
   Re-Examination.—When I talked to him about doing more work, he
would sometimes say he  couldn't do more, and sometimes that he was sent
there wrongfuUy.   When I spoke about not seeing any thing insane in him,
I mean to say that the question of his insanity was not brought to my atten-
tion.  For that reason I never thought of it.   The instrument which I call
a  cat, is made and used for flogging men.  The stock is made of raw-hide,
and is about two feet long;  the lashes are of about the same length and have
several strands.  After using the board upon  his head I never made any
inquiries to see whether or not  it injured his hearing.  As to his capacity,
I consider blacks below  whites in intellect, and I consider him below the
majority  of blacks.  He has not much inteUigence, so far as I can discover.
   Ethan A. Warden,  called  and sworn, testified  :  I haA'e lived in Au-
burn most of the time during the last twenty-five years.   I am President of
the Village of Auburn, but hold no office in  the church.   I knew the pris-
oner fourteen years ago.   He then Hved with me, and before that with my
father.    He lived with me  several months.   We considered him a bright,
active boy.  He used to play truant, yet we considered  him a bright  boy,
and took him for that reason.   We considered  him kind  in his  disposition.
We thought he understood well enough  then.   He did not attend school on
week days;  we supposed he went to Sunday school.  I do not  think there
was  then any defect in his capacity.   He was then about seven or eight
years of age, as we supposed.  After he left my house I do not  recollect of
seeing him until I saw him in the State Prison.  When I  saw him there, he
was coming to me.   I spoke to him.  He appeared different from what he
used to.  He appeared stupid and different from what I expected he would.
He was deaf, and did not appear as he  formerly did; and it made an im-
pression on my mind at the  time.  He appeared bright Avhen he lived with
me.  The difference was so  peculiar I don't know as I can describe  it.
   [This witness on the preliminary trial, remarked that the difference be-
tween the prisoner as he saw him in prison, and the prisoner as he was
when he  Hved with him,  was so marked  and peculiar  that when he saw him
in the State Prison, the transition  had been so great as to arrest his atten-
tion ; and in describing the  effect on his mind,  the witness used the words
" thinks I to myself,  what has  come over BiU."   That expression was re-
membered, and probably induced the examining counsel to call for it on this
trial.]
   Q. Did you say to yourself when you  saw him, what has come over Bill ? 
                          WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      265

   Objected to.  Objection sustained and decision excepted to.
   Q.  Did you mention that to your family ?
   Objected to.  Objection sustained and decision excepted to.
   Q.  Did you then think to yourself that something strange had come over
 him?
   Objected to.  Objection sustained and decision excepted to.
   Q.  Was it your opinion when you saw him that a change had come over
 him?
   Objected to.  Objection sustained and decision excepted to.
   Q.  Had a change come over him Avhen you saw him in the State Prison ?
   A.  He  appeared changed.   He appeared different from what he did
 when  I knew him.  He was not as sprightly nor as bright, but Avas more
 stupid.  The next time I saw him was when he passed ,my house in a wa-
 gon.   I had, however, seen him  in the street sawing wood.   I then  asked
 him how he was, but I think he did not reply.  I did not take much notice
 of him, yet I recollect that he looked sad.   I next saw him when he passed
 my house on his way from Oswego, under arrest.  He was carried through
 the vUlage to  the house of Van Nest, and when they brought him back, I
 went into  the jail very soon after he arrived in charge of the officers.    I
 went  into the jail and asked him if he knew me.  He said Yes.  I then
 asked him  my name.  He said " Mr. Ethan A. Warden."  This occurred  in
 the hall of the jail, before he was  taken to his cell.   He was then taken  to
 a cell and ironed.  I then asked him if he remembered living with me.  He
 answered Yes, and said " I  wish  I was back there." I talked  with him
 some,  but  I cannot remember all the questions I put to him.   I  however
 recollect that I asked him if he talked with a man about the time he started
 for the Lake.   He  answered No.  I asked what  time he started.   His
 answer, was " About sundown." I  asked if there was not another black man
 with him.   He ansAvered  No.   I asked if he did not see and talk with
 somebody.   He  answered No.  I  asked whether he met any one on the
 road.  He  said " Yes; a man in a cutter."  I asked if he spoke to him.  He
 answered No.   I  asked if he knew who it was.  He answered No.   I
 asked  if he went  into the yard  of the  house this side.  He said Yes.   I
 asked whether Avhen he came out of the yard he crossed the road and spoke
 to a man  standing by a stump.    He said No.  I asked whether he did
 not talk to a white man.  He said No.  I asked whether he  had a gun.
 He said No.  I asked whether he saw a man with a gun.  He said No.
 I asked whether he knocked when he went up to Van Nest's door.  He said
 Yes.  I asked who opened the door.  He said, " The man."   I then asked
 if he struck him Avhen  he opened the door.   He said No.   I then asked
 what he did do.  He, said "Went in; stood by stove."  I asked where his
knife was then.  He said, " here," putting his hand to his side.   I took hold
 of his coat  and he  showed me.  I then asked what the man said.  He an-
SAvered, " What do you want."  I asked what he told him. He said,  "Warm 
266
THE TRIAL OF
me."  I asked AA-hat the man said then.  He said, " If I eat his liver, he'd
eat mine."   I asked what he said next.  He said, " I  made a pass at him."
I asked Avhat the man did next.  He said," Turned and fell out."  I asked
where the woman was.   He said, " In a room  standing by table."  I then
asked where he struck the woman.  He said, " she come out; I made a pass
at her."  I asked Avhere she Avent  He said " she went out."  I asked if lie
knew there Avas a man up stairs.  He said,  " No; opened door, saw a man ;
made a pass at him."  He repeated all this, but paused  between the sen-
tences, but I said li Avell," and he would go on.   I then asked if  the man
knocked him doAvn.  He said, " No ; I tumbled and fell;  broke my knife."
I asked where he hit the old lady.  He said, " At the gate; she chas'd me
out."   I asked if that was after the contest on the stairs.   He  said  Yes.
I asked if he had another knife.  He  said  Yes.  I asked Avhere that Avas.
He said, " By the gate."   I asked Avhere. He said, " Covered up." He said
" 'Twas run under." I asked him what it was under ; whether it was under
the snoAv.   He said Yes.
  I then inquired about that knife, and found that it was a knife fixed in a
cane. I asked its length.   He said, " About so high," raising  his hand. I
got the impression  that it was  larger than a cane.  I asked what became of
it.  He said, " I've  lost it."  Once he said, " I broke it."  I think I followed
him along  to the time when he said the horse fell.  He said,  " FeU  down
with me—broke my knife."  I asked if he  broke the knife then.   He said,
:' No ; I straightened it out."  I asked if his  hand was cut there at the gate.
He said Yes.  I asked if the old lady cut it.  He said Yes.  I asked him
Avhat made him kiU the child.   He said, " Don't knoAV any thing about that."
At another time he  answered, " I don't think about it; I  didn't knoAV 'twas
a child."   Once he said, " I thought feel it more." I then said,  " When you
started from home, what did you go up there for ?"  He said, " I must go."
I said, " Why must  you go ?"   He said, " I must begin my Avork."  I then
said, " What made  you do it ?"  He said, " They brought me up so."  I then
asked Avho brought him up so.   He  said, " The State."  I then  said, " They
did not tell you to kUl, did they ?"  He said, " Don't know—won't pay me."
I said, " Did you know these folks before you went to prison ?"   He said No.
I asked if he lived with old Mr. Van Nest when he was a boy.   He said No.
I said, " Was you there a few days before, to get work ?"  He answered Yes.
I asked if they said any thing to offend him, or make him angry.  He said
No.  I asked what made him  kiU them—Avhat he did it for.   He said, " I
must begin my Avork."  I asked if he did not expect to be killed.   He said,
" Didn't know but I should."  I asked  what made him go, if he expected to
be  killed.  He  said, " I must go,"  or " I must do it."  I asked if he went
there to get money.  He  said No.  I asked if he saw a man there counting
money, when he went up to get work.  He said No.  I asked if he expected
to get  any money.  He said No.   I asked  if he intended to get the  horse.
He said  No.  I asked how he came to take  him.  He  said,  " Broke my 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
267
things—hand Avas cut—came into my mind—take the horse—go—and—get
to—could do more work."   I asked Avhat he would have done if he had not
broke his things.  He said, " Kept to work."   I asked him whether he would
have killed me if he had met me.  He said, " S'pose I should."  I asked
Avhat made him begin at that house.   He said, " Stopped two or three places;
thought it wasn't far out enough to begin."  I asked  if he was not sorry he
had killed so many folks.  He said, " Don't think any thing about that."  I
asked if he did not expect to be hung.   He said, " Don't think about it."  I
asked if he liked to be in jail.  He said, " Pretty well."   I asked if it was a
good place.  He said Yes.  I asked if he thought of what he had been doing
in the  night.   He said  No.  I asked Avhat made him deaf.  He  said, " Got
stones  in my ears—got it out."  I asked if he got it out, and if he did not
hear better Avhen he got it  out   He said, " Yes, I think  I did."  I asked if
he Avas well.  He said Yes.  I asked if he drank any thing when he started.
He said  No.  I asked  if he drank  any thing that day.  He said Yes.  I
asked  when.   He said  " Afternoon."   I asked where.  He  said, " Up at
house."  I asked at whose  house.  He  didn't answer.  I asked if  it was at
an Irishman's house.  He said Yes.   I asked his name.  He said, " Don't
know."  I asked if he saw that man after he started.   He said No.   I asked
who got the liquor.  He said, " I did."   I asked how much.  He said a pint.
I asked if he was intoxicated when he started.  He  said No.  I asked if it
did not make him high.  He said, " Got over  it before I  started."
   In the course of this  conversation he stated that he  had been  to lawyers
to get pay, and that they Avould not do any thing for him.  This  was said in
answer to some questions which I don't recollect.  He appeared differently
from what he did before.  He was stupid and  did not appear to understand
very Avell.  It is difficult for me to explain his condition so that the jury can
see him as I did.   When he was a boy he Avas bright, but Avas not so in jail.
When a  boy, and I spoke to him, his countenance had a different cast and
expression from Avhat it has noAv.  He was a cheerful and very playful boy.
Noav he is neither cheerful nor lively.   He was talkative  when he lived with
me ; in the jail he was  not.  In the jail I don't recollect of his speaking ex-
cept Avhen I spoke to him.   His answers were  slow and sometimes indistinct.
He made no inquiries about my family.  When I asked him if he  recollected
my little girl, he said No.   He never manifested any feeling  at  my coming
to see him, nor did he ask me to come again.  I asked him if he  wanted me
to come and see him  again, and to that I think he answered Yes.   I asked
if he could read.  He  said Yes.  He took the book, put his finger on the
line, and said, " Holy—happy—Jesus Christ—come down," and similar words
that were not on the page.   He  knew the letters of  the alphabet, and once
in my presence he counted up to twenty-seven or eight.  I Avas satisfied he
could not read, but that he thought he could.  I asked him if he would do
better if he were let out, and he gave something like an affirmative answer.
I think there avrs no dissembling—there could be none.  I look upon him 
268                        THE TRIAL OF
now and  as he was when he  lived with me, and he appears different.  I
could not get any thing from him that shoAved sorrow for what he had done,
or feeling for the crime.   I don't think him much above a brute in regard
to his knoAvledge of right and wrong.  I don't think he is of sound mind.
I am of opinion that he is deranged.
   Cross  Examination.—Q.  You have taken a pretty active part, have
you not, in relation to this defence ?
   A.  I have felt some interest in it.
   Q.  It has been a very active interest, has it not ?
   A.  It has not been more active than that of getting him into the jail.
   Q.  Have you not manifested considerable feeling in relation to the de-
fence ?
   A.  I have felt a  considerable degree of interest in this case, and should
like to give my reasons why.  I saw the condition of the prisoner, and  Avas
aware  of the  excitement in community,  and the  deep prejudice against
him.  If to have felt an interest was to  be active, then I was  active.  I
expressed my opinion of the prisoner and of the course  that was pursued
toward those who differed with some others in opinion, to the district attor-
ney, who  said, himself, that there was more  reason for this  defence than in
the Wyatt trial.  I talked with the district attorney freely then, and he
knew what my opportunities for judging were, and what my opinion of the
prisoner was.
   Q.  Did you express to the district attorney the same opinion which  you
have sworn to ?
   A.  I did.
   Q.  Have you served subpoenas upon witnesses to attend this trial in be-
half of the prisoner ?
   A.  I have not.   I once took one from the prisoner's counsel, and at re-
quest handed it to a constable.
   Q.  Have you not requested persons to come here as  witnesses ?
   A.  I may have told men to come here,—that they would be wanted;  but
I don't recollect as I have.
   Q.  Have you not advised with the counsel for the prisoner in relation to
the facts to be proved on his defence ?
   A.  I have conversed with them several times about the case.
   Q.  Did you not tell the district attorney, in your conversation  Avith him,
that you knew little or nothing of  the prisoner, from the time of his living
with you ?
   A. I don't recollect telling him so.
   Q. Did he not say after that, " then I won't subpoena you."
   A. He did say so to me after I told him what I knew about the prisoner.
   Q. Did you not say you kneAV little or nothing of Bill ?
   A. I may have  said I knew little or nothing of him since he left me, but
I do not recollect it if I did. 
                         WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      269

  Q.  You have a memoranda that you swear by, have you not ?
  A.  I have one before me.
  Q.  When Avas it made, and by whom ?
  A.  By myself.
  Q.  From what did you make it ?
  A.  Partly from memory and partly from my former testimony.
  Q.  Is your memory better by taking  a  memoranda from your former
testimony ?
  A.  I thought I should remember better with a memoranda than without
it.
  Q.  Which remark of the prisoner indicated insanity ?
  A.  I cannot name any one in particular; when he made the remark about
the liver I was disposed to think he was deranged.
  Q.  Any thing else ?
  A.  Nothing in particular.  His manner and every thing taken together,
led me to think so.
   Q.  Did you not see something from which a jury could infer that he Avas
in his right mind; for instance, the conceaHng of the knives ?
   A.  I thought nothing of that.  To me, one circumstance  would not make
much difference.
   Q.  Do you think the circumstance of his conceaHng his kniAres indicated
insanity ?
   A.  It might  indicate sanity,  and it  might indicate insanity, in this case.
The reason is—
   Attorney General:—I don't want to know the reason.
   Witness :—I want to tell the reason.
   The Court:—The Avitness has no right to give the reason.
   Mr. Seward:—The witness  is asked  whether a certain  fact indicates
sanity.  The witness  says it might not in this case, and wishes  to say why.
I insist, as well on behalf of the witness, as the prisoner, that he be permit-
ted to give the reason for his answer.
   Request denied, and decision excepted to.
   Q.  When did you  discover the change you speak of?
   A. I noticed it first Avhen he was in the State  Prison,  but  I noticed it
more particularly when he Avas in jail.
   Q.  What is the difference that you noticed ?
   A.  I noticed that he was not as bright and lively as he formerly was.
   Q.  Did it not occur to you that his chains might make some difference ?
   A.  I don't think they made  any difference with him.
   Q.  Would not the  chaining of a man  twenty-one years of age, who had
murdered four people, produce some effect upon his cheerfulness ?
   A.  He would not appear cheerful, yet he would not lose the marks of in-
telligence, if he were in his right mind.
   Q.  Would you expect he would be as talkative ? 
270                        THE TRIAL OF

  A.  I would not.
  Q.  Would you expect a criminal who was planning crimes, to be as free
of speech as a boy whose mind Avas not thus occupied ?
  A.  No ;  but if I asked him questions I would expect to see him answer
intelligently.
  Q.  If he were confined in prison, and living on bread and water, do you
think he would be as cheerful as he was Avhen a boy at Hberty ?
  A.  I don't think he would be as lively.
  Q.  If he were deaf would it not make some difference with him ?
  A.  I think it would, and I think it has with the prisoner.
  Q.  He Avas not deaf wheu he lived with you ?
  A.  If he Avere it was not perceived.
  Q.  Can you tell how well he hears now ?
  A.  I cannot, only as I see it indicated by his actions and his answers.
  Q.  How many times did you see him whilst he Avas in the State Prison ?
  A.  Three or four times.
  Q.  What are your views in respect to capital punishment ?
  A.  That the law  should be changed.
  Q.  Then you are opposed to capital punishment ?
  A.  I am.   I don't think it right for one man to take the life of another.
  Q.  Do you think  the law ought to be defeated ?
  A.  I cannot say that I think it ought to be defeated; our laws in general
ought to be executed, yet I think the law in respect to taking life  is Avrong.
  Q.  How long  have you been of that opinion ?
  A.  I never thought it Avas right to hang men.
  Q.  Do you believe what the prisoner says to you ?
  A.  I suppose he thought he spoke the truth.
  Q.  Then you  think he was sincere in all he told you ?
  A.  I thought at the time he was telling me as it was.
  Q.  Did  you believe  him when he said he was sent to the State Prison
wrongfully ?
  A.  I think that he thought he was sent  there AvrongfuUy ; and I have
thought so, and that is my opinion still.
  Q.  Did you not hear the constable relate, on the former trial, the circum-
stances of his arrest  for stealing the horse ?
  A.  I did;  and that had the effect to make me believe he was sent there
wrongfuUy.
  Q.  When did you think to yourself  that a change had come over him ?
  A.  When I saw him in the State Prison.
  Q.  When  did that change take place ?
  A.  I think it very likely that it took place in the State Prison,  or that it
commenced there.
  Q.  Did you ask him, whilst he was in the State Prison, why he was there ?
  A.  I did not. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
271
  Q.  Why did you not ask him that ?
  A.  The rules of the prison did not permit any conversation Avith convicts
except on business.
  Q.  Do you recollect  that he could read and write when he lived with
you?
  A.  I do not.
  Q.  Do you recollect what his views were of God and heaven then ?
  A.  I never talked Avith him  on those subjects.
  Q.  Did you not converse with him about obedience ?
  A.  I used to talk with him  about his behavior, and urge and advise him
to be  a good boy.
  Q.  You say that when you passed him in the street where he was sawing
wood, you did not notice him very particularly ?
  A.  I saw him, spoke to him, but he made no reply. Further than that I
did not notice him particularly.
  Q.   Can you tell why it is that  you take so much more interest in the pri-
soner since he  committed those high and  heinous crimes, than you did be-
fore ?
  A.   One reason, perhaps, is, that when he was  arrested and brought past
my house, into  and through the village, to  the house of Van Nest, the com-
munity were so  indignant that many apprehended that  he would not get
back alive.   I took my horse and rode up there.   It was then said that  he
would be hung without a trial; that he  ought not  to be tried, and that  he
never Avould have a trial.   I thought that, however guilty he might be,  he
should have a fair trial,  and I  aided the  officers in preventing any violence
to him before he was lodged in the jail.  I heard remarks at that time  from
one of the members of this  court,  that I did not think becoming in a judge,
and, altogether, there was occasion for some interest on the part of any who
wishes to uphold the law, and preserve order in community.
   Q.  Did you think it  better for the prisoner to have a trial ?
  A.  Yes;  and better for the community ; I thought he ought to have a fair
trial, not for the  purpose of screening him, but as a matter of principle.
   Q.  Did you believe that the populace intended to Lynch him ?
   A.  I do not know; I wish to  avoid all  that part of the matter, as it can
do  no good, and  can reflect no credit upon any body who had any thing to
do  Avith  any such attempt.
   Q.  What was it that excited the people to such a degree—the enormity
of  the crime ?
   A.  There were  folks who seemed  to carry the  idea that this had some-
thing to do with the trial of Henry Wyatt.
   Q.  Were you not satisfied then that the prisoner killed that family ?
   A.  I  did not doubt it
   Q.  Did you not suppose, after he was lodged in jail, that he would have
 a fair trial ? 
272
THE TRIAL OF
  A.  At first I heard it said that there would be only the form;  that coun.
sel would be  assigned him, but that he would not have a trial to any pur-
pose.
  Q.  Is it not a little singular that he should have a trial when he knows
and every body seems to be satisfied that he killed those persons.  Is it not
a little singular that he did not plead guilty ?
  A.  I think not.
  Q.  Are you surprised that he  should have a fair trial ?
  A.  I don't know that I  am.
  Q.  Did you think he would have a fair trial when this court began ?
  A.  I knew nothing in particular to the contrary,  yet there were reasons
Avhy it might not be so.
  Q.  What was your expectation V
  A.  I expected he would have  a fair trial, or ought to have.
  Q.  If you  expected that he would have a fair trial, why have you felt so
much solicitude about it since the term began ?
  A.  WeU, the boy had once Hved with me, as  I have stated.  Some time
had elapsed since I had known much of him, until we got him into the jail.
The sheriff asked me to come and  try to ferret out the  matter, and find, if
possible, whether he had accomplices.   I found him in the  condition I have
described, a proper object  of sympathy and attention.  Perhaps the interest
I felt  was enhanced by the effort of some to convict him at aU hazards, if he
had a trial.
  Q.  Do  you not know that your opposition to capital punishment is  the
cause of the interest you feel in relation to the fate of this prisoner ?
  A.  I do not know any such thing, for no such fact exists.
  Q.  Did you not visit the prison Avith Rev. J. M. Austin ?
  A.  I think I did once or twice.
  Q.  Did you see him try to read  in the  testament ?
  A.  I did.
  Q.  How did he  articulate ?
  A.  He  sometimes  spoke very indistinctly, but by repeating  we  could
sometimes get a plainer  answer.
  Q.  In what connection  did he say he had his work to do ?
  A.  It was  said in answer to the question what he did it for, or how he
came  to kill the people.
  Q.  What was that renark ?
  A.  As'Tiear as I can  recollect it was, " I must begin my work," or " be-
gin my work," but I may  not have in  my mind the precise order in which
the answers were given.
  Q.  Did you examine  him in Theology, there in the jail ?
  A.  I once asked him some questions on religious subjects.
  Q.  What did you ask him ?
  A.  I asked him  if he ever prayed. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.            j           273
   Q.  What did he say.in reply?
   A.  He said, " not much"—"used to."
   Q.  What further did you say ?
   A.  I recoUect of teUing him that he ought to pray.
   Q.  Did he say any thing to you about their not giving  him work; that
 they wouldn't give him work ?
   A.  He frequently aUuded to work; once he said he went in to warm.
   Q.  Do you recoUect of the prisoner's saying, at your first interview with
 him, " they swore me into prison" ?
   A.  I don't recollect of his making any such answer to me.
   Q.  Did he not make that statement to you in the presence of Sheriff Pet-
 tibone ?
   A.  I have understood that the sheriff has so stated.  I do not want to con-
 tradict him, nor be contradicted  by him.  I asked the  prisoner if they had
 any thing to do with swearing him into the prison, and he may have said,
 " didn't they ?" but I  am certain he never said, " they swore  me into pri-
 son."
   Q.  You  say you inquired into the cause of his deafness ?
   A.  I did; and he said he'd got a stone in his ear—got it out.
   Q.  Did you ever ask him why  he ran away ?
   A.  I did not.
   Q.  Did you ever ask him why he took Burrington's horse to flee with ?
   A.  I did not.
   Q.  Did you ever ask him why he called the horse his ?
   A.  I did not.
   Q.  Did you ever ask him which way he went to reach Schroeppel ?
   A.  I believe I did;  and also asked him where he left the knife.
   Q.  Why did you ask that ?
   A.  My object was to see if he knew, and whether he had accomplices.
   Q.  Have  you  not examined more  with reference to this trial, than for
any other reason ?
   A.  I have not;  I had the state  of  his mind more  especiaUy in view than
any thing else, yet I asked questions for other objects.
   Q.   Was the prisoner an ugly boy when he lived with you ?
  A.  He was not; yet he was wild, and would play truant some.
   Q.  Did you not discharge him because he was ugly—so  ugly you could
not keep him ?
  A.  I did not.  I discharged him because his fondness for play was so great
that he ran away from the house too often.
  Q.  Did you not consider him an ugly boy ?
  A.  We considered him a good boy, except in respect to his running away.
We thought a good deal of him.  He was a pleasant  boy.
  Q. Was he not slow to do your bidding ?
  A. He was not  slow in going upon errands.   He generally did what  1 
274
THE TRIAL OF
 told him to do, cheerfully.   lie was kind, cheerful, pleasant  and attentive,
 generaUy, but he would run aAvay.
   Re-Examination.—Q.  You were asked in relation to inte'n-iews  with
 the counsel for the prisoner: were they casual meetings ?
   A.  They were.
   Q.  When did you make the memoranda to which you have referred ?
   A.  Since the last trial, along as things have occurred to me.
   Q.  What did you understand the prisoner to mean when he said he must
 begin  his work, or must do his work ?
   Objected to.  Objection sustained, and decision excepted to.
   Q.  Did the change that you observed in the prisoner arise, in your opin-
 ion, from his being  in prison, charged  with crime, or from a change in his
 mind?
   A.  He might have been changed by being in prison charged with crime,
 but there Avas a change in his countenance that made him  very different
 from what he was when a boy, and his manner indicated a want of inteUi-
 gence.
   Dr. Levi Hermance,  called and sworn, says:   I have practiced med-
 icine,  yet my occupation at present is  that of  assistant keeper of the State
 Prison at Auburn.   I saw the prisoner about the first of last December,  and
 had a com-ersation with him at my house in relation  to his having been in
 the State Prison.  He was sawing wood  for me.  He told me that he  had
 been in  prison for five years, and  that  he  wasn't guilty, and that they
 wouldn't pay him.   I discovered that he  was  very deaf,  and inquired  the
 cause of his deafness.   He stated that his  ears dropped.  What he said of
 his being in prison, I don't recoUect particularly.  I thought his manners
 very singular and strange,  and what he said about pay, very singular  and
 strange.  He spoke in a gloomy, despondent state of mind.  There appeared
 to be a sincerity  in his manner.   The tone of his voice was a dull and  mo-
 notonous tone.  I saw him again on the side walk and he spoke to me again
 on the same subject.   I saw him in jail and talked with him there.  There
 were a good many questions put to him in relation to the murder, and he
related the whole ; not as a narrative, but in answer to questions.  He  was
 asked hoAv he happened to go up.  He said, " It rained and I thought 'twould
be a good time."  I asked why he did not go up to some other family.  He
made no  answer.  Doctor Pitney asked why he did not kill him.  He didn't
seem to answer, but smiled.  I then asked  whether, if he had found some
other person, he would have kUled him.  He  said Yes.  I asked whether
he killed them for that horse.  His ansAver was short.  I asked Avhat he
meant by killing that horse.  He said, " They'd sent me to prison, and they
 won't pay me."   He was asked whether Van Nest had any thinf to do with
sending him to prison.   I couldn't get his answer, but my impression is that
he didn't charge Van  Nest with it.  We  inquired whether he went to get
money.  He said No.  Doctor Pitney asked if he didn't think he ought to 
                           WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      275

  be hung for killing that family.  He said at first " don't know," and to the
  question repeated, « Sent me to prison for nothing;  ought I to be hum, V" Dr
  Bigelow was present at one time,  and kept telling him to go om  °He was
  asked if he could read.   Ho said Yes, and tried to read.   He tried, but
  tailed.  He was given money and was- requested  to count it.  He called a
  ten cent piece correctly ;  but a Mexican quarter he called twenty-two shU-
  hngs, or three or four times its value.  He  called  tAvo pieces right, the rest
  wrong.   He counted to twenty-six or eight  correctly.  Doctor Pitney asked
  if it would be Avrong for me to kill him, (Dr. P.)   The prisoner said, " Why
  because he is the smartest  man ?"   " No," said Doctor Pitney, " we are both
  alike."  Dr. Pitney then said to him, " Would it  be right for Doctor  Her-
  mance to kill me?" The prisoner said, "That would be bad."  When at my
  house he said «the hearing of his ears fell down."  My opinion of him last
  December  Avas that he was a deranged man.   Since  then I have had no
 cause to change it—it is my opinion now.
   Cross Examination.—I  was born in the county of  Rensselaer;  have
 practiced medicine twelve  years ; am thirty  eight years of age ; have always
 used some of the medicines that Alopathists and *Homceopathists use ;  yet I
 have been  esteemed a Thompsonian practitioner.  I was  never a regular
 practitioner in the old line.  I worked on a  farm until I was seventeen ; be-
 came an  agent in a woolen factory; taught  school winters;  then practiced
 medicine some;  have sold  goods at auction ; have been  admitted as attor-
 ney in the  court  of common  pleas; and am now a turnkey in the prison.
 I was never appointed auctioneer, but sold  goods under a license of a gen-
 tleman in Fleming.  At my intervieAvs Avith the  prisoner in my yard, I
 didn't talk over five minutes.  There was more said than I have stated, but
 I gave what I recollected.   The wood was sawed and piled  well.   I didn't
 make up my mind that he was  crazy at the first intervieAv.  The next inter-
 view was  about five minutes, longer or shorter.  I then made up my mind
 that he was  deranged; taking his manner, conduct and general appearance
 and conversation together.   The tone of his voice  was peculiar;  structure
 of sentences singular;  his articulation low and coarse;  not distinct, yet I
heard it.  My own hearing is perfectly good.  I judged he was  deranged
because he thought he  had a right to pay,  and  he spoke  with so much
sincerity.   There are many things pertaining to insane men which are in-
describable.
  Q.  Were you with Doctor Bigelow when he visited the prisoner ?
  A. Not all the Avhile; Avas Avith him a part of the time.
  Q.  Were  you Avith Doctor Pitney ?
  A.  Some of the time.
  Q.  Comparing yourself Avith Doctor Pitney, which is the most profound ?
  A. I think in Surgery and Medicine, he is a far greater man.
  Q. Did not Doctor Pitney say you were both alike ?
  A. He said so to Freeman. 
276
THE  TRIAL OF
   Q. Do you think the doctor will tell a falsehood ?
   A. WeU, no, I don't know as he will.
   Q. Then don't you beHeve he speaks the truth ?
   A. I suppose he does.
   Q. Then didn't you believe him when he said you were both alike ?
   A. I supposed he meant we were both doctors.
   Q. Do you think the prisoner spoke the truth ?
   A. I thought he Avas sincere.
   Q. When  he said  " because he was the smartest man," did he refer to
you?
  A. Well, I suppose he did.  *
   Q. Do you infer from that that he thought you the smartest man ?
   A. I don't, only from what he said.
   Q. Then you differ with the prisoner on that subject, do you?
   A. WeU, I must say perhaps I do.
   Q. And yet you think he was sincere ?
   A. I cannot answer that question further than I have.
   Q. Do you believe  yourself to be sincere ?
   A. I do.
   Q. Do you belie\-e  that the hearing of his ears fell down ?
'   A. I believe something happened to them, and that  he said as I testified
he did.
   Q. Can  you  describe a disease, doctor ?
   A. I profess  to be able to.
   Q. Is insanity a disease ?
   A. It is  caUed so.
   Q. Will you be kind enough to describe it ?
   A. I said that some things about Freeman's insanity could be described,
but some things in this case could not be; that they were even indescribable.
   Q. WeU describe what is describable ?
   A. I can name his looks, his appearance, his voice,  his wanting pay and
many other things.
   Q. Do not sane men look, appear, speak and want pay ?
   A. They do.
   Q. Then do  not they indicate sanity as much as they do insanity ?
   A. In some men they might—here I don't think they do.
   Q. Do you think the  prisoner's remark about your being the  smartest
man, indicated insanity ?
   A. I thought it did, because he seemed to have reason for  kUHng  that
Avould justify, but he  had no reason for kilHng Doctor Pitney, and to my
mind the remark indicated insanity.
   Q. The  reason for  kUling the family then did not indicate insanity ?
   A. Why, that indicated a right to kiU  because he  had a reason—that's
aU;  but if I killed Doctor Pitney without a reason it would be bad. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
277
   Q.  Well, don't you think it Avould be bad?
   A.  I do, and that would be the public judgment.
   Q.  Then that indicated sanity, did it not ?
   A.  Well, perhaps that did.
   Q.  How many  times have you heard him read ?
   A.  Once or twice.
   Q.  How many  times have you heard him count ?
   A.  Twice.
   Q.  Did he seem to try ?
   A.  I thought he did his best.
   Q.  Could a sane ignorant man do more ?
   A.  I suppose not;  but the appearance indicated insanity in this case. %
   Q.  What appearance ?                                           lir
   A.  His rolling eye, for one thing.
   Q.  But does not your eye roU ?
   A.  Yes; but there was something peculiar about it in the prisoner.
   Q.  What was that peculiarity ?
   A.  Well, I cannot describe it, but it was peculiar.
   Q.  It was sharp, was it not ?
   A.  Perhaps I should say it was sharp.
   Dr. Lansingh  Briggs was next called, and being sworn, testified:  I am
 a physician and surgeon, and have been physician and surgeon to the  State
 Prison at Auburn.   I have resided in Auburn twelve years, and have known
 the prisoner eight or ten  years.  I  knew him  before he went to the  State
 Prison.  Considered him a lad of ordinary intelligence, for boys of his con-
 dition.  John DePuy married his sister; after which, I believe, the prisoner
 Hved with him. I have seen him at my office.  Have seen  him, at times,
 since he has been in the jail.  The first time, I went on Dr. Fosgate's invi-
 tation to see him.  I attempted to speak to him, but he seemed not to hear,
 and I abandoned the effort.   The next time, I went with  Dr. Fosgate and
 Warren T. Worden, Esq.  Dr. Fosgate, at  this time, dressed his Avounded
 wrist.   I looked at the wound, myself, and asked him many questions about
 that and other matters relating to himself, and remained there with him about
 an  hour.   Whilst  his hand  was being dressed, I noticed his appearance
 closely, and discovered that he manifested  but very little sensibility  as to
 pain.   Something occurred then  that induced us to smile, and I noticed that
 he smUed wljen we smiled.  At first I thought he understood what was going
 on, but after Dr. Fosgate left, Mr. Worden interrogated him about the crime,
 when I again observed the same  smile and demeanor which I had observed
 before; but it seemed  very difficult for him to tell his story without being
 questioned.  He was  asked  why he murdered the  family, and  how.  He
generally  answered pertinently, but briefly,  in  monosyllables, except when
the question did not admit of such answers.
  As to the commission of murder, he answered, after the question had  been 
278
THE TRIAL OF
repeated, " Why was I put in prison five years."  His tone was low, subdued
and imperfect.  He was asked what door he went  in at.  He said, " Front
door."   He was asked where Van Nest then was.   He said, " By the stove."
He was asked what conversation passed.  He said, " Nothing."   The ques-
tion Avas repeated, when he said, "If you eat my Hver, I'll eat yours."  The
wound on his wrist was across it, and was healing.   It was at the termination
of the bone of the  arm, and Avas a severe Avound.  We found him heavily
chained to the floor, and manacled—the manacles  were suspended so as to
prevent their resting on his ankle.   He manifested little or no sensibility to
pain.   I observed that he, apparently, could not narrate without our ques-
tioning him.  His  pulse I did not  then examine,  but did afterAvards, and
found that it varied from ninety-four to one hundred and fourteen or fifteen ;
varying according  to his posture—standing or sitting.  My opinion  is, and
was, that he had less mind than when I knew him before ; that his mind had
become impaired—that he had less vigor or strength of mind—was less ca-
pable of reasoning, comparing, retaining, and associating ideas.   In my
opinion, his mind  is diseased—some  portions of it more than others; and
although he is perfectly conscious of what he has done and was doing, that
he thinks and believes he  has committed no crime.  He justifies himself
under  the delusion that he  had been  wronged, and that society owed him
reparation—that it was rightfully his, and Avas due  to him  as  an equiva-
lent and satisfaction.   This delusion, in my judgment, is an insane delusion—
the delusion of an insane mind.
  Cross Examination.—I knew the prisoner ten years ago, and had con-
versation with him when he came of errands to my office.  I do  not remem-
ber any of that conversation particularly now, but it related to  the errands
upon which he had been sent to me.  I gave him  directions for the taking
of medicine, and presume for De Puy's family.  My knowledge  and opinion
of him at that time, arose from his doing errands correctly.   I never knew
of any mistake being made.   The occurrence in the jail which  induced the
smile mentioned in my direct examination,  was  the remarks  made by  a
phrenologist  upon  Mr. Worden's head.  It caused Worden  and myself  to
laugh,  as did others who were  present.  The  phrenologist himself Avas con-
fined in the jail.  I  am unable to say whether  the prisoner  heard those
remarks or not; they were made in a cell near him, and some of them were
quite amusing.   When we laughed, I noticed that  the prisoner smiled also.
  I am unable to  say what the prisoner could do  ten  years ago that he
cannot do  noAv.  He held up his head then, and can now, but  he does not
carry his head now as he did then.  He was a straight lad, but is not straight
now.   His eye is a pretty good one.   A wound like that which he had re-
ceived Avould occasion pain  and be sore.  I don't know that he felt no pain,
but he seemed to manifest little or no feeling.  I did not regard that as the
evidence, but only as one circumstance going to show insanity.  I had some
reason to think he felt some pain, but he manifested it but slightly, if at all. 
                          WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      279

His not complaining may or may not be evidence of insanity.  By his mind
being impaired, I meant  that he Avas suffering dementia, and delusion.   I can-
not tell how long he has suffered from dementia.  I think that when he killed
those people he was as noAv, deluded.  The symptoms of dementia are, loss of
power of associating ideas—loss  of memory—impairment of moral and intel-
lectual poAvers—a weakening of perception and comparison—and a general
loss of the poAvers of the  mind.   The physical symptoms which indicate such
a state of mind, are a downcast look—aversion to exertion—indolence—loss
of intelligence in the expression  of the eye—and, in the  extreme stages of it,
drooling at the mouth.  At the time of the murder the prisoner had the same
symptoms as  now.
  As I have heard the  manner of the killing of that family, I can say that
there was a good adaptation of  means to the ends.   His plan was well laid
out and well executed.  In laying and executing it, I should think there
was a good adaptation of the means to the end designed.
  Q. Does not  that fact indicate an  improvement of his faculty of  com-
parison ?
  A. I do not know that it does.
  Q. How did you find his faculty of attention ?
  A. He was attentive  when questioned.
  Q. Did he apprehend your questions ?
  A. He appeared to.
  Q. Can you say that  you ever knew his faculty of attention to be better
than it was when you interrogated him in the jail ?
  I cannot say that I have.
  Q. You say he apprehended  the subject  that you conversed about—did
he not apprehend the facts which he related.
  A. The first  time he undertook to tell the story he was confused.  At
subsequent times he Avas tolerably accurate.
  Q. His accuracy indicated accuracy of memory did it not ?
  A. In some respects it might so indicate, yet that alone Avould not show
his memory to be good, generally.
  Q. Doctor, suppose him to have been perfectly sane, might he not have
given a false  account of the murder ?
  A. He might.
  Q. And he might not, I suppose ?
  A. Of course.
  Q.  Do criminals generally, whose crimes  are detected and well  known,
giA-e a true or a false account of them ?
  A. I am unable to say whether a majority of criminals do, or do not give
a false account;  but I have no doubt that some criminals frequently give a
false account.
  Q.  Are you aware that criminals generally refuse to  make any confession
until proof is found ? 
280
THE TRIAL OF
   A.  I am not; yet it would be perfectly natural that it should be so.
   Q.  What inference do you draw from the fact of his taking the horse ?
   A.  I think that perhaps the taking of the horse was to repay himself for
 the debt due him.
   Q.  What debt?
   A.  For his imprisonment.  I do not doubt that he honestly thought there
 was a  debt due him, and that he was entitled to his pay.
   Q.  But how can you infer that he honestly thought that he was entitled
 to that horse ?
   A. From his conduct and assertions I think he thought that he had been
 imprisoned  wrongfuUy, and that he had a right  to recompense.  This  was
 his delusion.
   Q.  Did he  say any thing more than you have named, upon which  you
 base your opinion that he thought he Avas entitled to pay ?
   A. I do not recollect of any other remark.
   Q. Do you  think  the  stealing the horse to go away with, is itself  any
 evidence of insanity ?
   A. I do not.  I suppose he knew what the penalty was, and intended to
 escape; but I think, nevertheless, that he was acting under a delusion.
   Q. What particular delusion in this instance ?
   A. The delusion that he must and ought to have his pay.
   Q. Do you think he calculated to take the horse ?
  A. I presume there was no forethought about his taking  the horse—that
he thought of it after the murders.
   Q. Do you regard his abiHty to endure pain as a symptom of insanity ?
   A. Great insensibUity may be, and I think is.
   Q. Which kind of insanity does it indicate ?
   A. It is not safe to say that one particular symptom defines either of the
divisions or varieties of insanity.  All taken together, in this case, indicate
 dementia and delusion; it may not be easy to tell which of the several divis-
 ions  one  particular may indicate.  AU taken together, in this case, indicate
 dementia and delusion.
   Q. How do you define dementia ?
   A. Dementia is a diminution, an impairment or decaying of the powers
 of the mind.
   Q. How do you define idiocy ?
   A. Idiocy comes from idiotia;  and indicates a want of mind from birth.
   Q. What is mania ?
   A. Mania exists where the mental  powers, or a portion of them, are ex-
 cited into unnatural activity.  It manifests itself by raving; but idiocy and
 dementia do not
   Q. Is dementia a gradual  or sudden disease ?
   A. It is gradual—a gradual impairment of faculties.
   Q.  How much are the faculties of Freeman impaired ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
281
  A.  His faculties are not entirely gone, but are worse than they once were.
  Q.  Is dementia perceptible, when it commences ?
  A.  It may begin imperceptibly, and increase to imbeciHty.
  Q.  What class do these delusions belong to ?
  A.  Delusions such as his, more  properly belong to mania;  and I think
that viewing  the delusion and the partial dementia, he labors under a com-
plication of mental diseases.
  Q.  But does not the fact that he has such powers of memory, conflict
with the idea of dementia ?
  A.  In such powers as he has, I can see nothing in conflict with that idea.
  Q.  You think, do you not, that he thought, when he had slain that family,
he would be hung, unless he fled ?
  A.  I have no doubt he knows that the penalty of murder is hanging; but
he thinks it should not be enforced  in this case, because he has done nothing
but what is right.   He is under that delusion.
  Q.  Are you entirely confident that the smUe you speak of, which you
saw in his ceU, was not induced by the amusing  remarks of that phrenologist ?
  A.  At first I thought it was on account of that; but afterwards, and while
he was narrating the particulars of the murder, in the most shocking part of
his story, he Avould laugh.
  Q.  Do you infer that he thought he  would not be hung for his crime ?
  A.  I have no doubt that he knew the penalty, but thought it should not
be enforced.  I am of opinion that he  thought  they would hang him, but
didn't think it right to do so.
  Mary Ann Newark being called and sworn, testified:  I have lived in
Auburn twenty-six years.   Have known the prisoner from a child up.  He
was a smart boy, what little I saw of him.  After he came out of prison last
fall, I saw him on the side walk.  I nodded my head to him, but he didn't
say any thing.  He lived at my house a little over a week last  spring.  He
was living there, sawing wood and doing chores,  at the time of the murders.
I washed for the students of the Theological Seminary, and he carried clothes
for washing  and which had been washed, to and from  the  Seminary.  He
did chores for his board.   I lived a little south of Auburn,  at a colored set-
tlement called NeAv Guinea.  He never said much—never asked me a single
question;  only talked when I asked him. When I asked him any questions,
he answered quick and  short-like.  His manner of acting was queer-like.
He was very stiU.  He wasn't in enough for me to tell how he did act aU the
time.   I never heard  him talk  about  any person at all, nor mention any
body's name.  During the day of the murder he put snow in the tub, when
I asked.  AVhen the beUs were rung for meeting, which  was about six o'clock
on the evening of the murders, he was at my house.  I didn't see him have
any knives.   He soon after that went away.  He went away in  a hurry-like
—quick.  He was sober that evening.   He didn't say where he was going,
and I didn't see Avhich way he went.  I have seen him since only Avhen he 
282          •               THE TRIAL OF
passed my house in the wagon after he was arrested.  He slept in my house
up chamber.  I don't knoAV of his being up at night while at my house.
  Cross Examination.—I mean by his never having any conversation and
not asking questions, that he never provoked talk.  He did chores.   He got
his  own victuals and cooked it himself.   His victuals appeared to be cold
victuals.  I lent him the cooking utensils.   He slept up chamber.  His bed-
room  was east—mine was Avest  He couldn't make much  noise and I not
hear him, if I was awake.  He slept at home every night he stayed Avith me.
Before he went out on the evening of the murders, he asked me if I had any
chores to do. I told him to put some snoAv in the tub, and  he did  so.   I
don't  recollect as he said he was a going out.  When he went out I Avas at
my work, with my back tOAvards the door.  I never saw him have a knife
or stick.  I was not often in his room.  He made his own bed, if it was made.
I never saw any knives in his  room.  Didn't know as he had any about
there.  Didn't knoAV which way he went when he went away.  Peter WU-
Hams had been there that day to see him.
  Robert Freeman, caUed and-sworn, testified: I have known the pri-
soner  eight  years.  When Joshua L. Jones kept the American Hotel in
Auburn, the prisoner lived there and cleaned the knives for the dining room
table.   At that time William was such a boy as others ; perhaps not as lively
as I have seen, but playful betimes.   There Avas nothing deficient about him
that I noticed.  Whenever Ave ordered him to do any thing, he seemed to
understand it and do it.  I have had play spells with him.  He  appeared to
be pretty active in play.  Since he came out of prison the first I discovered
about him was,  he  appeared to be downcast.  I spoke to him,  but he took
no notice.  I then took hold of his hand and spoke louder, and he said, " how
d'ye do ?"  I discovered he appeared more dull and downcast than he used
to.  I was here in the court house a  good deal during the Wyatt trial, but
did not see him here.
  Cross Examination.—I don't mean to say he was not here during the
Wyatt trial, for I can't tell.   I didn't see him here.  When he  came out of
prison I saw him at work, sawing wood—a long job of eight or ten days.  I
passed him almost every day.  All the difference I discovered was his down-
cast and dull look.
  William P. Smith, called and sworn, testified:   In the fall of 1843 I
was engaged in the State Prison as foreman in the dye house.  Had charge
of this prisoner there.   He seemed to do what he had to do  very well, and
was willing to do as far as I could see.  He behaved well whilst I Avas there,
with tAvo exceptions.   Once  he had been  greasing a pair of  shoes, and had
placed them on a pile of wood, near to a stove.  One of the other  hands, in
moving the Avood, upset the shoes, and they fell.  He took a stick and struck
the man  on the head, Avho  was lame for a week.  The other matter was a
dispute about some yarn, when he and another convict got to  fighting.  The
keeper flogged him, and he came to me crying,  saying to me that  he had 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
283
    been  flogged.  He said  they had been  flogging him, and he wanted me to
    see Israel G. Wood and have  him got out, for they were killing him by
    inches.  He Avished me to tell Wood how he was abused.  I promised that I
    would tell him.
      At that time I considered his inteUect very low indeed.  He knew very
    little, not much more than a brute or beast.  When I sent him to the Brus-
    sels shop, by telling him two or three times where to  go and what to ask for,
    he would go and get it very correctly.  Robert Cook, the keeper, called him
    insane.   [The last sentence was objected to and ruled out]  The first time
    I saAv him after he came out of the prison, I asked him how he did, but he
    made no ansAver.   I was then told that he was deaf.   I  tried to get into con-
    versation with him, but couldn't make him understand.  He appeared differ-
    ent ; did not say much; appeared dumpish.  He seemed to stand  around.
    I saw him in jail the first week in June.  He  rose up, and then sat down.
    I asked about his health. He said it was good.   I asked why he killed those
    people.   He replied,  "I've been to prison  wrongfully  fiA-e  years.  They
    won't pay me."  I asked who.  He said, "  The people—so I thought I'd kill
¥'   somebody."  I asked if he  meant to kill one more than  another.   He said
    No.   I asked why he  Avent  so far out of town.  He said,  " Better chance to
    fight up there." In reply to questions, he said he Avent to the door—" wouldn't
    go in—couldn't see to fight—'tAvas dark ;" that he looked up street—saw a
    light in the next house, and thought he'd go there, for he could see to fight.
    I asked how many he killed.  He  said five.   I asked  as to  the order in
    which he did  it, and  got from him  that he  killed Van Nest first, and the
    woman next, at the corner of the house.  I asked of him if he knew he had
    done wrong.   He  replied No.  I asked him if he didn't think it wrong to
    kUl the child.  He hesitated, and finally said, " Well, that looks kind o' hard."
    I think I named them all to him, and  asked why he thought it was right
    He said, "I've been in prison five years AvrongfuUy—five years for  stealing
    a horse, and I didn't do it, and the people  Avon't pay me."  I got from him
    that he had made  up his mind that he ought to kill somebody.   I asked if he
    was sorry.   He said No. In all  my questions about Avhether he was doing
    right or wrong, his replies were  such as to signify that he was doing right,
    and had been in prison wrongfully.  I asked if he knew there was any such
    place as hell, Avhere they punished those Avho steal horses and kill.   After I
    pressed him some time, he said he didn't think  there was.  I asked  if there
    was any such place as heaven,  Avhere people  went who do well.   He said he
    didn't know as there was.   I asked if he was in jail  or in the State Prison.
    He hesitated some time  and finally thought he  Avas in jail, but Avasn't sure.
    I asked if he knew what he Avas confined there for.   He  said No.   I asked
    how many he intended to kill.  He said, "  All I could."  He said he meant
    to fight and kill till some one killed him.  I asked him if he expected any
    one would kill him.  He said, " Thought likely there might,"   I asked if he  N
    went to the  widoAv Godfrey's house.  lie said Yes.   I asked what he went 
284
THE TRIAL OF
for.  He said, " Meant to kiU somebody."  He said when he got to the house
" 'twas dark—didn't like to go in."  I asked if he had been to Tyler's house.
He said Yes.  I asked if he found Tyler.  He said " No; couldn't find him."
I asked if he would have  kiUed Tyler if he had found him.  He said Yes.
I asked if he could read.  He said Yes.  I gave him a book, and he run
over a kind of jargon which I couldn't understand.   I asked him to count
He counted tolerably free up to tAvelve, and then slower up to twenty-eight,
and then went off to seventy or eighty.
  There  was a change—a sensible change in the man.  He did'nt appear to
know so much; to have as many ideas about him; as many looks of intelli-
gence.  I don't knoAV as I could describe it very well.  There Avas a slow-
ness—dullness—he was slow and short to answer.  I thought what little in-
tellect he had seemed to  sink lower down from  some cause or other.  His
physical strength  and vigor were good in the State Prison.  He appeared
active, stout, strong and energetic.  Noav his manners appear more dull, stu-
pid and inattentive.
  Cross Examination.—In prison I didn't see any thing to lead me to be-
Heve he  was crazy.  I didn't think he was crazy then.  Have seen crazy   %
men; had one in  the shop.  Had  no trouble in seeing that he was crazy.
The prisoner had  a downcast look in the prison.  He was rather bad tem-
pered, I  should think.  I considered his  quarreling about the shoes and
yarn, evidence both of bad temper, and of a weak intellect.  I went to  see
Freeman in jail, expecting to testify as to his mind; not Avith the idea that
he was crazy, but merely to compare him with what I knew him formerly to
be.  I have not formed any  opinion as to his  insanity.  There  are some
things that go to show that he  was insane, and some to balance them on the
other side.  I  said that I thought  him a very little above a brute when he
was in the State Prison, and I think he has  faUen off since. I don't know
as he knew any thing then that he don't knoAV now.  He knew me in  the
jaU, and he hadn't seen me since the winter previous.  I  think his being
chained would have an unfortunate tendency on his sprightUness.  I did not
teU Wood of the prisoner's request, because I did not see him for a great Avhile,
and then I forgot  it.  The prisoner's business in the prison under me, was to
bring wood, make fires, to bring water, and sometimes I would set him at
turning the crank.  I asked him how much pay he wanted.  He said," Don't
know—good deal."   I asked him whether if I would count him out a hun-
dred doUars in silver, it would be enough.   He said he  thought it wouldn't.
I asked him how much would be right.  He said, " Don't know."   He bright-
ened up, and finally said he thought about a thousand flollars would be about
right.  There was something in this connection  said about killing, and that
he was wilHng to " quit even," and he  thought that one thousand dollars
would do.  I did  not see the same smUe on the prisoner, Avhen he was in pri-
son, that I see now.
   Horace Hotchkiss, called and sworn, testified:  I knew the prisoner in 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
285
the prison Sabbath school.   He was  not in any regular class.  His know-
ledge was very little.  My impression is that he knew a few of his letters.   I
endeavored to teach him to read—could see no progress.  I think the rea-
son was a want of inteUigence.  I did not perceive any advance.
  I saAv him some six Aveeks ago in jail, and asked him if he knew me.  He
said No.  I asked if he was in the Sabbath school in prison.  He said Yes.
I asked if he knew Mr. WilHam P. Smith.  He said No.  I asked him who
had charge of the dye shop.   He said Mr. Smith.  In the course of the con-
versation I remarked to him that he was soon to be tried for his life, and I
asked him what would become of him if he was found guilty and executed.
He said, " I don't know."  I asked if he knew there was such a place as
heaven.  He  said Yes.  I asked  what kind of a place it was.  His answer
was indistinct and inaudible.  But in an  after conversation, when I asked
him, he said he'd go to heaven because he was good.  I  asked if he knew
who Jesus Christ was.   His answer was indistinct.   I asked if he had seen
nim.  He said he thought he had seen him in Sunday  school.  He was asked
about being in prison, and he said something about pay.   I asked who owed
him.   He said, " Every body."
   Cross Examination.—I went to see him in jail in company with John R.
Hopkins. I  don't know whether it was because he wouldn't or  couldn't that
he didn't learn  in prison.   It appeared difficult.   He always showed a wU-
lingness to learn.
   Sally Freeman, called and sworn, testified: I am the mother of the pri-
soner.   My husband died seventeen years ago.  I  took care of my son tUl
he was nine years of age, when he went to live with Captain Warden.  Af-
ter living with the captain awhile, he Hved with Mr. Ethan A. Warden sev-
eral months.  After that he lived with Mr. Cadwell  two  years.  I put him
out to live at those places.  About six years ago he went to the State Pri-
son.  When  he was young, and before he went to  prison, he was a very
smart  child.  He was always very playful and good natured.  About under-
standing things, he was the same as  any other chUd.   I never knew he was
foolish or dumpish before he went to  prison.   After he came out of prison
he didn't act like the same child.   He was changed.  He was deaf and didn't
 appear to know any thing.  As to being lively after he  came out, I didn't
see any cheerfulness about him.  When I asked him a question he would
answer, but that was aU he would say.   He appeared very duU.  He never
asked me any questions, only if I was Avell, and that was Avhen he first came
out of the prison.  From that time to this he  has never asked me any ques-
 tions at all.  He has never offered  to say any thing to me, except when I
asked  if he could get work; then he would'nt  say much.  Since he came out
I don't think he has been to see me  more than six  times, but I have met
him in the street and spoke to him.  When he came to see me perhaps he
 would ask me how I did, and then sit down and laugh; what he laughed at
was more than  I could tell.  He laughed as he does now.  There was no 
286
THE TRIAL OF
 reason why he should laugh.   He Avas laughing to himself.  He didn't speak
 of any thing when he laughed.  I didn't think he was hardly right, and he
 Avas so deaf I didn't want to------(Aveeps.)
   I don't remember  any thing else that he said or did.   He was not deaf
 before he went to prison.  I asked him Iioav he  got deaf.  He told  me his
 ear had fell doAvn, or some such foolish answer he gave me.  When he came
 to see me he would stay an hour or so.   He generally sat still.   He would
 speak to others if they spoke to him.   His ansAvers were pretty short.  I did
 not see him for about two months previous to the Van  Nest murders.   I
 didn't knoAV the Van Nest family.  I neA-er heard him speak of ^iem.   I
 saw him in jail the first  of June.  I Avent in to see him, and asked him how   4
 he was. He laughed when I went in, and said  he was well.  I asked him
 if he knew what he'd  been doing.   He stood and laughed.  I asked how he
 came there.   He didn't say much of any thing,  but stood  and laughed.   I
 stayed but a short time—a feAv minutes.   When I asked questions, I got no_   *
 answer at all.   I felt so  bad, he looked at me so,  I didn't know what  he did
 say.  I think  he was  altered a good deal from what he was before he Avent
 to prison.  When I went away he didn't bid  me good bye,  nor ask me to   j
 come again.   I am in  my fiftieth year.  He has an uncle that is,  and an
 aunt that Avas crazy.   WUliam has a sister Avho isn't very smart.  I don't
 think WUliam is in his right mind, nor that he has  been since he came out
 of prison.
   Cross Examination.—I saw him about six months before he went to
 the  State Prison, but  I didn't see him in there at aU.  He took care of him-
 self for the five years before.   I used to see him almost every week when
 I was here.  The change I noticed was, he acts very foolish and don't seem
 as though he  had any senses.   I've seen him take a book and try to read,
 but he couldn't.  He  never learned to read as far as I knew, more than his
 a-b-abs.  Captain  Warden sent him to school a little when  he didn't run
 away.   I went to see  him in jail on the first day  of court, at  the suggestion
 of Mr. Morgan.  When I went in he  didn't say any thing,  but stood and
 laughed.   When I asked how he came  to do it, he  made no  ansAver.   I
' asked nothing else.  Nothing more Avas  said or done that I can tell you.   I
 have three children—had  five, but none of them are crazy but this one.
 Before marriage, my name was Sally Peters, and I Avas born in Berkshire, in
 the State of Massachusetts;  some of my ancestors were red people, of the
 Stockbridge tribe.  William is part Indian, and part Negro.
   Deborah De Puy,  caUed and sworn, says:   I am  twenty four  years
 old.  I knew  William before he went to prison. I  kneAV him  as? well  as
 other colored boys.  I associated with him.  He was bright  as any body else.
 He was very cheerful.  I have been with him to balls and rides.   He  acted
 very smart on such occasions.  I talked Avith him  often.  I never discoA^ered
 any deafness or lack of intelligence."  After he came out of  prison there was
 a change.  If  I talked to him very loud, he  would talk; say very Httle only 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
287
to ansAver me.   He didn't act cheerful, but very stupid—never said  any
thing until I talked to him.   He never talked to me as he  did before he
went to prison.   He had a strange smile.   He would  laugh very hearty
without any thing  to laugh at.  He wouldn't know Avhat he was laughing
at"  He knocked at the door; I'd let him in and he would  sit  doAvn  and
laugh.' I'd ask Avhat he Avas laughing at.  He said he didn't know.  When
I asked him questions, he  would either answer " Yes," or " No," or " I don't
knoAV;" only once I asked him how his hearing was hurt, and he said they
struck him on the head with a board, and it seemed as  if the  sound
went doavn ins  throat.   I don't think he is in his right mind now, nor
that he has been since he  came out of prison.  The reason is that he never
used to act so silly and sit and laugh so, before he  went to prison.
  Cross Examination.—I  live  below the Female Seminary in the  west
eri& of the town, but I don't know the name of the street.   My husband's
brother married' the prisoner's  sister.  My memory is good.  I  remember
William well and when he went to the State Prison.
  Q. What is that husband's name, that you speak of?
  A. Well, his name is Hiram De Puy.
  Q. Does he live upon that street which you find it difficult to name ?
  A. He lives where I do, of course.
  Q. Then you live together.
  A. I don't know as it is any body's business Avhether we do or not
  Q. Perhaps not; but I suppose  you can have no objection to  teUing me
how that is.
  A.  But how do you know I haint ?
  Q.  A Veil, Deborah, I thought that perhaps you  would  oblige me so much
as to answer that.
  A.  Yes,  we do ;  but I can't answer any more questions.
  Q.  Never mind, Deborah, Ave've got along with that,  and will turn  to a
more agreeable subject.  Do you recoUect when you were married ?
  A.  Do you s'pose I'm going to answer such questions ?
  Q.  Yes; I rather supposed you would like to tell me about that.
  A.  Suppose I couldn't tell ?
  Q.  Suppose you should try?
  A.  Well, s'pose I shouldn't ?
  Q.  I think you had better tell me that, Deborah.
  A.  I shan't answer such foolish questions.
  Q.  Will you tell me where  you were married ?
  A.  If you'll come cjown to my house, I'U tell you all about it, but I won't
here.
  Q.  It may be inconvenient for me to come, Deborah, and therefore I shall
have to insist upon your ansAvering me now.
  A.  Well, I shall  not.
  The Court.—The witness must answer. 
288
THE TRIAL OF
   Q. The court thinks you  ought  to answer.   Be kind enough to inform
 me.
   A. I couldn't tell you where I was married".
   Q. Did you have a large wedding party on the occasion ?
   A. I couldn't tell how large the wedding was.
   Q. Didn't you know something about it ?
   A. Of course I did.
   Q. Didn't you have more of the wedding than any body else ?
   A. Of course I did, but I can't teU.
   Q. Can you teU who performed the marriage ceremony ?
   A. I couldn't.
   Adam  Gray, called and sworn, testified:  I have known  the prisoner
 sixteen or seventeen  years..   He was a smart  boy, and was very active.   I
 always thought him to be a  pretty cunning kind of  a boy.  I think there'is
 a change in him.  It didn't  seem to me that he knew as much -as he did be-
 fore he went  to prison.  Don't seem to talk  as much, have so much life, not
 seem so sensible.  Last winter he boarded with me two months.  He would
 get up nights, late, take his saAv and go out as if he was going to work, and
 come back and go to bed.  He would try to sing, but I couldn't understand
 what he said.  He made a noise appearing as if dancing.   He slept up stairs,
 and used to make a noise in  the night, and be dancing.  I never asked what
 he meant  by it.  Never saw him drunk.  Never had any reason to suppose
 he  drank, except at one time.  Before he  went to bed, one  time, he was
 noisy, and appeared to have been drinking.   After he came out, I told him
 to go to meeting. He said, sometimes, he'd  go, and sometimes, he didn't
 want to go.  Sometimes he had a book and would try to read, but I couldn't
 understand his reading.
   Cross  Examination.—He left my house last January.  I never said
 any thing to DePuy about Freeman's getting up.nights ; only one day De-
 Puy said to me,  " You  know'd WilHam when a Hoy."  What Freeman got
 up and went out for—Avhether to drink or not, I don't know.   He went out    |»
 twice, that I know of.  He  made a noise three times.  I was lying in bed,
 the time I speak of his being drunk.  I don't say he  was drunk, but he came •
 in and out, and hallooed, stamped, and went on; stayed around an hour, and
 went to bed.  I don't know how he got his Hquor; I had none in the house.
 I don't remember of his saying any thing all that time, except when I asked
 if he wanted any thing.
  Theron Green, called and  sworn, testified: I was keeper in the Auburn
 State Prison  five or  six years ago, and had charge of this  prisoner there  v
 about a year.   The condition of his mind was such that I didn't think he had
 much at any time. He could  do the work assigned him; he was caUed a
 half pay man.  He worked at  blowing the beUows and striking at the forge.
 He kept at this Avork whUe I was there.  He was slow in his movements.  I
judged he did his work as weU as he  could.  I never discovered him viola- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
289
 ting the rules of the shop by talking.  Tell him to do a certain amount of
 work, he Avould do it in his way, sometimes.   His way was slow, awkward,
 dull.  He was doAvncast; --would have freaks  of laughing.  I couldn't tell
 what he was laughing at.  I have perceived the same laugh here.  He was
 rather dull.   On Sundays I tried to instruct him in his cell, but with poor
 success.  He was so dull he could'nt learn.  He would violate the rules by
 going to  sleep Sundays in his ceU.  He was not, hoAvever, flogged for that
 I never reported him.
    Q.  Why did you not flog him ?
    Objected to, and objection sustained.
    I don't think he was totally destitute of knowledge of right and wrong.  I
 told him to do a thing and sometimes he would, and sometimes he wouldn't
 do it   My opinion of him then was, that he was in some respects accounta-
* ble, and in other respects not accountable.  He was very different from any
 convict I ever had charge of, in his manners and conduct.  I thought he was
 very ugly, irritable, malicious and bad tempered.   He was deaf.  I should
 think his Capacity as a thinking, .reasoning man, was very limited—very low.
 He hadn't enough intelligence to warrant me in punishing him for violating
 the rules. I think he ought not to have gone at large, and that remark was
 made when he left the shop.  I should think he had as much capacity as a
 brute beast; don't know as he'had more; none to spare more.
«   Cross Examination.—I sent him for a pail of water once and he didn't
 go.  He didn't take the letter which I sent to the hall.  I sent a man after
 him who found him in the yard.   The blacksmith  for whom he blowed and
 struck used to complain that he didn't work right.  I used to talk to him; it
 would, however,  do him no good.
   Philo II. Perry, called and sworn, testified:  I have seen' the prisoner
 and have tried to converse with him.  I also heard Gov. Seward make the
 attempt to converse Avith him, but to little  purpose.  The prisoner did not
 seem to know much about a court, or trial, or witnesses, or a jury.  He said
 something in an indistinct and incoherent way about his  having been in pri-
 son five  years, and wanted pay for it  I could not come to a satisfactory
 conclusion in my own  mind about him. I think he has no idea of the enor-
 mity of his offence, although  he may know what  he was doing.  He has
 scarcely any intellect  at all, as far as  I can judge, and is almost an idiot.
 When I was talking to him about the trial, I asked him if I should tell the
 jury that he was  crazy.  He said No.  I asked if I should teU them that he
 was sorry. . He said No.
   Cros3 Examination.—I did not know the prisoner until after the Fle-
 ming murders.  I aid not see him in jail until after a plea of present insanity
 had been put in  for ,him by Gov. Seward.   I heard him  try to read, but
 couldn't.  He seemed to know the letters of the alphabet, and did call them
 correctly, but he could 'not read  the words.  I think he has some mind left,
 yet what he has seems to be in a singular condition.   I do not say that he is
                  19 
290
THE TRIAL OF
 insane.   I think his difficulty consists more in the want of intellect than in
 any derangement of what he has.  He may be deranged, but he looks to me
 more like an idiot.
   Dr. Charles Van Epps, called and sworn, testified: I reside in Auburn,
 and am a physician.  I received my diploma from the NeAV York University,
 in 1825, and since that time I have been in practice.  I know the prisoner.
 I am of the opinion that he has lately been insane.   It is not probable that
 the species  of insanity with which he is afflicted came upon him in a very
 short period of time.  It is possible for dementia to happen suddenly.  Those
 who have this sort of insanity generally have  thicker skulls than  other peo-
 ple, and as they do not grow as fast as other parts of the body, a pressure on
 the brain is  produced, which induces insanity.  Dementia comes, however,
 from many  diseases Avhich are gradual.  I knew the  prisoner when a nur-
 sing babe, and until he was three or four years  old.  He then appeared as'
 bright and intelHgent as chUdren generally  at that age.  Now he  appears
 not to have the inteUect of a child  five years old.  He answers questions with
 a  child-like  simpHcity, regardless of the consequences, and as if he didn't
 know them.   For instance, I asked him day before yesterday whether they
 had taken him up to the court—
   Attorney General:—I object to any testimony relating to this  prisoner,
 derived from examinations since the verdict of the jury upon his present sa-
 nity.  That question has been settled  by a verdict.
   The Court decided that the question of present sanity had been tried, and a
verdict rendered on the sixth day of July, instant, and that  the question of
the present  sanity could not be again re-tried; that the question now on
trial in connection with the murder, was whether he was sane at the time of
the commission of the crime; and that the evidence of insanity must be con-
fined to facts before and at the time of committing the act, up to the sixth
day of July, instant, when  the verdict of sanity was rendered.
   Decision excepted  to.
   Q.  What is your opinion as to whether the prisoner at the bar is insane ?
   Objected to, and objection sustained.
   Q.  What is your opinion as to whether the prisoner at the bar was insane
 at any time preA'ious to the sixth day  of July last ?
   A.  I think he Avas insane at and before that time.  I ground this opinion
 upon the history of the man, and what I myself knew of him.   It appears
 that his senses have diminished—decreased from childhood—and that is to my
 mind eA'idence of insanity.   He has been laboring under an  impression that
 he ought to have pay for the time that he was in prison, ^md that some*body
 owed him, and I have not been  able to make him believe to the contrary.
 That I consider an insane delusion.  He has  an  impression that every body
 is  against him, and that was why he wanted  to kill somebody.  He had no-
 thing in particular against Van Nest, yet insane people generally kill their
 best friencs sooner than they will their  enemies.   He thinks  he  can read, 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
291
 but cannot  He is under a delusion in that; yet he appears to be anxious
 so show us that he can read.  His smile and his general  deportment is like
 persons who are demented.  I call-his insanity dementia, or  that species of
 insanity which is accompanied  with a loss of the  intellect.  Idiocy is a per-
 fect loss of the intellect, and where it is not congenital it is called dementia.
 There is some inteUect left in the prisoner, and therefore his case is partial
 dementia.   As to the design and calculation, I have known  insane men to
 do acts  evincing more than ordinary design.   I have heard of nothiinr con-
 nected with the murder of Van Nest, that an insane man  would not be likely
 to do.   [Witness here related  the dialogues had with the prisoner in jail,
 which were the same substantially as those had with Warden and Austin.]
 I thinkathat he thinks he has a right to kill people in satisfaction of his claim,
 and that is a delusion.   There is not the least doubt that at the time the pri-
 soner committed the act, he was insane.
   Q.  Have you, since the sixth day of July, made  any  observations which
 went to confirm your opinion ?
   Objected to, and objection sustained.
   Cross Examination.—I was born at Kinderhook.  I am a Dutchman,
 like you, Mr. Van Buren.   I conversed with the prisoner several times be-
 fore he went to the State Prisoq, but I cannot give the particulars.  I assisted
 at a post mortem examination of his father.  Prisoner's mother used to be an
* intemperate woman.  She lived with me a while.  I then saw the boy pass-
 ing out and in several times.  It would be very difficult to tell what the boy
 knew then that he does not  know now.  His head is smaU, yet it may be as
 large as Dr. Brigham's—but has quite a different shape.   I don't know that
 I can state any physical change.  Derangement attends the action of acute
 diseases.  Dementia does not necessarily come as a consequence of disease.
 The prisoner's pulse is somewhat remarkable.   It is quick without any occa-
 sion for excitement, and denotes an unusual condition of the system.  I don't
 think the delusion about pay is a common  delusion.  I think the prisoner
 thought it right to get pay.  I also think he was under the impression that
 all mankind were his  enemies.  Had  any dissimulation existed, I think I
 should have been able to discover it.
   James II. Bostwick called  and sworn, testified:  I am a justice of the
 peace;  live in Auburn, and have knoAvn the prisoner  since he was a child.
 I think he was as active when a child as other colored chUdren.  I saw him
 after he came out of prison.  He called upon me for a summons for a man
 for whom he ; aid he had sawed wood. I knew the man—told  prisoner there
musf be a misunderstanding; and I saAv the man and found what it Avas.  1
declined issuing the summons.  A day or two before the  murders he came
into my office and said he wanted a warrant  I asked for whom.  He  said,
" For those who got me to prison ;" that he had been there AvrongfuUy  and
wanted  pay.   I asked who the persons were.  He said a widow woman  and
two men; and he mentioned David W. Simson, a former constable, as  ona 
292                         THE TRIAL OF
 of them.  Then, or in a subsequent conversation, he mentioned the name of
 the widoAv Godfrey.  I asked what he was sent to prison for.  He said, " They
 said 'twas for stealing a horse."  I asked if he did steal it.  He said, " No, 1
 didn't."  I asked who arrested him for steaUng.  He said that Vanderhey-
 den arrested him for stealing hens, but that he was discharged on that.  Such
 was the fact, as I learned subsequently."  He said they afterwards took him
 for stealing a horse, and the  widoAv woman and two men swore him  into
 prison five years.   I told him he had no remedy—that if those persons swore
 false, it was now too late to punish them for it.  He  said that he thought
 it was hard that he couldn't get any pay for his time, and turned and walked
 down stairs.  After he had been arrested for the murder, I caused him to
 be taken to the house of Van Nest, in order to see whether Van Arsdale
 and Mrs. Wyckoff, who was then still alive, could identify him.  Van Ars-
 dale was there, wounded, and the prisoner was directed to stand up where
 Van Arsdale could see him.  He did  so.   He was also  taken into the yard,
 that Van Arsdale could see him through  the window.   Don't recollect as he
 said any thing. I was myself engaged in taking the testimony of Van Ars-
 dale whilst there.  He was then with much difficulty brought back and lodged
 in jail.  There was a large  assemblage of people about the house; many of
 whom were highly  excited.  I had some  reason then to suspect that he  had
 an accomplice, and I urged the people  to repress their feelings until a further
 examination should be had.  He was lodged in the jail unhurt,  except the
 wound which he had on his wrist.  The next day I visited him  at his cell,
 and there asked him questions about the transaction.  I also asked him if he
 desired counsel.  He said Yes.   I asked whom.  He said he didn't know the
 laAvyers.  He said something about having been put in State Prison, and 1
 inquired if he knew who were the persons who put him there.  He said the
 widow Godfrey, David Simpson and Jack Furman.  Jack was the man who
 was arrested at the same time, and who turned State's evidence and got clear.
 Jack is now himself a convict.  I asked if he rode into Mrs. Godfrey's yard
 the night of the murder.   He said he did; and at another time when I asked
 him if he knew of any body riding into her yard, he  said he didn't.  I asked
 if he ever talked with any white man  about being sent to prison.   He said,
 " Nobody but  Esquire Paine  and you."  I asked him if a certain  person
 (naming him) had told him that Van Nest had any thing to do  with getting
 him into prison.  He said No.  I asked him if he met a man on horseback,
 this side of the house.  He said Yes.  I asked who he was.  He said, " I
 don't know."  I asked if he was a white  man.   He  said Yes.   I  asked  if I
 should get him counsel.  He said Yes.   I mentioned  the matter to  Mr. Allen,
 subsequently, who acted in his behalf on the examination before me.  I put
to him a variety of questions, to which he gave brief but pertinent answers.
 He was very deaf, and did not understand unless spoken to in a loud voice.
 As to the state of his mind, I can only say that  when he came  for the war-
rant it occurred to me that he might be deranged; but he said, " They  tell 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       293
  me I can get  my pay now," and other  things that looked as if he might be
  rational.   Since then I have thought that my impression that he was insane
  was groundless.  I cannot say that I now think that he was insane, yet his
  actions were singular.
     Cross Examination.—When he  mentioned a summons, he seemed
  angry that the man for whom he had been at work would not pay.  I found
  that the man  had credited John De Puy for the work, but after I had talked
  with himj he said  he would give the prisoner something.  I advised him to
  take what he  could get.  When he came to get the warrant, he told me that
  he was arrested on a canal boat.  He said that Vanderheyden arrested him
  again,, and pretended that he had arrested  him for stealing hens.   I  ques-
  tioned him about the matter and he told me.   I cannot noAv remember all
* the questions, nor all his answers.   On the day when the preliminary trial
  commenced,  I saw him  in the jail, and asked him if he didn't know it was
  wrong to commit these murders.  He  said, " I suppose it was."  I asked if
  he was sorry.  He said, " I was sorry when I got to Syracuse."   I asked
  where he was intending to go when he stole the last horse.  He said, " The
  most I cared for was to get out of the county."  I asked what he killed  those
  people for.  He  said,  " I couldn't  get any satisfaction  and I meant to be
  revenged."
     Michael  S. Myers, called and sworn, testified:   I was the district
  attorney  of this county when the prisoner was indicted and tried for stealing
  the horse.  The witnesses sworn,  were Martha Godfrey,  William H. HiU
  and John Willard; the latter was known, I believe, as Jack Furman. When
  the prisoner was sentenced, he looked younger, stood more erect, and looked
  brighter  than he does now.
     Cross Examination.—There was nothing peculiar about him then.  I
  have seen him since.  I  have never discovered any thing to make me be-
  lieA'e him insane.
     James R.  Cox, called and sworn, testified:  I saw the prisoner near
  the Sand Beach Church,  about eight o'clock in the evening of the murder.
  I was in  a cutter ;  he was waUcing and had a stick in his hand partly con-
  cealed under his coat.  As he approached me, he stepped out of the  track
  and looked at me,  turning his eyes as I moved until I had passed him.  I
  have since asked him why he didn't kill me.   He  said, " I thought some
  of it."  Looked  then  as he does now.  When I asked  about his  hand, he
  lifted it up and then let it drop, but gave no ansAver.  I have seen him when
  I could not get the semblance of an answer.   He appears to know but little
  of the nature and  consequences of crime.  I am not able to say that he is
  particularly deranged, because I do not think that he has much brain to be
  deranged.  I think he approaches an  idiot.   If he ever had much brain I
  should think it had decayed.
    Dr.  Amariah  Brigham, called and sworn, testified: I am a physician,
  and have charge of the State Lunatic Asylum, at Utica.  I was subpoenaed 
294
THE TRIAL OF
to attend the preHminary trial of this prisoner.  Upon arriving here I was
requested to examine him in respect  to his mental  condition.  That was
about  six Aveeks  ago.  Accordingly I visited him several times, conversed
with him, and listened to the conversation of others.  I heard all the testi-
mony given on the preHminary trial, and I have heard or read all that has
been given on this.  I have endeavored to bestow such attention to the case
as should enable me to form an accurate opinion.  I believe  the prisoner  to
be insane.
  I had heard much of this prisoner before I saw him.  I had heard that he
had killed those who had  sent him to the  State Prison.  I had  also heard
that many supposed that if his actions indicated insanity, he was feigning  it
My first examinations, therefore, were directed to that point, until I satisfied
myself that he was not feigning insanity.  I think I could not have been de-
ceived about that; and now I suppose there is no one who thinks he is feign-
ing insanity.  After  saying that there has  been scarcely a fact relating  to
bis mental condition which was not known to me as the result of my own ob-
servation, I proceed to say that I asked him what he could prove in defence
of himself.   I asked if we should say he did not kiU  the folks.   He said,
quickly, No.  I then asked him if we might not say  so.  He said, " No, that
would  be wrong.   I didn't do it."  Some one then asked him if we might
say he was crazy.  He said, " I can't go so far as that."  I asked him again
what he could prove.  He remarked something about having been in prison
five years for stealing a horse, and that he didn't steal it.  I asked him if he
were sorry for the act.  He  sometimes said  No; and  sometimes, "I don't
know," in reply.   His words were spoken slowly, and somewhat incoherently.
In answer to a question whether he was sorry he had killed that little child,
once he said to me, " I don't know," and once, " You may say that," but  it
was slowly said.   He laughed Avhen I mentioned the child.  I continued the
examination, as I before testified, (ante 53) until I became satisfied that he
was not feigning insanity, but was actually insane.                                3
  There is some difficulty in  the case, from the want of facts concerning his
history, and also on account of his color.  My experience is that insanity  in
colored people cannot be so easily detected from the countenance as in white
people. That peculiar pallor, which oftentimes attends insanity, cannot be
so easily detected  in colored  people as in white people.  In this case there
is some evidence going to show that he is paler than he formerly was.
  We learn from the testimony in this case,  that there have been at Avork
the most exciting causes of this disease.  The prisoner was  predisposed  to
insanity.  Some of his ancestors haAre been and one now is insane.  There
is no disease so  likely to spread in families in Avhich it has once  appeared.
It is estimated that about one half of the insane have, or have had, insane,
ancestors.   In all doubtful cases of insanity the fact that insanity prevails in
the family of the person, is entitled to great weight in the formation of  an
opinion respecting him. 
                          WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      295

   On the preliminary trial in this case, I gavejeasons for believing the pri-
 soner insane, which I must repeat.   I then remarked that the prisoner seems
 to have been an active youth, with perhaps not quite as good an intellect as
 the majority of colored persons of  his age; that he seems to have been left
 to the indulgence of his passions, Avithout mental, moral or religious culture.
 That, in my opinion,  was one of the predisposing causes of this man's insa-
 nity.   The  indulgence of the passions forms  a character that cannot brook
 control, subjects them to violent emotions, and thus lays the foundation of
 insanity in the passions and affections.
   At a very early age he was confined in the  State Prison, where  he had
 various troubles, and was  thought by some to  be a singular being, and, as
 some expressed it, a  brute. He was disobedient, and  for his  disobedience
 was punished  severely.   He got into a violent passion for very trivial causes;
 was apparently ready to kill a fellow convict for moving his shoes, and acted
 in  the  manner  I have been accustomed to  see crazy people  act.  In the
 prison he seems to have  become deaf.  Deafness, however, is not of itself a
 symptom of insanity, yet it is often a concomitant, and their combination
 forms incurable insanity.  When  combined, I have never known a patient
 to recover.  The reason probably is, that the same cause which destroys the
 hearing, or  affects the auditory nerve, extends also  to the brain itself.
   He then came out  of prison, and so far as I could gather from all  the tes-
 timony, he  was  changed.  He  was a lively, active, sociable lad Avhen he
 entered the prison, but was taciturn, dull and stupid when he came out, and
 as his mother expressed it, " he wasn't the same boy; he acted as if he didn't
 know any thing."  This  I regard as a characteristic of insanity.  So com-
 mon is this change of character in insanity, that many regard it as necessary
 to the definition of the term.  A prolonged change of character, without any
 evident external cause, is  given, in many works on insanity, as  a  charac-
 teristic ;  and the cases  are almost  innumerable where such changes have
 come within my own observation.  A mother loses her child, or a man meets
 with a reverse of fortune, or has something which has created great anxiety
 of mind; and  soon after, it is perceived that his character is changed ; not
 but that  he knoAvs people  as weU  as before, and  talks with them ;  not but
 that he has  memory; but he has become sad, gloomy and  unsociable, and
 without that interest in things which he  formerly had.  This state often ex-
 ists for weeks and months unperceived, unless by intimate friends, untU
 some  delusion, or other evidence of insanity, is observable, or some outbreak
 occurs.   Then all  notice what had been generally unobserved before—that
 a change had  taken place, and that the  person was  insane.   In this way in-
 sanity very commonly commences.  The change of character and of the
 moral qualities often precedes any perceptible derangement of the intellect
In the case at  the bar I think this change of character has been proved.
  I have observed, that we knew but very little of him whilst he was in the
 State  Prison.   Some of  the witnesses, however, noticed the change.  Dr. 
206
THE TRIAL OF
 Hermance, in conversing with him, thought him deranged.   Then he  had
 disturbed nights; often was  up in the night,  and was noisy.  Than that, I
 know of no better evidence of insanity.   So confident am I that sleeplessness
 is a characteristic of insanity, that I have spoken of it in a published article
 on insanity as one of its most indubitable symptoms; and that article, I no-
 tice, has been extensively copied and quoted.  I can  attest its truth from
 my own experience and observation of the insane.   It is true, that in some
 cases insane persons sleep well, but, in general, the  insane have paroxysms
 and are apt to get up nights.  I cannot account for the conduct of the pri-
 soner, in this respect, on  any other supposition  than that it  was the conse-
 quence  of disease, of which I have testified.
  His going to a magistrate for a warrant, without  any definite  notion for
 whom;  declaring that he would have  one, after he  had been told that it
 could not be issued; his tender of twenty-five cents; his getting into a pas-
 sion in the office of the magistrate; his inability to give any connected ac-
 count of the injury of Avhich he complained,  and for which he wanted the
 process,—all indicate an unnatural, if not  irrational, condition of mind.  We
 next come  to the act itself, for which he has been arrested and indicted.  It
 was a dreadful tragedy, and yet, as bloody as it was, and as deplorable as it
 may be, I cannot but  regard it as the result of insanity.  I cannot believe
that a sane man, in the full exercise of his intellect and moral feelings, could
 do such an act, unless the provocation was very great, or the  motive very
powerful and strong.   Similar cases have occurred in lunatic asylums, but
 I am not aware  that history records  any case of the kind happening else-
where.  Quite recently, a man killed two patients at the Baltimore Hos-
pital, and was endeavoring to massacre the whole of them.  He was so well
as to be about, when the sudden paroxysms came on him.  And the manner
of his doing it; the shedding of so much blood;  the killing more than could
have been necessary for any supposable purpose, and the celerity with which
it was done, all were  regarded as evidence of insanity.   I have always ob-
served that the insane act  much quicker than the sane.  They wUl tear their
clothes into inch pieces, destroy their beds, and break their bedsteads, in  a
 period of time so short, that one could not suppose  it possible for them to
have done it.
  In the case of Griffith, in Chenango county, for killing, the  witnesses
 expressed their astonishment at the quickness with which the deed was done.
 Here, in the case at the bar, the prisoner must have entered the house, went
 into different rooms, had some scuffles, killed four persons,  looked into va-
 rious windows, stolen  a horse, and rode it half a mile before Williamson had
 walked  that distance.   It seems as if he had planned and designed it, made
 preparation for its accomplishment, indicating the possession of mind that
some think incompatible with insanity.   Every day's observation,  however,
 convinces me that it ought not to be so regarded.  The insane are as adroit
in planning and  scheming  to get away, or in accomplishing their purpose, as 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
297
the sane.  The case bf Hadfield, for shooting the King, is in point.  He had
made a full and careful preparation,  had obtained  his pistols,  and delibe-
rately went to the theatre expressly to shoot the King.  So with a patient at
the Asylum at Utica, who had killed her father, and intended to kill her
mother.  She  prepared  every thing  beforehand.   I might refer to many
other cases, but the mention of these will illustrate my idea.
  That the prisoner undertook to escape,  seems to many to be  inconsistent
with insanity.   Yet, Avhen I see patients every day doing wrong  and adroitly
contriving to conceal it; when I know that they have done  the act; when I
know numerous cases where such insane persons try to escape after having
committed heinous offences, I do not think it ought to be so regarded.
  A man by the name of Thomas  Sanderson, from  Chautauque, now in the
Asylum, known by many to be insane, was left with a young man threshing
in a barn.  Whilst there,  he killed the young man, by stabbing  him more
than one hundred times with a pitchfork.   He then took up the boards and
buried him  under the floor, then took a horse and  fled, but was overtaken
by an officer, and, after a struggle, in which the officer was wounded, he was
arrested.  He is now  in my charge, at the Lunatic Asylum.   Since he has
been  there,  he has attempted to cut the  throat of a patient.  He eats by
himself.  We dare not trust him where there are any instruments with
which he  can  do  any injury  to others.   Rabello, in the  State  Prison of
Connecticut, whose case has been published, is another instance.   He kUled
a boy, and then ran off.   These cases show,  that, in the attempt  to escape,
there is nothing incompatible with insanity.
  Since the arrest of the prisoner at the bar, there have been various at-
tempts made to ascertain whether he is insane.  To many, the fact that he
remembers,  that he gives a rational  account of many things,  and repeats
them several times, carries the conviction that he is sane.   That appears to
be evidence to some that he has reason enough left to control his actions.
But to my mind that does not carry such a conviction.   Living, as  I do,
with those who exhibit as much intellect as any person in this  assembly;
whom I daily employ to write  letters, to paint portraits, to play on musical
instruments, to compose and deliver orations,  which would do credit to men
of learning and general  intelligence; and when I know these people are as
deranged on certain subjects as any person ever was, the fact that the pri-
soner remembers and  repeats,  does not  carry conviction to my mind that he
is sane. But the prisoner does not either  remember or repeat well.  He is
dull, and stupid, and ignorant, and has but little intellect of any kind.  And
I think every  one must have been struck with the fact, that all  who have
examined him have found it necessary  to come down to simple  questions in
their  examinations—to putting questions which we would not think of put-
ting to a man  we considered sane.   Such questions as " will you settle for
this watch ?" as put by Dr. Bigelow,  and  others who have testified on this 
298
THE TRIAL OF
trial.   Such questions seem to indicate, that the persons interrogating the
prisoner considered him a mere child in intellect
  I agree with Dr. Spencer, that his pulse furnishes no evidence one way or
the other.  WhUst many insane persons have a very rapid pulse, that of oth-
ers is too slow for ordinary health.  The rapid changes, however, from sixty-
seven to one hundred and twenty,  betoken  something not exactly healthy.
It indicates that nervous irritability alluded to by the doctor, which we see
among the insane.  It is not itself insanity; yet nervous irritabiHty  is akin
to it, as a disease  of the nervous system is insanity.  The prisoner never asks
a question, except for food,  for tobacco,  or about  his wound.   He has not
asked for or about his mother, nor about any other person.  Unless I sup-
pose him bereft, by disease, of all those feelings, hopes and fears  which every
one in a natural state possesses, I know not how to explain this.  It is,  how-
ever, so characteristic of cases of this kind,  that it adds to my conviction of
his insanity.  Klelm, who kUled a woman in New York, and was sent to the
Asylum above two years ago, always answers readily, but never  asks a ques-
tion on any subject whatever.
  The prisoner seems entirely indifferent to his fate, and yet has strong ani-
mal appetites—he asks for tobacco, yet apparently cares nothing for his trial.
His total indifference I cannot account for on  any other supposition  than
that it is the  consequence of his disease.  His counting and reading ig an-
other circumstance worthy of notice ;  not, however, because he cannot count
or read, but for the  reason that when he counts beyond twenty-eight he ap-
pears just as confident that he is counting right above that number as below
it.  The same thing has been noticed of his reading; and the surprise is that
he does not knoAV that he cannot read.   A chUd may do this;  but when it
gets older, although it may practice it, it knows it is not reading.  The pri-
soner's insensibility  to pain has been  mentioned by the medical gentleman
who dressed his wounded  arm.   On dressing  it, Dr. Fosgate has observed
that he exhibited  no feeling—that he seemed to pay no attention to it.   Al-
though many insane persons are  sensible to pain, others are not.  We put
setons into their necks, and perform  other operations upon them, and they
perform  them on themselves. When the wounds are being dressed they
show no  suffering.  I had a female patient at the Asylum who would not
eat.  We fed her  with a stomach tube.  To resist us she sewed up her mouth
strongly.  I cut the stitches out, but when doing it she exhibited no  more
feeling than if I had been at work on a piece of leather.  And yet the lips,
in health, are very sensitive to pain.
  The external appearance of the prisoner  in his cell, and as he sits at the
bar, carries the same conviction to my mind that it does to the minds of Doc-
tors McCall and Coventry.  His total indifference—his abject and demented
appearance, and his peculiar laugh, which all must have seen, although no
one could imitate it, which comes on when  nothing is going on that he ap- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
299
 pears to notice, are indicative of mental disease.   In the jail, when inquired
 of about the offence which he had committed, he laughed ; and Avhen I asked
 him if he was not ashamed of himself, he laughed again.   In court I have
 observed it Avhen there Avas nothing to excite it, so far as I could  discover,
 and yet I have observed him very attentively.  Some have thought it not a
 Httle strange that he  should  smile under the circumstances in Avhich he is
 now placed, and yet they do not recognize it as an indication of a diseased
 mind.  Now, Avhen I see this every day, in demented persons at the Lunatic
 Asylum, and particularly on the Sabbath, Avhen clergymen are preaching to
 us, I conclude that it results from disease.   I knoAV nothing in physiology or
 pathology that accounts for it, and yet I am in the habit of seeing it, although
 I have never heard it explained.
   I think, from the testimony, it may safely be concluded that soon after the
 prisoner went to the  State Prison,  or about that time, he became a little
 deranged; that like most insane people, his mental condition varied;  that
 he was sometimes  calm for months, and then  excited  and more under the
 influence of deranged feelings—more  of a derangement of the passions and
 feelings,  than of the  intellect, at first; that the intellect finally took up the
 delusion, and under that delusion he tried to  get pay.  With the intellect
 that he had, he, after he left the State Prison, tried to  grope about and get
 redress for supposed wrongs, and community not paying him as he supposed
 they ought, he committed this awful deed, under the strange delusion that if
 he killed around a while, as he tried to express it, they AA'ould pay him.  He
 may not have had any definite object in view, as insane delusions are often
 not clear, but dim and varying.
   At any stage of this remarkable case, had it been submitted to me, I should
 have admitted him into the Asylum as a patient, and should have assured
 those who brought him that his case was incurable.  He is a most dangerous
 being, and  ought never to be permitted  to go at large again for a single
 hour.  His pulse indicates that something is the matter Avith him.  His flight
 is not any evidence to  my mind, one way or the other.  His eating at the
 time of his arrest, s'ioavs such a state of insensibility as characterizes the In-
 sane.  He has got into a state of approaching dementia. It is not however
 complete, as in case of a total loss of the faculties of the mind.
   There is nothing mysterious about insanity Avhen considered as a disease
 of the brain.  It is such a disease; and I have never seen a case Avhere, after
 death, marks of disease could not be found.  It is, in common parlance, said
 to be a disease of the mind.  But the  mind is immaterial—if material, the
 mind would die.  Being connected with the brain, whenever the brain be-
 comes diseased, the mind becomes disordered just as the stomach becomes
diseased when the digestion is bad.  The brain is one of the most delicate
organs of life, and the least affected by remedies of all.
  In ansAver to the question relating to the authority of writers, I may say 
300
THE TRIAL OF
that Dr. Ray is very high authority, and Esquirol has had great experience.
Both are very high authority on the subjects upon which they wrote.
   Cross Examination.—I was examined in respect to the prisoner on the
trial of the preliminary issue.  I then said I believed  him insane.  As to
medical authors, I think Esquirol the highest authority on the treatment of
the insane.  He devoted about forty years to the treatment of the insane in
one of the greatest institutions in Paris.  There have been some improve-
ments on  his system. Dr. Beck is also very  high  authority on medical
jurisprudence.  Taylor is pretty good authority as far  as  he goes.  He is
professor in one of the Medical  Colleges in London.  Beck is a professor,
and resides at Albany.
   Q.  What are the symptoms of dementia ?
   A.  The loss of some of the powers of the mind.
   Q.  How does it affect the memory ?
   A.  In dementia  there is sometimes a loss of memory  and sometimes not
In complete dementia all is lost.
   Q.  Hoav is it with  attention ?
   A.  Attention is usually lessened.
   Q.  Hoav is it with  the senses ?
   A.  As a general rule, there is no great impairment of the senses.
   Q.  How is it with  the eye in particular ?
   A.  It is sometimes affected, but sometimes it is not
   Q.  How is it with  the coherency  of the patient ?
   A.  Those who are partiaUy demented, sometimes exhibit no incoherence,
yet sometimes they do.
   Q.  Is dementia common to young or old people ?
   A.  To old people we apply the term, senile dementia.
   Q.  Is that the most common form ?
   A.  I think it is not.
   Q.  Is loss of memory so common  that dementia and  forgetfulness are
sometimes considered synonomous ?                 >
   A.  I do not know but  they are used by some writers as synonomous
terms.  I do not so use them.
   Q.  What do you call the dementia of the prisoner ?
   A.  Partial dementia.   Most of his mental powers have partiaUy decayed.
   Q.  Which of them ?
   A.  I should think his memory and attention.
   Q.  When could he remember better than now ?
   A.  I suppose he could remember better than now, when he went to the
State  Prison ?
   Q.  Who swore to that ?
   A.  I may not be able to name them, yet witnesses have sworn that he
was a smart, bright, active boy. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
301
   Q. When was he more attentive than now,  making an aUowance for his
 deafness ?
   A. I don't know that there is any positive testimony relating to his at-
 tention before he went to prison ; yet from all I have learned of him, I con-
 clude that it was better then than it has been since.
   Q. Do you  agree with those who call the prisoner's difficulty monomania ?
   A. I think he had homicidal monomania.
   Q. Do you think  he had  homicidal monomania when he killed  those
 people ?
   A. That is my opinion.
   Q. What are the symptoms of that disease ?
   A. Any insanity is called homicidal, when connected with homicide.
   Q. How many cases of that kind have you ever seen ?
   A. A great number.  I have had several under my own care.
   Q. Do you reckon in this class every crazy man who ever kUled any
 body?
   A. I do, where the kilHng was done during the existence of insanity.
   Q. Hoav many homicidal monomaniacs get cured ?
   A. Three women have been cured,'or considered  so by their friends, and
 were taken away against my advice.  I do not believe they  ever get per-
 fectly cured.
   Q. What does Esquirol say of such cases ?
   A. I believe that he says that they become raving  maniacs and die.
  , Q. Is homicidal monomania preceded by any symptom ?
   A. It is  sometimes a sudden impulse.
   Q. Is it  possible to tell when it is cured ?
   A. Yes; but it is impossible to say whether it may not come on again.
   Q. Have you any law that enables you to  keep in the  Asylum a man
 pronounced by twelve jurors sane ?
   A. I know of none.
   Q. If this jury should  acquit the prisoner, and  he should be cured to-
 morrow, could you keep him in the Asylum ?
   A. There is a law  in  relation  to  insane  criminals acquitted; passed
 April 7, 1842.
   Q. Do you think there is any law to keep a dangerous man, who is  sane,
 in the Asylum ?
   A. I think a man who had killed another, and should be acquitted on the
 ground of insanity, ought not to be permitted to go at large.
   Q. When examined before, did you state you considered the proceedings
 to get a warrant evidence of insanity ?
   A. I cannot say how I expressed myself, yet the proceedings before Esq.
Bostwick made some impression on my mind.
   Q. Do you think you are a better judge than he is whether the prisoner
 was insane  then ? 
302
THE TRIAL OF
   A. I would  not  have the jury attach much importance to any opinion I
 may give in such Httle matters.   The jury can judge of them.
   Q. Do you consider yourself a better judge than Esq. BostAvick ?
   A. I think I can judge of it better than one who has observed it less.
   Q. What do you say of ordinary physicians ?
   A. Ordinary people and physicians Avho have but little experience on the
 subject, could not judge so well in doubtful cases as one more experienced.
   Q. What was there in the prisoner's appUcation for a warrant, denoting
 insanity ?
   A. His going into the office and then not being  able to give a consistent
 and connected account as to what he wanted, was some evidence of de-
 rangement.
   Q. Suppose  the jury  find that he did make a consistent statement ?
   A. If his statement were rational and consistent it would not, of course,
 prove any thing one way or the other.
   Q. In the progress of this investigation have you been unbiassed ?
   A. I have been as  anxious to  find this man sane as insane.
   Q. Have you been as anxious to satisfy yourself of sanity as insanity ?
   A. If there  is a man in the world who should be anxious that this man
should be put out of the  world it is myself.   But,  notwithstanding the horror
of having this man come into my family, I cannot swear  differently from
what I have.   I could not ever have another happy day.
   Q. Where a man has a physical disease, does  it not manifest itself by
physical symptoms ?
   A.  Where the  mind is diseased it always manifests itself by some symp-
tom, I suppose.
   Q.  Did you  testify before, that  insane people  in the Asylum paint por-
traits, write letters, orations, &c. ?
   A.  We have patients  that paint, write letters,  and orations;  we have la-
dies who paint flowers and play on the piano.  Last July we had an oration
from one insane person,  and a poem from another.
   Q.  Did you state that some of their orations would do credit to statesmen ?
   A.  I probably did, for some of their efforts are very creditable indeed.
   Q.  You spoke of  this dreadful crime  indicating  insanity.   Suppose I
should take this knife and kill one of the jurors, what would you say of my
sanity or insanity ?                             *
  A.  If you should get up and kill him and then  sit down, in the absence of
any other circumstance, I should  think you insane.
   Q.  Suppose  I were to teU you that I was going  to do it, and the juror
should apply to a magistrate to bind me over, and then I should do it, would
you swear that I were insane ?
   A.  That might or might  not vary my opinion.
   Q.  If I should go out and steal one hundred doUars, and  then come in
again and sit down, would you swear I was insane ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
302
  A.  Such a circumstance would, in you, indicate insanity.
  Q.  If I should take a gun and shoot into the jury box, and kill six of the
jurors, would you say that I was insane ?
  A.  I ansAver as before.
  Q.  If I should go down to the raUroad bridge and saw off the posts, would
you swear that I was insane ?
  A.  I think I should.
  Q.  Why would you swear so ?
  A.  Because it would be so contrary to your character  and what I have
known of it.
  Q.  Then if I do an act that you  regard as being contrary to my charac-
ter, and you can see no motive for the act, you would swear I was insane ?
  A.  It Avould indicate insanity.
  Q.  Why do you say there has been a change in the prisoner ?
  A.  I obtained that opinion from the testimony.
  Q.  Whose  testimony ?
  A.  That of the mother of the prisoner, Winner, Warden, Deborah De
Puy, and Adam Gray.  They say they noticed a change.
  Q.  Then you didn't believe John De Puy ?
  A.  I do not say that I did not believe some of his testimony.  I did not
rely on it as much as upon other testimony.
  Q.  Did you hear Deborah De Puy, and did you base your testimony on
her statement ?
  A.  I did believe her.
  Q.  Do you take the character and standing of the witnesses into conside-
ration ?
  A.  I do;  and I do believe she knew of the change.
  Q.  Do you beHeve the prisoner's mother ?
  A.  I do.
  Q.  Don't you believe the mother, who is  a common drunkard, to be  un-
safe evidence?
  A.  No; if drunkards were never to be beHeved a great many would not
be permitted to testify.
  Q.  If this boy has  lived here twenty-one years, don't  you beHeve there
are more reputable persons who can prove a change in him, if a change has
taken place ?
  A.  No, sir; I don't think I have heard any one who has paid that atten-
tion which I should think requisite.  Warden, however, noticed a change at
the time.
  Q.  Suppose we bring twenty men who had known him all his life, and
who should swear that there has been no change ?
  A.  If they knew him, and had lived with  him, and  noticed him, I might
think  differently; if they hadn't noticed the change I  should not place
as much reliance upon their testimony as if they had. 
304
THE TRIAL OF
   Q.  Do you think his smile is evidence of insanity ?
   A.  I do.
   Q.  Do you think the smile  has been accounted for by other witnesses ?
   A.  I do not.
   Q.  Do you beHeve the prisoner could have been Insane in the State Pri-
son so long without it being found out that  he was crazy ?
   A.  I think the opportunities there not such as to be most likely to detect
it.
   Q.  Do you beHeve this man could have been undergoing this remarkable
change  without its being found out ?
   A.  I don't know how many cases of insanity there are in the State Prison,
nor hoAv observant the keepers are.  From what I know of the management
there, I think he might be there five years and his keepers not find it out.
It don't appear  that he was under one keeper all the while.
   Q.  You  have stated that his  uncle and  aunt were crazy.   Suppose we
should prove that his aunt was Hquor crazy ?
   A.  The insane are usually fond of Hquor, and many people are not insane
when  liquor is taken away from them.
   Q.  Suppose we should prove that his uncle Sidney is perfectly  harmless,
would that have any effect upon your opinion ?
   A.  That would not diminish my  confidence much; because where insan-
ity prevails in the family, it may differ in its appearance, and the  subjects
of it, in character.
   Q.  Suppose we prove that his grandfather smiled as he does, would that
have any effect?
   A.  I don't believe any such smile as his was inherited, except by disease.
   Q.  You seem to think the celerity of the act and the number of the peo-
ple killed was evidence of insanity ?
   A.  Yes,  sir.   If he had killed Van Nest, only, I  should have thought it
more probable that the  prisoner had had some controversy Avith him.  But
his shedding so much more blood than could be necessary for any supposable
purpose, and without any motives, I think indicates insanity.
   Q.  Suppose his purpose was revenge ?
   A.  I cannot think he kiUed the child for revenge.
   Q.  Suppose he wanted to exterminate the race and escape detection, af-
ter plundering the house ?
   A.  I think he would not have slain the child even for plunder.
   Q.  Suppose it should be proved that he said he  kUled the child lest it
should make a noise ?
   A.  I don't know as that would vary my opinion any.
   Q.  This man is part Indian ?
   A.  I suppose so, but I  have not attached much  importance to that, al-
though some, perhaps, might.
   Q.  Have  you heard of Indian massacres ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
305
    A.  I have; yet in many cases they have occurred Avhilst fighting for their
 country.
    Q.  Were they fighting for their country at Wyoming and Deerfield ?
    A.  Not always; yet when they Avere not they had an object in view.  I
 think they were fighting for their country at Pleasant Valley.
    Q.  Is insanity contagious ?
    A.  In some of its forms I think it has been contagious.
    Q.  Is homicidal insanity contagious ?
    A.  I don't think that form of insanity is; yet I am always sorry to hear
 of one case for fear that it will induce others to imitate it.  In that way it
 may, perhaps, be called  contagious.
    Q.  Is suicide contagious.
    A.  I think it was in the French army, until Napoleon put a stop to it.
    Q.  Are hysterics contagious ?
    A.  They seem to be catching.
    Q.  Did you ever hear of an insane man who was slow in the act of com-
 mitting murder ?
    A.  I have heard of cases where  the murder  was not rapidly  executed.
 Where  they kill with a knife, I suppose it is usually done quickly.  I don't
 know as there is any insanity in the celerity, but I think an insane man will
 do a thing quicker than a sane man can.
    Q.  Is a  Avant of moral culture a common cause of depravity as well as
 insanity ?
   A.  It is.
   Q.  Wherein is the distinction ?
   A.  The one is a vice, and the other a disease.
   Q.  Can you always tell Avhether one or the other exists ?
   A.  It is often difficult to tell where depravity ends and insanity begins.
   Q.  About restless nights.  Is there any proof of them in this case ?
   A.  I think there is.   DePuy and Winner testified of them.
   Q.  Can you tell whether they were caused by insanity or liquor ?
   A.  I  can't positively tell; but according to my observation, when a per-
 son in liquor gets to sleep he is Hkely to sleep sound, and is not very likely
 to get  up.
   Q.  Don't restless nights immediately precede the offence ?
   A.  Well, I don't know as to that; I should think they might,  or mi<>bt
 not
   Q.  Suppose the evidence  shows that eA-er since the murder he  has had
 sleepy nights, Avhat then ?
   A. I don't think that Avould alter my opinion ; for generally after such an
 act, a calmness succeeds.
   Q. If it were  in proof that liquor made the prisoner disquiet and sleep-
less, and that he had been drinking  when the  sleepless nights occurred,
would not his sleeplessness indicate rum rather than insanity ?
                     20 * 
306
THE TRIAL OF
  A.  I think they indicate insanity, not rum.
  Q.  Your first inquiry was whether he feigned  insanity.  Was there any
occasion ilftr feigning insanity until the plea was put in ?
  A.  The feigning, I always consider an important fact to be ascertained at
any time.  If he had made up his mind to feign insanity, he might  have
feigned before the plea.
  Q.  Would not the safest evidence be what he did, instead of what he
said ?
  A.  I should not take declarations, alone,  as they might be more easUy
feigned than actions.
  Q,  About a motive.   Was not the case of Green, who poisoned his wife,
a thousand times more aggravated than this ?
  A.  I cannot  say that it was.  Certainly there were not as many Hves
taken.
  Q.  I mean in respect to the motive.   There  was no motive found for
that act.
  A.  I had  supposed that there was, until you informed me to the contrary.
I recoUect of reading that case, and that I thought there were no indications
of insanity in Green.
  Q.   Suppose  you had known that there was no motive for that murder,
would that have shown insanity ?
  A.  WeU, I have said the absence of motive is a  fact bearing on the
question.
  Q.  Did you  suspect that Green was insane ?
  A.  No, Sir.
   Q.  What is  an insane delusion ?
'  A.  An insane delusion is the mistaking fancies for realities,  where the
patient cannot be reasoned out of them.
   Q.  Suppose I should get an insane delusion that one of the jurors owed
me and should kUl him, would you swear I was insane ?
   A.  I should think that you were.
   Q.  Suppose I should be told  that a witness had sworn against me in a
 civU suit, and that the witness had  destroyed my case, and I should go and
kUl him,  what would you say to that ?
   A.  I should want to know how correctly you were informed.
   Q.  Suppose I should be  informed by Gov. Seward, who  was counsel in
 the case ?
   A. If it was him who told you so, and you believed it, and the suit in-
 volved a large amount, I should think you not insane.
   Q. Suppose the suit were upon a note, and the witness sAvore to my hand
 writing only ?
   A. If the suit were a small one,  I should think that you must have been
 insane.
   Q. What is the difficulty in telling whether black people are sick or not ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
307
  A.  We do not see but few colored persons who are insane, and therefore
cannot teU as well.  I never could so well tell what ailed a colored person
as a white one, and my experience is that they are more apt to«die  when
they are sick, than whites.
  Q.  Does the fact that  this man asked no questions, make any difference
with your opinion ?
  A.  Yes, Sir.
  Q.  Do you find that by the evidence in the case ?
  A.  For the  most part I do, yet I found by my examination that he did
not.   One would suppose, however, he would feel some anxiety about his
trial,  and would inquire about it.
  Q.  Why do you believe he does not ask any questions ?
  A.  He  never has asked  me a question,  and yet I have seen him a good
many times.  I thought it very strange that he did not.
  Q.  You say he is not sorry.  Have you heard the  evidence of the magis-
trate to whom he applied for a warrant ?
  A.  I think his evidence does not show that he felt any remorse.  I know
that he sometimes admitted that he did wrong.  I suppose he knoAvs that it
is wrong to commit murder,  but I do not think when he kUled Van Nest
that he knew it was wrong to kill him.
  Q.  About his going out of the county  and about being revenged.  Did
you ever hear more sensible talk than that ?
  A.  I have;  and although I have heard sane people  talk of revenge, I
still think the prisoner was crazy.
  Dr. John McCall,  called and sworn, testified:   I am President of the
Medical Society of the State.   I have seen the prisoner at the bar, and have
examined him in reference to his sanity.  I came here before the jury in
this  case  was empanneled.   I have not  heard all the testimony, but the
greater part of it. From personal observation, and also from the testimony,
I am of the opinion that the prisoner at the bar, is insane.   I have no reason-
able doubt of it.   I visited him twice in the jail, and put to him a variety of
questions  about himself and the  murder.  I asked him why he killed the
people.  He replied  that he had been in the State  Prison, and that they
owed him.  I asked  who.  He  said,  " They." I could not gather Avho he
referred to.  I asked if he were not sorry—once he  said No, and once " I
don't know."  His answers were all short, and to obtain them, I was obliged
to prompt him, and to speak very loud.  When I asked him why he killed
the child, his reply was, " Don't know."   When I asked him if this family
had done  him any injury, he said No.   I asked if he would have kUled any
one else whom he might have met.   He replied Yes.
  One morning, during the  preliminary trial, I asked where he had been
the day before.   After hesitating some time, he  said, " In court."   I asked
him for Avhat purpose he Avas in court.  He said, " Don't know."   I asked
who he saw there.  After hesitating some time, he  said, "Mr. Doubleday.". 
308
THE  TRIAL OF
I asked Avhat they Avere doing there.  After a feAV moments he said, " S'pose
trying to find out 'bout the horse."  I asked if he could read, and he said
Yes;  but after trying him, I found that he could not.  He smiled as he does
here in the court room.  I asked him if he knew he was on trial.   He said,
" Don't know."   I asked him if he didn't know that he was on trial for kill-
ing those people. After a feAV moments he answered, " S'pose so."   I asked
him if he had counsel.  He said, " Don't know."  I asked him if he didn't
think he would  be hung for kilHng that family.  He replied, " Don't think
on't"  I asked if he knew what swearing a witness meant.  He said, " For
trouble."  I repeated the question, thinking that he didn't understand me.
He gave the same answer,  " For trouble."   I asked him if he Avere well, and
had enough to eat.  He said Yes.
  At  first I did not know but that he might be feigning insanity, but subse-
quent examinations satisfied me that he Avas not.  He has not intellect enough,
in my opinion, to feign insanity.  His brain is diseased.  I cannot say when
it commenced, or what its first manifestation  was. It has, in my opinion,
been coming on  gradually, and from the testimony, I conclude  that it com-
menced in the  State Prison.    It is very evident  to  me that his  deafness
came  upon him whilst there.  He Avas struck on the head, or side of the
head,  whilst in the prison, and that may have  occasioned the deafness, and
the  same injury may have  extended to the brain.  It is impossible  to say,
from the testimony, when his brain at first became  diseased.   In some cases,
inflammation, which destroys the hearing, produces disease of the brain.
  The evidence  shows that the prisoner has had no  education, instruction,
or training.   His means of acquiring an understanding of the duties to him-
self and society, have been very limited.  When, as in this case, there seems
to have been but little intellect, and the  propensities and passions are left
unrestrained, there is always danger that insanity will sooner or later occur.
In my opinion that, together with the blow on his  head, has been the cause
of insanity in the prisoner.  He was predisposed to it from the first, as it had
been in the family;  or at least, there was a hereditary tendency to the dis-
ease.   That being so, causes that Avould not haA'e produced insanity in others,
had a more immediate and powerful effect  upon him.
  I think that he committed the murder under an insane delusion, and by
impulse.  The same  impulse  was in gome degree  manifested in the  prison,
when he attacked the officer,  and when he struck  the convict who removed
the shoes, at Avhom  he threw a stick of Avood.  He seems to have  thought
that he had been wrongfully imprisoned,  and  that he was entitled  to pay.
The delusion about pay, it seems, gained an ascendancy 0A-er his mind, until
it became the predominant feeling, and under an impulse he killed Van Nest
and his family.  He believed that he Avas  entitled to pay from somebody—
that it was due him.  That Avas the delusion under which he labored, and
did, when I saw him.  His visiting his friends but seldom, when he  came out
of prison; his stupor, silly smile, and taciturnity,  when he did; his  getting 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
309
 up nights, and his talking to himself, all corroborate the opinion that he Avas
 insane.
   In regard to his getting his knives in open day light, and preparing them,
 I can only say that those facts go to show that he did  not wish to conceal
 them.  As to the evidence furnished by the dreadful act itself, I agree with
 Dr. Brigham entirely and fully.  His  going to a house where people lived,
 against Avhom  he could have no purpose of revenge, or discoverable motive
 for killing them all, is to my mind strong evidence of insanity.  Perhaps if
 he had only killed Van  Nest, there Avould have been less evidence of  de-
 rangement ; but the murdering of a whole family, and among them  a little
 child, is a fact that shows to me that he must have been insane.  Indeed, his
 object seems to have been to kill, and that if he had met any body else he
 Avould have killed him or them.  He didn't want plunder.   He took noth-
 ing, nor did he try to take any thing from the house, or from the pockets of
 \ an Nest.  The circumstances  attending his departure to Schroeppel, and
 his arrest by Amos, go in corroboration of the same opinion.  His statements
 about the liver, and confessions  generally, are eA'idence of unsoundness,  be-
 cause it is not probable at all that Van Nest said any such thing to him.
   I think he has no just conception of the enormity of his crime, nor  any
 just moral feeling on the subject;  nor is his indifference to this trial  the in-
 difference of a sane mind.   His personal appearance, deportment and smUe
 are those of a person partially demented, and who is approaching dementia.
 He has some memory, but very little knowledge or  understanding.  He is
 not totally, but is partially demented, and is laboring under a delusion.  1
 think he became insane  in  the State Prison, and was insane at the time of
 the homicide.  He undoubtedly  acted under an irresistible influence, or de-
 lusion, when he committed the offence, for Avhich he ought not to be held re-
 sponsible.
   Cross Examination.—I was sworn on the preliminary trial of this pri-
 soner.  I don't know as I was less confident of his insanity then  than I  am
 noAv.  I then formed that opinion, and I am yet confident that it Avas cor-
 rect.  I have discovered no change.   The external evidences of his insanity
 are found in his general manners, the expression of his countenance, and the
 idiotic smile.  I AArould look at his eyes also, as they make up the general ex-
 pression of a crazy man.   The movement of this man's eye is unnatural.  It
 moA-es rapidly, and generally upAvard, but sometimes clownAvard.  There is
 not much intelligence expressed by his eye ; it rather denotes insanity.  The
moving of his eye alone,  would not be evidence of his insanity, unaccompa-
 nied by other circumstances; all must be taken together.  His head does not
denote intelligence or moral  qualities.   His head, in the region of the brain,
is smaller than that of persons of his  age Avho are healthy.   His Avhole head
is smaller than a  healthy man of his age.  It is smaller than Doctor Brig-
ham's or the attorney general's.   His body inclines forward and sometimes
sidewise.   His general attitude is unnatural; his arms are rather elevated. 
310
THE TRIAL OF
 I don't think his leaning forward is because he is trying to hear, because he
 does so when there is nothing to hear.  His position is peculiar to demented
 patients.  In the strict sense of the term I should not consider insanity con-
 tagious, yet at times it is epidemic.  It sometimes  appears epidemic on the
 coming on of warm weather.  There is such a term used as cleptomania, and
 I think it may  exist with him.
   Before going to prison there might have  been some aberration in him.
 Stealing hens might have been whilst laboring under a slight aberration, yet
 I should  not think so.   This prisoner's case is one that could not be des-
 cribed by any  one  term mentioned in the books.   I have read of simUar
 ones, but cannot find one exactly like it.  I  do not think as well of the
 classification of insanity by Hale and Blackstone, as I do of that of Dr.  Brig-
 ham.  The  prisoner's delusion is  an  irresistible impulse.   The difference
 between this delusion and obstinacy, is, that some part of the understanding
 is  deranged in this, but not in obstinacy.   This prisoner does not know
 what craziness is.  He does  not know that he is crazy.   No logic would
 convince me that he is sane.  I did not infer from Winner's testimony, that
 the prisoner had  been drinking.  If he had  killed Van Nest only, I said I
 should not have thought him insane, yet I don't know  that he had any  other
 motive to kill the rest than he had him.
   The capacity of  our ordinary  physicians to judge of insanity,  depends
 upon their experience and their learning; the practice is to send the insane
 patients to the Asylum.  If physicians have no opportunity to treat  cases
 of insanity, their ability to judge  is limited.   I should think in a clear case
 of insanity Hke this, an ordinary physician could judge and discover it.  A
 man not  a physician would not be able  to,  perhaps.  He  might form an
 opinion, but it  would not be as safe or satisfactory as the opinion of others.
   Re-Examination.—A  verdict of  a jury in this case,  that the prisoner
 was sufficiently sane to know right from wrong, I do not consider a verdict
 of sanity.   It falls far short of it.
   Dr. Charles B.  Coventry, called and sworn, testified: I reside in
 the city of Utica, and am Professor in Geneva Medical College.   I  have
 seen the  prisoner and  have heard the testimony respecting him. I was
 sworn on the preliminary trial. My opinion then was, and still is, that the
 prisoner  is  insane, and has been for a considerable period of time.   His
 whole  appearance and  maimer indicate it.   His  acts as detailed by wit-
 nesses indicate it.   The testimony in the case all taken together, convinces
 me beyond a doubt.  As to the causes of his insanity, I find that the exis-
 tence of it  in  his family was one probable cause,  the neglect of all moral
 culture another,  and his confinement in the State  Prison  another.   Since
 his release from the State  Prison it appears that he has been laboring under
 a delusion that he Avas entitled to  pay.  His open and undisguised prepara-
 tion of the instruments, without any attempt at concealment,  is not consis-
t ent Avith a rational mind.   The act, being without  any assignable motive, is 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
311
 also inconsistent, for I cannot conceive It  possible  that a sane man should
 go forth  and commit such a butchery without any reason whatever.   If
 he were sane, he must have known that the  probable result would be his
 arrest and punishment   His belief that he can read when  he cannot, is
 another evidence of delusion.  His indifference when on a trial for his life,
 is another reason for believing him insane.
   I think the prisoner's case is one of partial mania  with dementia.  De-
 mentia, as the term is used, exists  where those  faculties that once existed
 had become impaired.  In perfect dementia there is a perfect loss of all the
 powers of the mind.  Dementia may come suddenly, but generally comes
 gradually.   It is a common termination of mania.  If the mania is  partial
 the dementia is partial, and depending upon which of the faculties that have
 been injured.  At the time of  the murder, I  believe  the  prisoner's  disease
 was more of  a mania than dementia, and  that he had perhaps more intel-
 ligence than now, yet I don't believe,  in reference  to the act he committed,
 that he knew the difference between  right and  wrong.   I  think from his
 appearance that he is insane now.  I examined him in the jail, but can state
 but Httle  that has not been stated by other witnesses.  As to his flio-ht from
 the place of homicide, I  suppose it was not contemplated until he found
 himself disabled.  From the facts in the case so  far as I have heard them,
 I am not  able to say that the delusion was upon him until he came out of
 prison, yet it might  have existed before.   I  did not hear the  testimony of
 Green.  I cannot say I have doubt of  his insanity  then or at this time.
 [Last sentence ruled out]
   I never knew an insane person, unless he was totally deprived of intellect,
 who could not distinguish between right  and Avrong.  Insanity may exist
 where the patient can distinguish betAveen right and Avrong.   This is illus-
 trated by a man  who killed his child and the  child  of his wife, and  said it
 was because God had commanded him.  He could distinguish between rio-ht
 and wrong in other things.  Where insanity is feigned, ordinarily,  the an-
 swers are irrelevant and  wandering, and oftentimes evasive.   I have made
 insanity a subject of particular attention and study.  At  my second inter-
 view with the prisoner,  I became fully satisfied that he was insane on the
 twelfth of March.
  Q. Do  you consider an ordinary man capable of judging of insanity ?
  A. I think he would not be able so Avell to judge,  for the same reason that
 a man who had not studied law could not as Avell judge of legal questions as
one Avho had.
  Q.  What is insanity ?
  A.  It is very difficult to give a full definition of insanity in  one Avord;  it
is a symptom of disease of the brain.
  Q.  Is a man who is not sane, insane ?
  A.  Yes; but that Avould not be a good definition.   It is true that  every 
312
THE TRIAL OF
insane man is not sane, yet insane men differ.  Insanity is to be denned oth-
erwise than by a categorical answer to a question.
  Q.  Do you agree Avith Doctor Brigham in relation to this case ?
  A.  In general I do.
  Q.  Do you define dementia as  he does ?
  A.  Substantially.
  Q.  Do you think the prisoner has cleptomania ?
  A.  I think he has almost a total abolition of moral faculties, yet his is not
strictly a case of moral insanity, because his intellect is impaired, and his
moral faculties entirely gone.
  Q.  Do you think you can form as good an opinion as to what took place
before the justice in respect to the insanity of the prisoner, as he could ?
  A.  I think I can.
  Q.  What do you say about his delusion ?
  A.  That he was under  a delusion that he was entitled to  pay and could
obtain it  by murder.
  Q.  Are you aware that a large number of convicts have the same notion ?
  A.  I never heard of it before this trial commenced, and now I do not be-
lieve that it is a general delusion that prisoners beHeve themselves entitled
to pay, and that they can get it by murder.
  Q.  If it can be shoAvn to be general, Avould it change your opinion respect-
ing the delusion ?
  A.  It would not make  any difference in my opinion as to this case, and I
would believe that insanity existed in other cases if they beHeved  Avhat this
man did,* precisely.
  Q.  How do you distinguish between a mistake and a delusion ?
  A.  In some cases it would be difficult to draAv  the distinction, but where
the person imagines impossible things, which he kneAV did not exist, it Avould
be regarded as a delusion.
  Q.  If a man think he  is entitled to pay, but  cannot get it because he  is
not entitled to it, and seek redress, -will that be  evidence  that he is insane ?
  A.  Ifa man should  think himself entitled to pay, and failing to  get re-
dress, should kill the first man he meets, it would be some evidence of insanity.
  Q.  Would kilHng in such a case be murder ?
  A.  I think it Avould not.
  Q.  Suppose the laAv made it murder ?
  A.  It would not be murder in fact.
  Q.  Does delusion always shoAV a loss of memory ?
  A.  No sir; if you should imagin<?*yourself governor, it would  not  shoAV
any impairment of memory.   As, for instance, the man who  signed  himself
Jesus Christ  in France.
  Q.  Now can you imagine a case of insane delusion Avithout a loss of me-
mory ?.'? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
313
   A.  Yes ;  and the case mentioned is an instance.
   Q.  Do you  not believe that the prisoner thought he was doing wrong
 when he kiUed Van Nest ?
                                  t
   A.  He said he did not think any thing about it, and such is my belief.
   Q.  Did you say that the fact that there was no concealment of his knives
 indicated insanity ?
   A.  I think I did so state.
   Q.  If he had shown secrecy would that have indicated sanity ?
   A.  So far as it went it would indicate sanity rather than insanity.
   Q.  Noav,  hoAv was the fact in this case, as you understand it ?
   A.  That he openly fitted his knife into a club, in a public  shop.
   Q.  Suppose he turned his back and concealed the fitting ?
   A.  I cannot believe that any sane man Avould  thus openly make his pre-
 parations for a homicide, yet insane men do sometimes conceal.
   Q.  Can you conceive that a person should commit murder from revenge ?
   A.  I can.                                         v'-. /  ■         ^.i*"'}'
   Q.  Is not revenge a sufficient motive ?                            f ^
   A.  It may induce the act, but it is a reason that would not be adequate
 to a man of sound moral sense.
   Q.  Why did he not, in your opinion, finish his work after he had begun ?
   A.  My view of the matter is that he desisted because his arm was wounded.
 So far as he  had any intention, that was it.  There was no reason for his go-
 ing  to a particular house more than to  any other.
   Q.  Was not his flight evidence of sanity rather than insanity ?
   A.  I  think it was no evidence that he was sane.               (    ' "*  •
   Q.  Don't  you find any evidence in  this case to contradict the idea of in-   *>
 sanity ?
   A.  I  do not.
   Q.  As to his apparent indifference, are you not aAvare that he is very deaf?
   A.  I  am;  but that does not account for his insensibility.  I never saw a
 sane deaf man who wouldn't try to hear when he  Avas on trial for his life.
   Q.  Have you not seen men who Avere indifferent about living ?
   A.  I have seen people when dying  who manifested no interest in refer-
 ence to death.   But in those cases the mind had  already become impaired.
 I hare never known a sound mind that did not manifest some sensibility  as
 to the  result.
   Q. Doctor, haA-e you prescribed for the insane ?
   A.  I have.
  •Dr. Thomas Hun, called and savo«b, testified:  I am a physician, and re-
 side  at Albany.  I was licensed sixteen years ago, and have practiced since,
 with the  exception of six years, which I spent in Europe.   I am now one of
 the Professors in the Albany Medical College.  I have seen the*prisoner.   I
 saw him  on Wednesday morning, the fifteenth  instant,  for the firstytime, in
his cell.  I also called there the next morninsr Avith Doctors McNaughton and 
314
THE TRIAL OF
Brigham,  but was, by the Sheriff, refused  admittance.  I  have seen  him
since in court.  Have not heard all the testimony.
  Mr. Van Buren asked Mr. SeAvard what he proposed to prove by this Avit-
ness.
  Mr. Seavaed observed that he proposed to prove by this Avitness, that in
his opinion, the prisoner is, and Avas insane at the time of the commission of
the crime.
  Mr. Van Buren said he objected to the proof, on the ground that the ver-
dict on the preliminary issue, rendered on the sixth day of July, instant, was
and is conclusiA-e that the prisoner was sane on that day; and that the same
cannot be contradicted by eA'idence.   (Cites Cowan and HUl's Notes, part
I., 762; 7 Wend., 78.)
  Mr. Seavard stated that he proposed to prove by Dr. Hun, that from
conAersations with the prisoner since the fifteenth day  of July, and from his
personal appearance, and from what testimony he has heard, he believes the
prisoner noAv insane, and that he was at the time of committing the act, for
Avhich he stands indicted.
  The Court.—The Avitness may give his opinion  as to the sanity or insanity
of the  prisoner, upon facts within his knowledge, before the sixth of July,
instant,  or from the personal appearance of the prisoner; but not from any
conversations Avith him since the sixth of July, nor from the testimony in the
cause.
  Decision excepted to.
  Witness continued: If I exclude what I have learned of the prisoner since
the sixth day of July, I cannot give a positive opinion respecting him.  From
his appearance here in court, I would suspect him to be insane*  I could not
form any opinion as to Avhether he was sane or insane  on the twelfth  day of
March.  His appearance  as he sits here in court, and the idiotic expression
of his countenance, indicate insanity.  Insanity is  a chronic disease  of the
brain.   It is a derangement of the mental faculties,  depending on a  physical
disease of the brain.  If on the twelfth day of March he appeared as he does
now, I Avould suspect him of being insane then.   Insanity generally comes
on sIoavIv, but in some cases suddenly.  The prisoner's insanity may have
come on since, but it is more probable that he may  have been insane  then.
  Q.  Did you make a personal examination of the prisoner at the bar since
your arrival here, with reference to the state of his mind ?
  Objected to, objection  sustained, and exception.
  Q.  Is it your opinion, founded on your personal examination of the pri-
soner since the sixth day of July, instant, that he was insane on the twelfth
day of March last ?
  Objected to; objection sustained, and exception.
  Q.  Is it your opinion, founded  upon your personal examination  of the
prisoner since the sixth day of July, instant, that he is noAv insane ?
  Objected to, and objection sustained. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
315
  Mr. Seavard then submitted the following objections to the decisions of
the court:
   1.  That the verdict on the preliminary issue  has not yet been given in
evidence on the trial of this issue.
   2.  That if given in evidence, it is not conclusive in this cause, on the
present issue.
   3.  That it is not a verdict on this issue.
   4.  That there has been no record filed, or judgment rendered or entered
on that verdict.
   5.  That the verdict rendered on the preliminary issue is no more conclu-
sive than a verdict on the present indictment would be on a subsequent trial
of an indictment for the murder of any other person by the prisoner at the
same  time.
   6.  That at  most, the verdict is only a  judgment in pais;  that it may be
contradicted and explained.
   7.  That at most, it should  only  go to the jury  as evidence with the other
facts  in the case; and that the jury have a right to find a  different verdict,
and are bound by the verdict on the preliminary issue only so far as they
may think they ought to be,  Avhen taken in connection with the other evi-
dence in the cause.
   The court re-affirmed its decision.   Excepted to.
   Q.  Suppose a young  man to have  been brought up in this  community
until  he arrived at the age of twenty-three  years, and who had  learned his
letters in the Sunday school, should you believe he would think he could read
when he could not ?
   Objected to, and objection  overruled.
   A.  I should think him insane.
   Q.  If Avhen he tried it were found that he could not,  and he should be
told that he could not, yet persisted in saying that he could, Avhat then ?
   A.  It Avould be  additional  evidence of the same character.
   Q.  Suppose him unable to count  above twenty-eight, and yet going through
a process of numbers, thinking he could count ?
   A.  That also would lead me to  think he  was insane.
   Q.  Suppose he were unable to multiply two by three, but should answer
that the product was sixty-four ?
   A.  The same.           „
   Q.  Suppose the prisoner to have been sent to prison  at the age of six-
teen—to have served his time—to  have gone to a justice of the peace for  a
process to get his pay of them who sent him there—on being told there was
no remedy, to haA'e procured, prepared, sharpened knives in open day;  to
have  made indiscriminate slaughter of those against whom he had no cause
of complaint, for the sake of his getting his pay ?
  A.  If I belieA'ed he did it for that reason, I should conclude he was insane.
It would be an insane act. 
316
THE TRIAL OF
  Q.  Believing that he did it for that reason, and under those circum-
stances, should you think he kneAV the right from the wrong of that act'?
  A.  If he did it for that reason, I  should not.
  Q.  Suppose he entertained that belief, and acted on that ground,  would
there in his case be an insane delusion ?
  A.  Certainly.  If a prisoner came out of State Prison avIio Avas innocent
of the offence for which he had been imprisoned, and should think himself
entitled to pay,  and  after being told that he was not, he  should persist in
that belief, and act upon it, it would be an insane delusion.
  Q.  Suppose that he, for that reason, should slay one man, tAvo Avomen and
one child Avho had no connection whatever  with his imprisonment ?
  A.  That would be strong evidence of the existence of an insane delusion.
  Q.  If when conversed with about the transaction, he should say that he
would have gone on and  kiUed others, if he had not killed this family,  and
only desisted because wounded ?
  A.  It would be the expression of an insane man.
  Q.  If, when asked Avhy he escaped, he should say he wanted to get out of
the county, and Avhen his hand got well to  return and do more work ?
  A.  A part of that would be a sane ansAver; but that part relating to  his
coming back and continuing his Avork, Avould sIioav an insane mind.
  Q.  Suppose a person to have been in childhood, smart, playful and active,
and to haA'e had good learning; to have been sent to prison five years  and
to have come out dull, stupid and idiotic ; to say nothing except when spoken
to, and then only generally; what Avould that indicate ?
  A. It would indicate great imbecUity of mind, but I don't knoAV that it
would denote insanity.
  Q. Would it lead you to suspect  that he was insane ?
  A. It might be simple stupidity, in consequence of his treatment in prison.
  Q. Suppose he should say that he had  seen Jesus Christ at the Sunday
school ?
  A. If he spoke sincerely, I should think it indicated insanity.
   Q. Suppose such a person,  after having kiUed four persons, should say
sincerely  that he thought it was right ?
  A. That would indicate insanity.
   Q. Suppose a prisoner  on trial for the crime  of killing four  persons,
should, when asked what they were trying him for,  sincerely answer, " a
horsC," for which he had been sent  to prison five years ?
   A. The answer would indicate insanity.
   Q.  Suppose a prisoner after  being in prison five years for stealing a horse,
should sincerely say, on coming out, that he had broken the knife that he
used in eating, and he should sincerely ask whether they could send him to
prison four years more for that, Avhat Avould that indicate ?
   A. It would indicate either insanity or great imbeciHty.
   Q.  Suppose a prisoner  charged  with four murders,  to be eight days in 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
317
court where he Avas defended during that time by three counsel on a plea of
insanity, and at the conclusion of his trial, on being asked if he had any
counsel, should say that he didn't Iciioav ?
   A. No sane man would be likely to make such an answer.
   Q. Suppose a person on trial for his life should ansAver the physician who
visited him in jail, all the questions put  to him invoh-ing the whole history
of the murder and tending to his oavu conviction, " yes," and " no," what would
that indicate ?                                     •>■
   A. I think a sane man who was feigning insanity might admit  the crime,
but whether a very ignorant man would, or not, it is impossible to tell.
   Q.  Suppose he were so  unlearned  as  not to be able to count beyond
twenty-eight—nor to knoAV whether he could read ?
   A.  I must answer as before.
   Q.  Suppose he Avere severely wounded on his wrist, and  chained with a
heavy chain, without making any complaint ?
   A.  An insane person makes less complaint  of pain than a sane one, but
 a sane person might have submitted to that Avithout complaint.
   Q.  How far may persons retain memory in a case of partial dementia ?
   A.  They may retain it enough to remember the principal events of their
 lives.
   Cross Examination.—Q. What are the symptoms AA'hich you discover
 in this man, denoting insanity ?
   A.  His listless manner, his inattention to Avhat is going on around him, and
 the idiotic smile upon his face.
   Q.  How is the general expression of his face ?
   A.  It is  idiotic.
   Q.  How is his eye ?
   A.  It has an idiotic expression.
   Q.  Describe that idiotic  expression ?
   A.  I cannot describe it more than I can the eye of a person that is angry,
 and yet every person can see symptoms of anger in the eye.
   Q.  Then you consider that the prisoner's eye indicates idiocy ?
   A.  I do  not discoA'er it in the eye, more  than in any other feature.  His
 eye, hoAvever, is  dull.
   Q.  Do you think his eye is dim ?
   A.  I do not use that word.  It lacks  lustre.
   Q.  Any thing else ?
   A.  Nothing that I can describe.   -;
   Q.  What are  the symptoms of dementia ?
   A.  When dementia  is complete, there is a total abolition  of  the mental
 and moral faculties.
   Q.  In complete dementia,  is memory entirely gone ?
   A.  Almost entire forgetfulness would denote dementia. 
318
THE TRIAL OF
   Q.  When the disease is so far advanced that you call it dementia, is for-
getfulness of recent eArents, one symptom ?
   A.  It is a very common symptom in aU its stages.
   Q.  Do you remember a case where there was not some forgetfulness ?
   A.  I have neA'er  observed these cases with  sufficient care to answer
adA-isedly.
   Q.  Did you eA'er see  a  case of  dementia where you did not discover a
lack of attention ?
  A.  I  recollect of none.
   Q.  Is dementia most common to old or young people ?
   A.  It is most common to old,  but many occur in the young.
   Q.  Where it is perfect do you have to feed the patient ?
   A.  In some extreme cases there Avould be loss of appetite.
   Q.  If this man eats AveU and regularly, would you not infer that he had
not that symptom ?
   A.  Certainly.  I speak of that as one of the symptoms that indicate the
last stages of dementia,  and probably occurs in but few cases.
   Q.  Did you ever know a case of delusion where the patient had not lost
the power of comparison ?
  A.  If he  fancies a man  to  be a  horse, and understands  that a horse is
larger than a mouse,  he would then have comparison.
  Q.  But Avould he compare that  horse with a man, or that man Avith any
other  man, so as to see that a man wasn't a horse  ?
  A.  He  might knoAV that a horse was less  dangerous than a Hon, and
might not think every other man a horse.
   Q.  Is the idea that a man is entitled  to pay after being in prison,  an
insane delusion ?
  A.  Any  man might have that   supposition arising from  ignorance.  It
might, hoAvever, be such an idea as to amount to a delusion ?
   Q.  But suppose every one should tell him that he Avas wrong, and yet
he should not be convinced,  but should say he would  have revenge,. Avould
that be  an insane delusion ?
  A.  I  do not think there is any insane delusion in revenge upon those who
had injured him.
   Q.  If a man wiU  shoot into a croAvd,  would you  say that indicated in-
sanity ?
  A.  I  think that no sane man would shoot into a crowd.  If he  did,  I
should say that he had a motive.
   Q.  If it appears in  this  case that the  prisoner was in Avant of AA'ork, and
went to  Van Nest's and asked for Avork,  Avhich  was refused, and then  passed
two men Avhom he might have killed, to kill the  Van Nest  family; do you
not think the killing  might be from sanity and revenue ?
   A.  If I were satisfied that he committed the act upon  so slight a  cause, 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
319
I should  say he was insane, for no sane man would commit a murder so
atrocious for that reason only.
   Q. Have not men called others to the field and  killed them in duels for
a slighter motive ?
   A. I do not think any duellist would have killed his man, had the latter
been unarmed; but that is a very different act from the one for Avhich the
prisoner is on trial.
   Q. If it be shoAvn that Van  Nest's house was in a retired place—that he
was a wealthy man and had money to lend, might  not his object have been
plunder ?
   A. I  have often heard  of rich men being  murdered.   From the facts
comprehended in the question, I could draw no inference one Avay or the
 other.
   Q.  If he ran  away,  would you not infer that he thought he had been
 doinnr Avrong ?
   A.  As a general proposition, I should say that when a man  commits a
 crime and runs aAvay,  the  inference would be that he knew he had been
 doing wrong.
   Q.  If he denied the stealing the horse which he had stolen for flight, but
 claimed to OAvn him, would that add to your suspicion ?
   A.  It would.
   Q.  If he knew he had been doing wrong, would  you consider him sane as
 to that act ?
   A.  So far as  that goes it would  indicate sanity, but he might  in other
 ways, at the same time, manifest insanity.
   Q.  Are design and concealment evidences of sanity, as far as they go ?
   A. Such  indications are common, both to the sane and the insane; yet
  they are most common to  sane people, as all sane people plan their move-
  ments more than the insane.
    Dr. James McNaughton, called and sworn,  testified:  I am  a physi-
  cian, and reside in the city of Albany.   I am Professor of the Theory and
  Practice of Medicine in the Albany Medical College, and Surgeon General
  of the  State of New York.  I have practiced  physic  since  1817.  I was
  educated at Edinburgh.
    Q. Have you examined the prisoner in reference to the state of his mind ?
    Objected to, unless the examination was before  the sixth of July, instant.
  Objection sustained, and exception.
    Q. What is your opinion as to the sanity or insanity  of the prisoner?
    A. The Attorney General objected to the question, and insisted that the
  examination  should be restricted to  a time antecedent to  the sixth day of
  July, instant; and  that the witness should not take into consideration any
  thing he may have learned by  or from the personal  examination of the
  prisoner, made by him, since that day.
    Objection  sustained, and decision excepted to. 
320
the trial of
    Witness says:  I cannot, of course, form a  A'ery positive  opinion of the
 mental  condition of the prisoner, from seeing him here in court.   He ap-
 pears to be stupid and foolish.   I take him to be a person of very feeble
 intellect.  His  smile is idiotic—either natural or acquired.  He may  have
 always  been  as he is  noAv; yet if it appear that he had more intelligence
 formerly, I should conclude that it was not natural idiocy.  If I kneAV noth-
 ing of him, I  should from his appearance, alone, say that he was an imbecile.
 He is either  idiotic or partially demented.  I could not say that he is not
 feigning, but  I don't think he feigns.  If he looked as he does now on the
 twelfth of March, I should have given the  same opinion of hhn then that I
 do now.
   Cross Examination.—Q. Do  you know that colored people are more
 deficient in numbers than whites ?
   A.  I knoAV that, as  a general rule, they are not as well educated.
   Q.  Do you consider insanity contagious  ?
   A.  Not as  Ave use the term in medicine.
   Q.  Is it epidemic ?
   A.  It has been  knoAvn to prevail extensively at some seasons.
   Q.  What qualities  would you expect this prisoner to  manifest, docility
 and mildness,  or violence ?
   A.  The habitual  expression of his countenance is rather pleasant; if let
 alone  and not provoked, I think he is rather harmless.
   Q.  Should  you think him active or dull ?
   A.  His appearance  Avould indicate dullness, at present.
   Q.  If his appearance is the  result of disease, and he looked on the twelfth
 of March as he does now, would you  expect him to act then as he does now ?
   A.  It would depend on the  disease.  If the disease affected his brain and
 lessened its action, then I  should expect decreased activity.
   Q.  Have you paid particular attention to surgery ?
   A.  I have,  sir.
   Q. 'Did you amputate the leg of Rn eminent lawyer in  Albany, near the
 thigh,  and did he manifest any pain ?
   A.  He did  not make much  complaint—no more than to  show it a  little in
 his countenance.
   Q.  Docs inability to narrate indicate a want of coherence ?
   A.  If a person  from inability could not narrate, it would indicate a want
 of memory.
   Q. Is  the difficulty in  finding the motive of actions any indication of
 insanity ?
   A. I do not suppose there is any insanity in the difficulty.  If there Avere
 no rational motive for an act, the act would of course be irrational.
   Q. Are preparing, concealing, and grinding knives in the night, an indi-
 cation  of design ?
   A. So far  as the circumstances may be  considered  by  themselves, they
may be evidence of design. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
321
  Q.  Is subsequent flight and denial of property stolen, and lying as to the
ownership, evidence of sanity ?
  A.  Taken by itself I should so consider it.
  Q.  Which would be the safest Avay to discover the insany of this man, to
take his acts and declarations before the murder, or his declarations  after he
was arrested and in jail, after a plea of insanity had been put in ?
  A.  His actions  previously, I should  suppose, would have the most influ-
ence ; yet his actions ought all to be  taken together.
  Q.  So far as any change in the man is concerned, who Avould be  the best
judges,  those who  had the management of him in prison, or those  who are
called in to see him now ?
  Objection.  Objection overruled and exception.
  A.  That would  depend upon Avhat attention was paid to his appearance.
  Q.  Suppose the persons seeing him in jail had not seen him for several
years before ?
  A.  They Avould be likely to notice the change sooner than those  who saw
him every day.
  Q.  If it should be  proved that the prisoner was ignorant, depraved and
criminal before going to prison, would  you think that his homicide did not
result from  depravity ?
  A.  Depravity may haA'e induced him to commit the crime.   I don't con-
ceive that  the crime itself, unaccompanied Avith any other circumstance, is
any evidence of insanity.
  Q.  If it should  appear that he went to the retired house of a wealthy fa-
mily, and murdered them, and  ceased  only when his hand was cut, would
that indicate insanity ?
  A.  I must answer as before.
  Q.  If this prisoner had the same general expression of countenance when
he was  admitted to be sane,  that he has now, Avould it not be fair  to  infer
that he  is now sane ?
  A.  No, sir.
  Q.  Does he not now look as if he were sane ?
  A.  If I were to judge from his looks alone, I should say that he never
was particularly sane.  Nature  has  written that pretty clearly on his coun-
tenance.
  The prisoner's counsel here announced that the testimony for  the defence
had closed, but desired that the jury might have an opportunity of making a
personal examination of the prisoner.
  Objected, and objection sustained.
  The prisoner's counsel then rested the defence.
  Nathaniel Lynch was then called and sworn on behalf of the people.
He testified as folloAvs: I knoAV the prisoner.  He Hved with me some six-
teen years ago, and also a few days last Avinter.  When he was young he was
a lively, playful  boy.   We couldn't keep him; he would  run away every
                 21 
                                           4
 322                        THE trial of

 day.  His mother brought him to our house.  I didn't know much of her.
 She was a drinking woman,  and we concluded avc couldn't  keep the boy.
 She is part Indian, as is said.  I don't remember in particular how he car-
 ried his head;  I know he Avas almost always smiling, and laughing, and ap-
 peared  to be a lively," laughing, playful toy.   I haA'e noticed, during this
 trial, the peculiar turning up of his eye.  I do not remember that particu-
 larly Avhen he was  young.   After  a little time  he greAv out of my know-
 ledge, and I didn't knoAV about him until last winter.  I then found him on
 the side Avalk, in Auburn, and em-ployed him  to go with me i.bout three
mUes after some cattle.  I went up to him, found him deaf, asked if he Ava*
 engaged, and if he would go and help me drive the cattle.  He said, " I can."
 He got a colored boy to take care of his saw-buck.  We rode seme distance
before I said any thing to him.  He'd grown out of my knoAvledge, and I'd
forgotten him.   Said I, " You havn't lived long in Auburn, have you." He
said he'd always lived here.   I asked his name, and he said it was Freeman.
I asked if he was brother to Luke.  He said Luke was his uncle.  He then
said, " I've  lived with  you."  I took  him with me to rce  me  pay over the
money for the  cattle.   We then drove them  home:  he drove them and  1
rode in  the cutter.  When he got back I handed  him three shillings, and
 asked him if he was  satisfied, and he said he was.  The next dr.y he sawed
wood for me.  At night he asked me if I wanted him the next day.  The
next day he got there before daylight.  He said he thought it Avas about d:;i
when he started.  I  offered to pay him fifty cents a day, and Landed him the
money.   He asked five shillings per day, and said he could get it elso.Avherc.
 I told him I only gave  four shillings a day.  He appeared to be quite put
 out  He contended for five, but took the four shillings a  day, and Avent
 away.  After that I saw him several times  in  the village.  Once he asked
for work, but I had none for him.   In January, he came up and asked if my
cattle hadn't got away, and said he saw some in Clarksville that looked like
mine.  I told him mine were at home, and he turned and Avent away.  I saAv
him three weeks before the murder.   I next saw him in jail  after the mur-
 der, but before this court  I then asked him if he knew me.  He said, " Mr.
 Lynch." I asked about the time he  lived with me.  He said, " I  Avas quite
 a small boy."  I asked if he got whipped.  He said, " I did  seme,"' and de-
 scribed  a Avhipping  Mrs. Lynch gave him—how he ran away, end  how he
 got on to the fence—then ran away r.i.tU hi? mother brought him back,  ilo
 then said that  he asked Mrs. Lynch for his clothes, and  that she said  she
 would give him a whipping in lieu of his clothes.  I asked him him Avhether
 I ever Avhipped him.  lie said, "You did once or twice, a little."   I recol-
 lect of Avhipping him.   I asked him Avhere he went to from my house.  He
 said he  went to Captain Warden's.  I asked where he Avent to from there.
 He said he went to live with a colored family in New Guinea.  He said one
 day a man  overtook him and asked if he wouldn't live with him.  Ile said
 he told him he Avould, and went  He said he next hired cut to Mr. Curtis. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
323
  I then conversed Avith him about the murder of Van Nest.   I asked him
at what time he Avent up there.   He said, " Just at dark—edge of evening."
I asked if he Avent right to the house.  lie said, " I Avent by the house."   I
asked if he met any person.  He said he did.  I asked Avhere he Avas.  He
said, " By side of the road."  I asked why he  didn't go right in.   I think
his reply Avas, '• It was a little too early."   Then I asked avIio he killed first
He said, "The man."  Didn't  you kill the woman first  He said No.   I
asked Avhere the woman Avas.  He said he saw her coming, through the Avin-
dow.  I asked if he did not come up behind her.  He said he met her and
stabbed her.  Then he came in and stabbed the child.  I asked Avho next
He said he met a man at the head of the stairs, and stabbed him here, (put
ting his hand to left breast.)  I asked Avhat the man did.  He said the man
catched the candlestick and hit him on the  right side, and that he slipped,
when the man hit him  again, so that he slipped doAvn the stairs.   He said,
" I thought I'd stab him again."  I asked why he didn't.  Pie said, " The
man got the broom and kept striking me,  and I thought I'd go out." I asked
Avhen he struck the old lady.  He said at the gate.  I think he said he broke
his knife in the hall.  I asked with Avhat knife he stabbed the old lady.   He
said, " In cane."  I asked where he carried his knife.  He  said, "In here,"
pointing to his breast under his coat.  He said the old lady cut his  Avrist bad.
I asked 1ioav he came  to kill the child.  He said, " Was afraid it Avould make
a noise."  I asked Hoav he felt about killing the  family.  He replied,,  " It
looked hard."   I asked  what made him get such a poor horse.  He said,  " I
was in a hurry, and didn't mind much about the horse."  I  asked Avhy he
didn't come to my house and see me.  He said that he had got his Avrist cut
and knife broke, and  he thought he'd go off' till his Avrist got Avell,  and then
come back and do some more Avork.  I said to him, " We are good friends,
aint Ave Bill ?"   He said Yes.  In all these interviews I didn't think of such
a thing as insanity.  He helped me kill hogs, and helped me carry meat, and
did errands.  Aside from his deafness, I neA'er discoA-ered any want of ap-
prehension in him.  He moved so quick that I thought of hiring him. When
I saAv him in jail I discoA-ered no change in him.   He is in the habit of smi-
ling, and Avas last winter.   He then stooped as he does now.  When I asked
him why he killed that  innocent family, he said, " I've been in State Prison
five years, and they wouldn't pay me."
   Cross Examination.—I never communicated these facts to any person.
I was not requested to  go into the jail by the counsel for the people.   At
the time he told me about the cattle, he said he lived in Clarksville.  When
the prisoner lived Avilh me lAvas a member of the  First Presbyterian church.
I don't  remember of taking him to church.  He received instruction in the
house about Avhat I Avanted of  him.   Cannot  say Avhether I gave him any
religious or moral instruction.   I used to talk Avith him.   Finding his mother
intemperate, I concluded not to keep them.  I talked to her about the Savior,
but could not noAv tell the particulars.  I am  not a member of that church 
324
THE trial of
now.  I am not under obligation to tell how I ceased to be a member of it.
I was charged with having had unlawful intercourse Avith one Catharine
Ramsay.  That offence was never proved against me in a legal Avay.
  Alvah Fuller, caUed  and SAvorn, testified:  I was  sheriff's  assistant
when prisoner was brought to the jail.   I Avent for Dr. Fosgate to dress his
wounded wrist; he said it hurt him.  I asked if it pained him.  He  said it
did some.  When the Doctor came he asked the same question, but got no
reply.  I saw him in court  during the trial of Henry Wyatt.   While in jail
I asked  him if he had enough to eat. He said  Yes.  He asked me for to-
bacco, and I gave it to him.  He told that Dr. Fosgate said he ought to have
a leather on his shackles—that the doctors said they might create inflamma-
tion, and his leg would have to be taken off, and it would kill him.  I said
to him, " Bill, you ain't afraid to die ?"   He said, " No ; but I want to live a
little longer."  He eat well.  I never discovered  any evidence of insanity
about him. I spoke to him in the court  house during the Wyatt trial.
  Cross Examination.—He was on the second bench from the end Avhen
I spoke to him.  I carried  his victuals to him in the jail.  I know nothing
about his sleeping. I asked if he could  read.  He said Yes.  A testament
was left  for him in the hall.
  Aaron Demux, called and sworn, testified:  I am uncle to the prisoner
by marriage.   The prisoner is tAventy-one or twenty-two years  old.  He has
made it his home with me a good deal before he went to the prison.   He'd
run away, and then come back.  He Avas a rather Avild boy—wouldn't re-
main long in a place.  I did not see him in prison, but saw  him when he
came out.   He came  along to me and said, " Uncle Aaron, how d'ye do ?"
I asked how he did.   He said, " Pretty hearty."  He didn't seem deaf.   The
next time, I saw him doAvn at DePuy's.  He there sat still, and didn't say any
thing.  That was in the winter.  I saw him in the street after that.  I once
asked him where he boarded.  He  said at Mary  Ann Newark's—but that
he didn't exactly board.  " I bring my provisions, and she cooks for me."   I
asked if he slept with her.  He said, " No; she's a christian,  and don't do
no such thing."  He told me he was then going of an errand.  He was car-
rying a  basket for her.
  The same day he committed the murder, he asked for tallow to grease his
boots.  I said he could take some tallow to grease his boots.  He told me he
was going to hire out by the month Avith some farmer.   I told him that Avas the
best way for him to do.  He said to me, " Uncle Aaron, you've a good place
here. Are you to work here steady ?" I said Yes.  I told him that if he didn't
get more than seven  or eight  dollars a month, to take it.  He talked as ra-
tional Avith me the day of  the murder, as he ever did.  He always  had
that smile,  and that doavn look.   I  kneAV his grandfather.  He had
that same, smile.  I see no  change in William, only that he has grown larger
and older, and is deaf.
   Cross  Examination.—His father had the same smUe on his countenance. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
325
His mother did not.  His father has been dead ten or twelve years or more.
His grandfather died tAvo or three months ago.  The prisoner used to like
to play just like the rest of them.  He was wilder than the rest of them.  He
Hved Avith me Avhen he Avas eight or nine years old, and I had no depend-
ence on him; he Avould run away.   When I spoke to him, he Avas across the
street.   I have no doubt he heard me.  That was the day he came out of
prison.   I have been SAvorn before.   People  have talked to me, but it never
chano-ed my mind.  William was too lively for me when  I had  him.  He
didn't need any whipping, except for running away.   After the greasing of
his boots, I didn't see him until I saw him here in court.
   David Mills, called and sworn, testified: I knew the  prisoner when
he Avas in the State Prison.  His conduct was  very good whilst I knew him.
I didn't know of his being punished.  He was very faithful at his Avork.   I
didn't discover any thing about him indicating insanity. I have noticed his
appearance in court here.  That was ahvays the  same.  There Avas always
a smile on  his countenance.  Would smile when  there was no occasion for
it  I knew his  grandfather, and thought a good deal of him.  I think his
smile resembled  the  prisoner's. I  don't think he had as much of a down
look as William has.  Since he came out of the prison, I met him one day,
and he went home with me to move a pUe of manure.   He did it, and banked
up my cellar.  I requested him to saw some  wood.  He took the saw, and
said it was dull.   I gave him a shilHng, and told him to get it filed.   He did
so.  I asked him afterwards if it went any better.  He said Yes.   When he
o-ot through I asked him how much I should pay him.  He  said he didn't
know__whatever I thought best.  He said he wanted a pair of fine shoes.  I
told him I would go down to the shoe store with him.  I went with him to
 my son's store, Avho handed doAvn  some shoes, but he didn't like them, but
 pointed to others, which he tried on and they suited him.  I paid for them,
 and told WUliam that he would be in my debt, and must come and wash off
 my buggy, and he did it.  He looked a little pale, but I never saw any thing
 in him that induced me to think he was not sane.
   Cross Examination.—I had nothing to do with  punishing prisoners.  1
 tanked with him in the  prison.  He complained of ear ache, and  I once sent
 him to the hospital, and he got something to help it.  His deafness varied.
   Dr. Jedediah Darroav, called and sworn, testified:  I am a physician
 and surgeon.  I have examined the prisoner in  the jail.  I concluded that
 his memory  was good.  I talked with him considerably.  I  discovered
 nothing that indicated that there was insanity about him.  My opinion was
 that he Avas sane at the time I saw him.
    Cross  Examination.—I have not read  any thing upon the subject of
 insanity for a great many years.   My opportunities for observing insanity
 have been  very limited.   I had a patient  under my charge once  who was
 insane,  and who was sent to Utica.  I could  not say what form of insanity
 the patient had.   I  do not  give a professional,  but only a common sense 
326
THE TRIAL OF
opinion of this prisoner.  I supposed there was a question about his sanity,
and so I went in.   I asked him nothing  about the tragedy.   The questions
I put to him he answered Avell.
  L-rael G. Wood, called and  sworn, testified:   I knoAV the  prisoner
and knew his father and grandfather.   He worked for me before he Avent
to prison.  He was a good boy to work, and Avould do about as I told him to
do.  I have a distinct recollection of his  appearance then ; and I cannot see
any difference in him now.  He never held up his head, but looked from
under his brows.  He stooped, and  never Avas much of a talker.   I never
knew of his asking any questions.   As to his smile, he would always smile
when he was asked questions.   His grandfather was always smiling, but he
held up his head.   The old man would  smile like him.  I Avas je.iler  when
the prisoner was arrested for stealing the horse.   He broke jail and got out,
and let another  prisoner out.  He made his escape; the other prisoner did
not.   He broke the lock with  the handle to a shovel.  I took him at Lyon3
and brought him back.  When he was arrested he gave an account of the
whole matter, and Avhich way he went  Since his arrest for the  murder, he
has told me the same story.  I talked with him a good deal.  I never thought
he was crazy.   I never have  discovered any craziness.  It is my opinion
that he is not crazy.  I have no doubt on the subject.
  Cross Examination.—His grandfather would generally smile when he
was spoken to.  I never heard  his  smile spoken of.   The prisoner  could
count money when he lived with me.  He worked on the streets some and
sawed wood.  I said  nothing to him  about the murder Avhen he was in the
jail.   I don't knoAV much about insanity.  When the prisoner was in jail
for stealing the horse, he used to  say he was not guilty, but he was afraid
Jack Furman would  swear him into the State Prison.  I never  myself dis-
covered a man to be  crazy, without being told of it.
  Benjamin Van Keuren, called and sworn, testified:   I was foreman
in the prison hame shop in 1840, and  the  prisoner was  then  there.  He
worked at filing for  plating.   He was a middling kind of a workman,  not
the best nor  the poorest  Sometimes he was pretty good, sometimes con-
trary and stubborn.   There was nothing very peculiar about his conduct
as I  saw.   Sometimes he  was saucy,  and  once I reported him for that
Once, when  he had  not  done as  much as he should have done, but Avas
playing " old soldier," by handing me the same work every day, I told him
I should report him.  He got  surly.  Next morning I asked him hoAv he
got along, and he wanted a new file.  He said to me, " You  must be  a fool
to s'pose a man can  do as much with a dull file as Avith a  sharp one." I
told him I should report him.   He said, " Report and be damn'd."   I then
reported him (o Captain Tyler, the keeper.  He took him to the wing and
punished him, by showering.  After that he would look  up and grate his
teeth at me as I passed ;  I did not, although I ought to have reported him
for that.  On the twelfth  of June of that, year he was turned aAvay from 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
327
that shop and Avent to the silk shop, and then to the dye house.  Tyler once
punished him Avith a Avhip.  They had a rencontre, and  Tvlcr struck him
with a piece of a board.   The shop was a noisy one in consequence of the
forges and machinery.  I don't think  Tyler hurt the prisoner.  I can't see
any difference in him between there and here.   His position then was
about the same as now.   I see no difference. I never thought he Avas crazy.
I don't think he is now.  I have seen him since he came out of prison.   He
smiled in prison.   His smile is familiar to me.  I  always thought he saw
something that pleased him, which I couldn't see.   I have no idea he was
crazy.
   Cross Examination.—He laughs now just as he  used to in the prison.
I don't see any malice in him now.  I saw him after he came out once, and
asked him Iioav he did.   I didn't notice whether  he smiled or not.  I think
now that he looks intelligent, but I think he looks  ashamed.  That expres-
sion which you call a smile, I call a scowl.  I Avas up at Van Nest's house,
and while there,  I said he ought to be Lynched.   I changed my opinion
soon afterwards.  I don't know that his deafness increased.   On the former
trial I said I did think it increased.  The bloAv on the head was a middling
kind of a hard rap.  I think it did not hurt the negro.  I never had such a
blow on  my head, but I think I could stand it.  I don't think a board three
fourths of an inch thick that should be broke over my head AA-ould hurt me.
I think Tyler struck as hard as he could, but I don't think such aboard ever
broke any body's  skull.   I have seen a nigger here in toAA'n break a two inch
plank, by butting his head against it.
   Daniel  Andrus, called and sworn, testified:  I kneAV this prisoner be-
fore he Avent to the  State Prison.   He worked for CadAvell a part of two
seasons.   I never noticed any thing A'ery peculiar about him.  My recol-
lection is, that he was a boy of small mind, and rather bad temj)er.   He
drove team once  to  plough my garden.   He also dreAv some wood for me.
CadAvell  had charge of a stone quarry, and had considerable teaming to do.
After his time Avas out in the prison, he came to my office.   I had acted as
his counsel  on his trial.  He came in and I spoke to him, and told him to
sit  doAvn.  I soon after asked if he wanted any thing.    He turned his ear
towards me, when I perceived indications of deafness.   He replied, " No, I
came to see you."  I then conversed Avith him  about his going  to the State
Prison, and he answered  my questions as readily, so far as I noticed,  as he
did before he went to the prison.   I enquired how he  had fared in the
prison, and in reply he complained of  the keepers,   lie said they got a
pique against him and punished him Avhen he did not dcserAre it.   After he
got through Avith  telling me about his imprisonment, he asked me if I had
any Avood to saw.   I told  him I had not.  He Avent aAvay, and I have not
talked  Avith him since, until after he Avas arrested.   During the Wyatt trial
I saAv him here in the court house.   He  seemed to be paying attention to
the trial as others were.    Eobert  Freeman Avas also here in court.  I saw 
328
THE TRIAL OF
the prisoner once in the jail, and went around  and spoke to him through
the grates. I asked how he was.  He said, " Pretty well."  I asked how his
fare was.  He said, " Pretty good."  I asked if  he kneAV me.   He said he
did.  I asked what my name was.  He said, " Esquire Andrus."   He looked
at me smiHngly, and asked me if I would  give him  some tobacco.   I  gave
him some and asked him if it was good.   He said, " Good enough."  He is
some deaf, yet I have no doubt but that he can hear me when I speak now.
I  was sitting near him during  this trial  one  day,  and when about a foot
from him, I whispered,  " Bill do you want some tobacco," and he turned his
head toward me and nodded assent.  I gave him  some.   He carries his head
more on one side, I think, than he used to; for then he was pretty erect  1
don't recollect about his smile.   He used to talk a good deal, and at times
was full of nonsense.  I can see no difference in him, only in his growth
and deafness.   I think the  expression of his eye now is as it used to be.
   Cross Examination.—I tanked with him at my office the same as I Avould
talk with other men.  I did not talk upon  politics or religion.  I don't know
whether he could read  or  write.  When he drove the team to plough my
garden I held the plough.  I presume he would  not have done  as he did if
I had not instructed him.  I directed him how to plough.   I recollect that
Jack Furman was not sent to the State Prison when the prisoner was.  I
think Jack Avas arrested, but turned State's evidence, and convicted the pri-
soner.  I may have seen the prisoner in the State Prison, but I did not re-
cognize him if I did.  I did not  recognize him at first when he  came to my
office.  lie did make complaint against two of his keepers.  He said they got
a pique at him and punished him a great many times  when he wasn't guilty.
I think he said it was for pretended violations of the  rules of the prison.  I
cannot tell what portion of my testimony he has heard.   I cannot  designate
any word.  I have not the least agency in the prosecution of the prisoner.
I was one of the triors appointed by the court, and was a witness on the pre-
Hminary trial.  The district attorney called upon me soon after this crime
was committed, and I told him what I knew of the prisoner.  I don't know
as I told him the prisoner was not insane, yet I presume I have expressed
that opinion to others.   I went to the jail,  not to see  the prisoner, but to see
a Mr. Wheaton, who was confined there.  I don't know whether the priso-
ner knew that I was a lawyer before I Avent to the State prison, but I sup-
pose he did.   I said on  my former examination,  that I thought the prisoner
was not insane.   I do not suppose Freeman could hear any part of Wyatt's
trial from where he stood.  He might have heard some things that occurred,
but I do not think he could have kept the  run of what was said and done.
   Walter G. Simpson, called and sworn, testified: I have known the pri-
soner ever since he was a small boy.   I think I recollect his appearance.  It
was downcast, and he carried his head fonvard.   When looking at you he
would look up with his eyes instead of turning his head.  I have noticed his
appearance here in court   I think his  appearance is very much the  same 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
329
as when he lived at Cadwell's.  He always had very much the same appear-
ance that  he has noAv.  I  recollect the smile, and I think it is  noAv very
much as it was before.  His father had a higher forehead than the prisoner,
and a darker complexion, but otherwise he looked a good deal as the priso-
ner does.  His father Avas  a  smiling man and stooped some, and his grand-
father had the same stoop and smile.  I saw him in the jail  and conversed
with him.   He said he stabbed the man first, and the woman next, and the
old lady out at the gate.  There were a good many there  a talking Avithhim.
I heard a  good deal of talk with him, and talked considerable Avith him my-
self.   From Avhat I know of him and Avhat I have seen,  I think he is sane.
I have not seen any thing to  make me think him insane.
   Cross Examination.—Harry Freeman was not stupid.  He was a plea-
sant man,  and always smUed  when he saw me.  He was quite talkative.   He
was always a favorite  among white people.  I saw the prisoner the evening
it was said he took the horse.  His aunt was an intemperate Avoman.  She
was said to be crazy, but I don't know whether she was or not, from my own
knowledge.   She used to come to my house frequently.
   Lewis  Markiiam, called and sworn, testified : I have known the priso-
ner tAventy years.  His folks lived here  with Col. Hardenburgh.   He was a
smart boy ; was  pretty active and quick.  When sent on errands he gene-
rally went pretty smart.  He was  rather retiring, and hardly ever commen-
ced conversation unless spoken to,  and then answered pretty quick, Yes or
No.  His personal appearance was  very much as now, only he has groAvn old-
er, and large.  I have a very distinct recollection of the smile, Avhich was
the same as I see now. His  stooping and turning up his eye were the same
then as now.  I understood  he was groAving deaf, but I did not notice  it
then.  I was here when he was tried, and think I was one of the jurors.   I
remember that his  appearance then was very much as it is noAv.  I cannot
perceive any difference.  I recollect well hoAv he looked as he sat in the cri-
minal's box.  I saw him in the State Prison every day for a year, as I was
relief keeper.  I did not notice any alteration Avhile he was in the prison.
Have seen him frequently since he came out.  I have nodded to him as I
passed, and he would return the civility.  SaAv him at his meals, in his ceU,
and in the chapel.  I was on night  duty, but  never heard any complaint
about his  not sleeping.  His health  appeared to be good.  Over a year, I
think, his  father drove a team for us.  He was always smiling and cheerful,
and  very  similar to the  prisoner.   He  most usually smiled before he an-
swered.
   Cross  Examination.—Harry Freeman  was a very  talkative  man.
When he  was sober he was a very sensible man.   When he met  me he  al-
ways smiled the smile  of recognition.  His hearing I belieA'e Avas good.  I
don't knoAV any thing about this boy's education.   He was a sprightly, lively,
playful boy.  He generally answered questions.   I never  remarked any lack
of conversational poAvers.  I never discovered any defect in his mind.  At 
330                         THE TRIAL OP
the time he  lived with Cadwell he didn't mingle with other boys, but was
busy driving team  and  about the Seminary.  Before that he was playing
around Avith the  other boys.   If lis mind be imbecile I have no knowledge
of that fact.  I always thought him a pretty shrewd boy, and that Avas my
opinion of him whUst he was in  the State  Prison.  I knoAV nothing  of his
mind since  he came out of prison.  I never spoke  to him  in the prison.  I
observed nothing but what he was attentive and faithful.  I was one  of the
petit jurors before Avhom he  was  tried.  I don't remember that he  had any
counsel, or if he  had, Avho it  was.  The trial didn't last more  than one day.
1 don't recollect  how long his trial lasted.   It does appear to me that some
one spoke in his behalf, but I won't be certain that he  had any counsel.  I
believe I have not spoken to  him since he Avas in the box on trial.  I think
he heard then.   I don't recoUect of noticing then or since Avhether he Avas
deaf.  I_ahvays supposed his mind w  i •• as it formerly was.  I didn't  notice
any change.
   Stephen S. Austin, called and s.vorn, testified: I have known the pri-
soner six years.  I saw him in jail when he was there under arrest for steal-
ing the horse.  I was there as assistant aAvhile.  He was then a troublesome,
quarrelsome fclloAV.  His personal appearance and manner Avas A'ery much
as now.   He carried his head forwird, and moved his eyes  instead  of his
head.  I think he was blacker then than he is now.  He is heavier now than
he was then.  I  recollect that he fought with a boy in the jail, and  flailed
him.  I  never had any conversation Avith him  except to ask him something.
His ansAvers were, Yes and No.   I don't  know that he Avas deaf.  Since he
came  out I haA'e seen him about the  streets, and spoke to  him once.  He
asked if I had any wood to saw.  I (oil him I hadn't.  He asked if I  would
have before long.  I told him that Mr. Kelly sawed my wood.  I have had
no other conversation with him.  I never discovered any insanity in him nor
did I ever suspect any.   It is my opinion that he is not insane.  I have seen
insane persons, and have taken care of them.   After the story got around
that the prisoner was crazy, I asked John De Puy one day if he thought him
crazy.   He said, "No;  he is no mora crazy than you or I, except Avhen he
is drunk.  Then he's an ugly little devil, and I Avas  always  afraid of him."
He then told about his having a knife at a ball, and that lie. John, blamed
the negro for not telling him of it.  He said the  prisoner had threatened  to
kill him,  and he blamed Hersey for not telling him of it.
   Cross Examination.—I now keep a livery stable in Auburn, and have
been a constable of the village.  When the prisoner was in jail, I considered
him a mischievous, cunning kind of a darkey.  This conversation with John
DePuy Avas  near my stable.  It Avas after I had heard that he was crazy,
and long before this court.   He may be crazy for Avhat I know.  It is  a mere
matter of opinion that he is not.   I know that Daniel Smith came out of the
State Prison crazy.  I did make sor.e remarks after the  Van  Nest  family
were killed by the prisoner.   I recollect of saying that he  v, as not Avorth tha 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
331
powder and shot it would  take  to  shoot him.   They were  talking about
hanging Inn;, and sto^ ing him to death, when I  said the poor devil wasn't
worth the powder and shot  to shoot him.  1 saw stones and missiles throAvn
at him.  When I got up to  the house, I found but very feAV Avho were not for
killing him on the spot.  I made  the remark in the presence of people Avho
were talking of Lynching him.  I assisted on  that occasion.   I didn't think
it right to shoot him.
  Abram A. Vanderheyden, called and SAvorn, testified:   I went  after
the prisoner at the Lime of  the murder, and assisted in bringing him back.
I have had process for him several times for petit larceny.   The first Avarrant
I had for  him Avas for breaking open a ped'er's  cart.  I also  arrested him
once on a charge of steaUng hens.  The first time, I found him at John De
Puy's,  under a bed.   I arrested  him and brought him before a magistrate.
The fowls that I arrested him for taking belonged to Jr,:ias Underwood.
That Avas before he avus taken up for stealing the  horse.  He got away from
me on the Avarraht for stealing hens.  When I got the warrant for stealing
the horse, I found him on a canal boat, and brought him back.  Before I got
to him, he told the steersman to  lay up, as  he Avanted to go ashore.  I told
the steersman I hud two warrants for the prisoner.  The prisoner said it was
a damned lie—that I keel no warrant for  him.  I arrested him and brought
him back.  I found a bottle in his pocket.  He Avas discharged on examina-
tion for stealing the horse, for Avant of proof.  Two or three Aveeks after, he
was again arrested.  One Jack Furman  had, meanAvhilc, been arrested on
the same charge, who had stated that the  prisoner stole the horse.   I recol-
lect the  prisoner's appearance at  that time.   He moved his eyes Avithout
moving hi,; head, and stooped some.  He had a  peculiar smile which I no-
ticed.  I  think it was about  the same smile that I see noAv.   I don't knoAV
but there may be some difference.   When I arrested him, his ansAvers were
brief and  short; gene-ally Yes or No.  When I first saw him after the mur-
der, I  asked him how his hand came hurt  He said, " Stabbing—stabbing."
I asked  how  lie came to commit this crime, but he made no  answer.   I
asked hiin the second time, when he said,  " I don't want you to say any thing
about it."  I said to him that we were alone, and he might as Avell tell me
how he came to ommit the act.  He replied, " You knoAV there's no law for
me."   I asked Avhat he meant by that. He said, "They ought to  pay me."
 I asked how lie came to kill the little child.  He said, " Didn't know as 'twas
a child."  I then asked  him hoAv he left there.   lie said, "Went to barn
and took a horse."  I asked hoAv far he rode that horse.   He  said, " To the
settlement."   I asked what then.   He said, " The horse fell down Avith me,
and I  lei't it."  I asked which way he went  then.  He said, " Came right
down."  I asked him Avhich  way he Avent.  He  said, " To Avhere I got this
horse."  I asked Avhere he went then. He s.iid, " To Syracuse."   I  asked
what time he arrived at Syracuse.  He said,  " 'B.out daylight"  I saw him
in jail  on  the Monday folioAving, and tanked Avith  him.  I don't think he was 
332
THE  TRIAL OF
 insane.  I never saw  him when I thought he was.  I have seen insane peo-
 ple, but all I have seen look differently from Avhat he does.  They generally
 have  a wild look of the eye.
   Cross  Examination.—When I had the conversation with him he was
 under arrest.  He has ahvays denied stealing the horse.  I never believed
 that he did, and I believe that is the general opinion.  I swore on the last
 trial that  I had no idea that he ever stole the horse.  I said on the preHm-
 inary trial, that  the prisoner now appeared different from what  he did on
 the other  trial, or when I arrested him before.  It is my opinion  noAv that
 he is  not  as cheerful as he was before he Avent to prison.  He Avas ahvays
 bragging about his running ; said he could run aAvay from me.  I have said
 that 1 didn't think he was insane.  I have said that there was no defence for
 him.   I gave it as my opinion that he was  sane, as I never had  any  other
 opinion.  It is my opinion that this is not an honorable  defence.  I think it
 is probable that I have said so.
   Aretes A. Sabin, called  and sworn, testified:  I have known this pri-
 soner fifteen years.  I saw him at Captain Warden's, and in the streets after
 he left there.  I always took him to be a doAvn headed fellow.  When spoken
 to he  Avould turn up his eyes. I next saw him in the State Prison, in the
 hame shop.  He had that smile there which he has noAv when spoken to.  I
 have seen him about the streets twice since he came out;  once he was saw-
 ing wood.  I assisted in getting him into jail, and talked with him some after
 he was in his cell.  I can't give  his Avords, but the substance was that the
 persons he had killed were the means of getting him into the  State Prison.
 I told him they were not.   Ile made no reply. Mr. Ethan A. AVarden was
 there, and conversed with him.  f_See Warden's testimony for conversation.]
 I think when a boy he was stiller than other boys.   I  think there is some
 resemblance between his  smile and that of his father's.  I never considered
 him insane.  I have seen a good many insane people, and I never saw one
 but what I could discover it in their appearance.
   Cross  Examination.—I don't know but all fathers  and  grandfathers
 smile.   The prisoner was no more nor less  playful than other boys.   I saw
 him in prison before his  striped  dress was  put on him.  I then told him I
 was sorry  to see him come in so young.  He wept.  I don't knoAV that  I had
 any other  conversation Avith him than that alluded to.   AVhen he  said they
 were the means of sending him to prison, he  did not say what he Avas sent
 to prison for.
   Jefferson AVellington, called and sworn, testified:  I kneAV Freeman
 when  he lived with Mr. CadAvell.  He was a  pretty ugly fellow.   He took
 away  my umbrella, one time, and threw a flat  iron at me, and threatened to
 kUl me.  I lent him an umbrella to go doAvn and see his friends, and he did
 not bring  it back.  I told him if he did not I should Avhip him.   He did not,
and I  whipped him.  He then threw the iron and threatened to kill me.
He was sociable, about like other boys.   I don't know as I ever saAv any 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      333
 thing more ugly than he was contrary.  He was much the same then as now
 in his appearance.
   Cross Examination.—He brought back the umbrella after I whipped
 him.  I used a horse whip upon him.  He was angry, and so Avas I.   I don't
 know as I Avas ever afraid of him.   He left CadAvell's before I did.
   Josiaii Siieravood, called and sworn, testified :   I have known the pri-
 soner since he Avas a small boy.  He Avas a still boy, and spoke only when
 spoken to.   He was always crooked; his head inclined forward.  Never took
 much notice respecting his smile.  He looks like his father.  Do not discover
 any difference in him, except his deafness.  Never discovered any insanity
 about him;  yet he might have been insane when he killed the people, and I
 not know it.  The most I can say, is, I never saw any insanity about him.
   Cross Examination.—I am overseer of the poor, and have had  several
 cases of insanity under my charge.   I think, from what has come under my
 observation, that there is no difficulty in discoArering insanity where it exists.
 Cannot say but that it may be difficult to discover some cases  of insanity.
   Thomas  F. Munroe, called and sworn, testified:  I am police officer of
 thi3 village.   Have known the prisoner since he was a boy.   He was about
 seven years  old, and perhaps older.   I kneAV him Avhen he  HA'edat CadwelPs.
 Lie Avas not  as large as he is now.   He Avas stout and springy,  and ugly tem-
 pered.  Have seen him throw stones  at other boys.   I have a  boy about his
 age, at whom the prisoner once threw stones.  I spoke to him about  it once,
 and picked  up  a stick and  told him  that if he didn't let the boys  alone I
 would lay it over his back.  AVas present when he was brought up for steal-
 ing a horse.   I then talked with him some, but he protested that he did not
 steal the horse.   He said another negro took him, but that he came to Au-
 burn in company with him.  I don't see any change in him, only that he is
 a little more bent over, and a little  more down cast than  he was.  I always
 noticed the manner in which he turned up his eyes.  Have seen him  sawing
 wood in the street, and  he Avould  look up at me, as I passed, in that way.
 Have seen him  smile a good many times, and cannot see  any  difference be-
 tAveen his smile now and as it Avas then.  After the murders, I  had a conver-
 sation with John De Puy about this prisoner, in which De Puy said  he Avas
 not crazy.   Never saAv any insanity about the prisoner.  Never suspected
 it, nor heard that any body else did, until after the murders.
   Cross Examination.—He was a boy Avhen I first knew him.   When
 he lived at Cadwell's, I saw him frequently.  He Avas quite quick and  active;
 not much different from other black boys.   He was ugly, and  about the
 ugliest boy I ever saw.   I don't  think his  appearance is as  intelligent as
 that of colored people generally.  I think perhaps he is as intelligent as the
 middle class. If he heard and had not that down cast look, he would appear
as Avell as any of them.  He denied stealing the horse.  I  did say something
 about manufacturing witnesses on the former trial.  I said to several that I
thought they had been up to the jail to be manufactured  into  witnesses.   1 
334
the trial of
think I have said that they were either perjured or devil; -Id ■- mistaken.  I
think the prisoner can hear.  I think he has heard my tes. ;n.ony.   I served
subpoenas on the first trial for  the  people, at the requcsi  of  the district
attorney.  I have taken a part in this tried, so far  as this, that I like to see
the law  sustained and the people protested, and have served subpoenas on
twenty or thirty witnesses.
   Silas Baker, called  and sworn, testified:  I knew tee pi'-oner when
he was in the yard of the State Prison.  I did night duty in the State Prison.
I never kneAV that  he was disturbed of  his rest in prison.  I punished  him
twice in prison, once for striking another convict and once in relation to
hanging out yarn.   His appearance in the prison was much f'C same as noAv.
He was more stiU and quiet than  other convicts.   I noticed his smile in
prison, and the same smile in the chapel,  when he had nothing to smile at.
I never supposed him to be insane.  I have not discovered in him  any such
appearance.  There is ahvays something  about insane men  Avhich indicates
insanity.
   Cross Examination.—Those whom I have seen insane were admitted
to be insane before  I saw them.   I flogged the  prisoner with a  cat o'nine
taUs. I saw him smile in the chapel as  he does noAv, and Avithout  any appa-
rent cause.  It occurred to me  that at such times  he was occupied with his
own thoughts.  It  did not occur to me that he was insane.  I suppose an
insane person might smile without any apparent reason, but nothing is more
common than to see conA'icts smile without apparent cause.   I  never had
any conversation with him except in relation to  his work.  If he Avas in-
sane his insanity must have been slight. * He generally obeyed the rules of
the prison.
   James Parish,  called and sworn, testified:  I was at work  in the dye
house in the prison, when the prisoner Avas there.  I don't see any material
 difference in him now from what he was then.   I recollect that  he smiled
frequently without my knowing what he was smiling at.  He did his work
regularly.  I saw him since the murder and asked him when he became deaf.
He said last fall.
   Cross Examination.—He was punished in the State Prison, once for
 striking another convict and once about seme yarn. He Avas not punished
 for stealing that I know of.  I  neA-er knew whether he could read or not
   John  P. Huleeet, called  and sworn, says:   I am a counsellor at law
 and reside in  Alburn.  I was in the jail a short time after the prisoner was
 arrested, and there heard  some conversation between him and Doctor Fos-
 gate.   The doctor  directed him to stand  up, sit down, and to hold his arm
 in a certain position, &c. and asked him various questions respecting it.  He
 asked if it did not pain him.  He said it  did not much.  I did not see any
 thing that led me  to believe that he was  insane.   I Avas here last winter
 during the trial of AA'yatt, for murder.  I  may be mistaken  about  seeing tha
 prisoner in the court house then, but my impression is,  that he Avas here. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
335
  Cross Examination.—I have read upon the subject of insanity, but
mostly in books of Medical Jurisp; ixdcnce.  I have neA-er devoted my at-
tention particularly to it, hoAvever.  I have not seen much of this prisoner,
but from Avhat I have observed of him, I have not much  doubt that he ;.-
sane.   My opportunities for judging, have been limited.  Had I more  knoAv-
ledge of him I could judge better  in relation to the state of his mind  than I
am able to noAv.
  Augustus Pettirone, rc-ealk d, testified:   I am the keeper of the
jail Avhere the prisoner  has been  confined. I have not discovered any in-
sanity about him.  I have heard no disturbance from him nights, except one
night when  I forgot to give him  his bedding.  He then rattled the  chains
and knocked against the Avail.  The man carried him bedding.   He  has al-
ways  eaten his rations well and been in good health, so far as I know.
  Cross Examination.—This disturbance occurred in the month of May.
He is chained to the floor.   The  floor is stone, and he was left that night
accidentally Avithout bedding.  I did not hear what he said.  On Thursday
or Friday last, the attorney general told me that he  did not Avant me to let
any more go in to be manufactured Into Avitnesses.   Dr. Hun and Dr. Mc-
Naughton came the next morning and admittance was refused.
   Robert  Simpson, re-called,  testified:  A  day or two previous  to  the
murder, the prisoner came to me to get a knife ground, and ground  it him-
self.  I do not knoAV Avhether he fitted the knife  to the stick at my shop or
not.   I could only judge that he did, from his actions.
  Benjamin F. Hall, called and sworn, testified: I reside in Auburn, and
am a counsellor at laAv, by profession.  I have seen the prisoner.  I never
noticed him  particularly, however, until he was brought to the jail for  kilHng
the Van Nest family.   At the request of the examining magistrate, I went
Avith others  to the jail, to aid in re; sxs-ingany disorder that might arise, and
preventing any violence to the prisoner, Avhen the officers, who Avere near at
band, should arrive Avith him.  An immense concourse of people had  assem-
bled about the jail for some purpose, and many apprehended that an attempt
would be made to rescue the prisoner from the  officers, for the  purpose of
punishing him summarily, for  killing  vran Nest  and his family.   Upon the
arrival of the officers with the prisoner, I saw him, and assisted in lodging
him in jail.   Since then I have seen the prisoner but once, except in court.
That  was during the preliminary  trial.   Being at the jail for another pur-
pose,  I Avas requested by Ector Spencer, of Geneva, Avho Avas then there, to
interrogate the prisoner.  AYe entered his cell together.  The prisoner Avas
r.lsmdir.g Avhen we  entered Lis cell, but afterAvards sat down.  I asked  the
prisoner if he knew Captain Chase.   He said he did not.  1 asked him whe-
ther he knew me.  I got no answer which I could understand.   I asked him
it' he worked in the stone shop when in prison.  He answered Yes.  I asked
what kind of work he performed.   lie said, " Worked 'round at all kinds of
Avork."  I asked  Avho  the  keeper in that shop was.  He said, " Captain 
336
THE TRIAL OF
 Green."   I asked him to relate his difficulty Avith Tyler.  He said, " I wan-
 ted to get out—didn't Avant to stay there—told him I was clear—he Avent up
 on to the stairs  and came down," pausing betAveen the sentences.  I then
 asked Avhat Tyler then did.  He said, " He struck me."  I asked what Tyler
 said he did it for.  He made no answer.   I repeated the question, to which
 he replied, " He told me to go to work, and I wouldn't."  I asked where he
 worked when this happened.  Ile said, " In hame shop."  I asked where he
 went when he left that shop.   He said, " They sent me into shop they were
 buUding up."  I asked if it were a  brick shop.  He said, " \ cs, sir."  1
 asked how many brick shops there were in the prison.   He answered, " Two,"
 and then added, " One was buUt Avhilst I was there."  I asked  Avhich shop
 was built first.  He  said, " One on the west side."  Knowing that there was
 no shop on the west side, I asked Avhich way it was from the reservoir.  He
 said, " The right side."  I asked Avhatwas done in that shop.   He said, " Fi-
 ling and blacksmithing."  I asked where the shoemakers Avere taken when
 the old shop Avas removed.   He said, " B'lieve they took 'em over to ano-
 ther shop."  I asked if'he knew Mr. Robert Muir, a contractor.   He an-
 swered Yes.  I asked if he had men  making bed ticking.   He  said, " Had
 some men; don't know what they did."   I asked him if he were  ever in the
 cutlery shop.   He said, " AVas in  there one time."  I asked if he knew how
 they polished knives.  He said, " They've wheels."   I  asked Avhat moved
 the Avheels.  He said, " Go by steam."  I asked whether he had  good food.
 He said,  " Pretty good."  I  asked when he  came out of prison.  He said,
 " September."   I asked how many years he was imprisoned.  He said," Five
years."  I asked who the head keeper of the prison then was.   He said,
 " Captain Cook." I asked where he was convicted.   He said, " Here."  I
 asked the  name of the judge that  sentenced him.  He said, " Don't remem-
 ber."  I asked Avhether the judge was an old or a young man.   He said,
 " Was a heavy, thick set  man."   I asked if he saw him in this court.  He
said, " Don't know as I did."   The hour having arrived for the  opening of
this court, we retired from the cell.   In that  examination I did not discover
any form of insanity that I  am acquainted with.   So far as that opportunity
enables me to judge, his mind is of a  very low order, and quite feeble, but I
did not discover, from his manners or answers, that he was deranged.
  Cross  Examination.—Q. How long were  you with the prisoner on
that occasion ?
  A.  From fifteen to tAventy minutes.
  Q.  Have you examined the prisoner at any other time?
  A.  I have not.
  Q.  Was that  examination sufficient, in your  opinion, to determine the
question of his insanity ?
  A.  It was not; and hence my answer that I did not discover any form of
 insanity that I am acquainted with.
  Q.  Do you consider a conversation of twenty minutes a thorough exami-
nation of the prisoner ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       337
  A.  I do not; nor do I believe that any one can make a thorough examina-
tion of him, in that period of time.
  Q.  Might he not have been insane Avithout your discovering it ?
  A.  I can only say that I  did not discover it.
  Q.  Have you ever seen insane persons from Avhose appearance you could
not detect their insanity ?
  A.  I have  seen those Avho were  said to be insane, but whose insanity 1
did not discover from their appearance.
  Q.  AVhere did you see those persons ?
  A.  In the State Lunatic Asylum, at Utica.
  Q.  Did you converse with them ?
  A.  Not much, if at all, so far as  I  noAv recollect.
  Q.  Do you consider the  prisoner's mind sound ?            #
  A.  I am not able  to say  whether some of his mental faculties  have,  or
have  not, been impaired.  He is a stolid taciturn,  ignorant being,  having
mind enough to comprehend my questions, and to make brief  ansAvers to
them. Beyond that I cannot answer advisedly.
   Q.  Have not brutes a mind ?
  A.  They have that which is called mind, but have no intellectual faculties.
   Q. Did you ever  see a human being Avho had not some intellect, and some
mind?
   A.  I recollect of no instance Avhere there Avas not some glimmering of in-
tellect and mind.  I never saAv a case of perfect idiocy, or dementia.
   Q.  Can insanity exist Avhere there is no mind ?
   A. No, sir.   The manifestations of mind depend, I suppose, upon the health
and activity of the brain.  AVhen that is diseased the mind is disordered,  and
that I suppose to be insanity.  AVhen the brain ceases to act, there can be
no longer any insane manifestations, for death ensues.
   Q.  Then you consider insanity  a disease ?
   A Medical Avriters so regard it.
   Re-Examination.—Q.  Are you  a lawyer by profession ?
   A.  The practice of the law is my business.
   Q.  Cannot a lawyer as well detect external indications of insanity  as a
 physician ?
   A.  If insanity Avere apparent, perhaps a lawyer might detect them as  Avell
 as a physician.  In doubtful cases,  I think a medical man, avIio has made  that
subject his study, could detect them better.
   Q.  You seem to qualify your opinion.  Have you  any doubt  at all but
that the prisoner is sane V
   A.  My ansAvers must be according to the  knowledge that I have of the
prisoner.  He is a low, stupid, and ignorant being;  yet in my examination
I did not discover in him any  form of insanity  that I am acquainted
 Avith.
   Rev.  Alonzo Wood, called  and sworn, testified:   I am chaplain at the
                      22 
338                        THE TRIAL OF

State Prison, and know this prisoner.  First saw him there about four weeks
prior to his discharge, and from that time until his  discharge I saAv him al-
most every day.  I also saw him the Monday evening preceding the murder.
He was at a barber's shop, in town, where he requested to haA-e his Avhiskers
shaved off.   Never saw any insanity about him.  AAThen he  left  the prison
he appeared to feel weU.  AVhen in there he made some music and fun about
him.  I noticed no stupiditv or dullness.
  Q.  Are  you aware  that a majority of the convicts in that prison think
that they are entitled to pay from somebody for the time they are in prison ?
  Objected to.  Objection OA'erruled, and exception.
  A.  I cannot say that a majority think so.  Have  heard some of them say
that they were, but cannot say that they were serious  about it.
  Q.  Bub is it not common for convicts to speak in  that way ?
  A.  I have heard men  speak in that way; or, have heard  them say that
they were entitled to consideration, on  account of extra services.  But I
cannot say that such  an impression is common.
  Q.  But did not Mr. ToAvnsend, the  former  chaplain, testify that it  was
when he was there ?
  A.  I believe he did—and it may have been then; but I do  not knoAV that
it is now.
  Cross Examination.—In visiting the cells, in rotation, I first spoke to
him.  I asked him how he was—hoAv he got along,  and many other similar
questions.  Saw him at the time of his discharge, and  expressed the hope to
him that he would so behaA'e in future as  to  neA-er  be imprisoned again.
AATiUst in prison, I asked him if he  wanted a  bible.  I understood  that he
said that it would be of no use, as he couldn't read.   After being dressed to
leave the prison, he was taken to the clerk's office,  where a check was pre-
sented him to sign ;  but he declined  signing it.   He Avas paid three dollars.
He said he had been imprisoned fiA'e years unjustly,  and he wasn't a going
to  settle so.  The clerk told him he could not have his money unless he
signed the  receipt.   He said that he couldn't write.  The  clerk told  him
that he must make his mark.  He then did so, receiA-ed his money, and went
away.
  Harry Lampkin, called and sworn, testified:  I keep a pubHc  house at
Port Byron.  About tAvo weeks before the murder, the prisoner and three
other black  fellows  came to my house, on  Sunday.   They put their horses
under  the shed—took something to drink—stayed about half an hour, and
went away.  The prisoner appeared sulky.  They had some conversation
about the pay, in which the prisoner took a part.   The prisoner untied the
horses, paid the ostler, and  appeared to be driA-er.  He  came  in and  got
some change at the bar, and  ordered some  Hquor to drink, and they drank
around.  I didn't see any thing crazy in him.
   Cross Examination.—I testified before,  that it was beer.   AA'e  call
every thing beer, now-a-days, as it has  to be beer before it's any thing else. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
339
Think they drank beer one or twice while  there, and my bar keeper says
they drank liquor once.
  Dr. Charles A. Hyde, caUed and sworn, testified:   I  am a physician
and surgeon.   Have been in practice twelve or thirteen years.  Have visi-
ted the prisoner twice in  the jail, for the purpose of examination.   Had
never seen him before, but saAv nothing in him there to make me think he
was insane.   From seeing him  twice, it would be difficult to say that he is
insane.  I was rather of the opinion that he was not
  Cross Examination.—I had  entertained the impression before seeing
him that he was insane.   Upon  arriving there, in company with other medi-
cal men, and examining him, I was  not  able to discover any derangement
of the mental  faculties.   He appeared dull and  stupid, and disinclined to
talk much, yet in all that I saw  I discovered no insanity.   I  have seen many
cases of insanity, but my opportunities for treating it professionally have not
been very extensive.
  Dr. Samuel Gilmore, re-called, testified: I have seen the  prisoner in
jail.   Several other physicians were present.  I have heard the material
parts of all the  testimony,  but not all of it.   I heard the prisoner  read and
count, as  spoken of by other witnesses.  I also talked with him about the
murder, and  whether he did not consider it wrong ; also why he ran  away,
and Avhy he stole the horse. It is a difficult matter for  me to separate my
OAvn examination of the prisoner from what I have heard testified about him,
yet it is my opinion from my examination of him that he Avas not insane.
  Cross Examination.—I do not see any thing in his acts in relation to
the murder, that indicates insanity.  I think his preparation of the knives,
and the concealment of them, and his going in the night, indicates forethought,
calculation and inteUigence, which are indications of sanity.  He seems to
have planned the homicide with as much skill and care, and  carried it out as
well as any sane man  could.  I don't think the murder  indicates insanity,
but it does indicate great  depravity.  I think his  inabiUty to read or count
well, indicates ignorance.   He may not be as intelligent as negroes generally,
yet he must have knoAvn that it was wrong to commit murder.
  Dr. Joseph  Clary,  called and sworn, testified : I am a practicing phy-
sician.  I have  been in practice thirty-five years.  I have visited the priso-
ner three  times for the purpose of examination.  I had some conversation
with him each time, and heard conversation that I did not participate in.  I
have seen so  little of insanity that  I don't knoAV as I ought to  express an
opinion.  I think nurses and those that attend the sick, will  sooner discover
insanity than others.  I consider  insanity delirium without fever.  I think
that those who  attend the sick  will discover a delirious idea sooner  than  a
physician.  I'should dislike to give a decided opinion in respect to the pri-
soner.  I have not had that oportunity of deciding that I ought to have had
in order to form a decided opinion.   From what I have seen of him it is my
opinion that he is sane. 
340
THE TRIAL OF
   Cross Examination.—He may be insane.   My examination of him has
not been such as to enable me to give a confident opinion.   I giA'e only my
prevailing opinion  from what I knoAV of him.   His pulse,  when standing,
ranged from  one  hundred  and twenty to one hundred and twenty-three.
That might denote disease or a nervous state of the system.  Doctor AVillard
was there, and proposed questions to him at considerable length.  There  is
such a form of insanity as  dementia.  It  comes  from disease of some kind.
Diseases have different stages.  I think  a man may have dementia and yet
may have some memory left.  I have seen dementia in old age.  Whether
the patient would exhibit anger, hatred  or tenderness, would depend upon
the intensity of the disease.
   Dr. David  Dimon,  called and  sworn, testified: I am a physician and
surgeon, and  reside in the vUlage of Auburn.  I have  seen the prisoner se-
veral times since he has been confined in the jail.   I went there several times.
The  first time I went to  see him from motives of curiosity, but subsequently
at request, for the purpose of ascertaining the state of his mind.   I have vis-
ited him, in all, six or eight times.   Sometimes I remained Avith him fifteen
minutes; at other times half an hour or more.  The  first time I saw him Avas
soon after his arrest. I examined him at considerable length in reference to
the events of his life, and  the circumstances attending the murder.   The
conversation was conducted by questions and ansAvers.  In these  examina-
tions and his general manners and appearance, I discovered no evidence of
insanity.  He is ignorant and depraved, yet I was unable to discover wherein
any of his facnlties have  been disturbed.  I conclude  that his mind is  now
in the same condition that it has been since he was a boy.  I discovered no-
thing about him indicating insanity.
   Cross Examination.—Q.  You say that you examined  him and disco-
vered nothing about him indicating insanity ?
  A.  I haAre so testified.
   Q.  What do you consider insanity ?
   A.  Some derangement of the intellectual faculties or the passions, either
partial or general.
   Q.  AArhat do you call  a derangement ?
   A.  An  alteration from the natural or healthy  state.
   Q.  AVhat do you call  the intellectual faculties ?
   A.  The faculties by which we reason, compare and judge.
   Q.  AVhat are the affections and passions ?
   A.  The affections and passions are the motive powers.  The passions arc
certain emotions producing  certain desires or aversions.  The affections are
those certain desires or aversions.
   Q. AVhat is comparison ?
   A. By comparison we compare two or more things with each other.
   Q. AVhat is judgment ?
   A.  Judgment is  the faculty which enables us to choose and  decide be- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
341
 tween tAvo or more things, after comparison has done its work.  It may be
 termed the decision made.
   Q.  AVhat is reflection ?
   Q.  Comparison and judgment, or, perhaps, I should say the thought be-
 stowed upon a subject.
   Q.  Do you consider the will a faculty ?
   A.  Perhaps not strictly, yet it is generally called a faculty.
   Q.  A\rhat kind of a faculty is it ?
   A.  As I Avish to aA'oid a metaphysical discussion, I will answer by saying
 that the will is a faculty by Avhich we resolve to do something.  In choosing
 between two or more things, the will and the judgment are both in exercise.
   Q.  AVhat moves the will'?
   A.  I regard the passions and the  affections as the motives  of action.
   Q.  Hoav is the will directed ?
   A.  The intellect directs the movement.
   Q.  Is the Avill a power ?
   A.  It is usually called  a power.
   Q.  AVhat kind of a power, physical or mental ?
   A.  Mental.
   Q.  Is the will passive or active ?
   A.  It is an operation of the mind, and is therefore, in one sense, active.
 So far as it is a result of action it is not.
   Q.  AVhat has judgment to do with the will ?
   A. It is an intellectual faculty and directs the will.
   Q.  What is reason ?
   A. It is commonly called an exercise of the intellectual faculties.
   Q. Is it not a faculty of itself?
   A. No; for Avhen it is applied to  the faculties  instead of the exercise of
 them it embraces several—memory, comparison, judgment, and some others.
   Q.  Have you had any experience in the treatment of the insane ?
   A. I have seen many insane persons,  but haA'e not had much experience
 in treating insanity.
   Q. Where have you seen most of insanity ?
   A. I have s«en most of it in the Alms House in Philadelphia, but have
 seen it elseAvhere.
   Q. Have you seen persons whom you would not know to be insane, from
 observation ?
  A.  Yes;  and I have seen many  Avhom I would  know to be insane at
sight
  Q.  Have you ever been called upon, before, to determine a  case of doubt-
ful insanity ?
  A.  I recoUect of no case where I have been.
  Q.  Did you eA'er discover insanity in any one who was not before known
to be insane ? 
342
THE TRIAL OF
  A.  I think I can say that I have.
  Q.  In whom?
  A.  In a man in the State Prison—a convict.
  Q.  AArhen did you make that discovery ?
  A.  Some  two or three  years  ago, when my brother was the physician
there.  I went in with him to  determine whether the convict was, or was
not insane.
  Q.  How did you decide ?
  A.  That he was insane.
  Q.  AVhat was the question about it ?
  A.  AVhether he was really insane, or whether he Avas feigning insanity.
  Q.  AVhat was the result of that case ?
  A.  I never heard of the man afterwards.
  Q.  Have  you  ever treated a case  of partial or  general insanity, pro-
fessionaUy ?
  A.  I have not.  I have seen cases of melancholy,  however,  that I have
treated in the same manner that I would the first stages of insanity.
  Q.  How does melancholy affect the mind ?
  A.  It affects the disposition, conduct and habits, but it does not necessa-
rUy derange the intellect.   It sometimes exists with  and sometimes without
derangement.
  Q.  Do you consider melancholy insanity ?
  A.  It may be caUed an incipient stage of insanity, as either the inteUect
or passions are  affected more or less, and sometimes both.
  Q.  May the passions be deranged and not the intellect ?
  A.  Derangement of  the passions sometimes  exists without any appreci-
able derangement of the inteUect.
  Q.  In a case of settled,  confirmed melancholy, is not the mind more or
less diseased?
  A.  In some degree it is,  yet  some people recollect, compare, judge and
imagine well, notwithstanding.
  Q.   AVill they not do all things that a sane person avUI ?
  A.  I suppose so, in most instances.
  Q.   Does insanity frequently commence with melancholy 9
  A.  In many cases melancholy runs into insanity.
  Q.  Did you  say to Doctors Briggs and Fosgate, after visiting the prisoner
in the jail, that you then thought him insane ?
  A.   I did not.  I have never had but one opinion about this case.
  Q.   Are all the prisoner's inteUectual faculties in order ?
   A.   I did not discover that any of them were deranged.
   Q.  Do you believe in an insanity that disturbs the moral powers ?
   A.   I have already so stated.
   Q.   Then you admit that moral insanity may exist ?
   A.   I admit the principle of moral insanity as a disease of the brain 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
343
   Q.  Do you consider that the prisoner's moral  poAvers are in a healthy
 state ?
   A.  It is  my opinion that  his  moral poAvers are hoav, as they we're by
 nature.
   Q.  Do you believe that his passions and affections are not deranged ?
   A.  I think they have not been affected by disease.  There has been no
 change in him except such as circumstances  might naturally produce.   He
 was a bad boy, committed crime, has been imprisoned for it.   I presume he is
 noAv more depraved than  he was, and that  his depraved  disposition  has
 groAvn Avith his groAvth, and strengthened with his strength.   He has a very
 low grade of inteUect, and is very ignorant, but that is not insanity.
   Q-  Then you think there  has been a change in him ?
   A. Undoubtedly there has been some change.  His going to prison very
 young, and being confined there  five years, would naturally produce some
 change ;  besides, he has grown older.
   Q.  AVhen you were looking after symptoms of  insanity, what physical
 appearance of insanity did you expect to find ?
   A. In  the maniac there is a wild, glassy expression of the eye,  and gen
 erally a paleness.   Besides those, there are a good many other looks and
 expressions indicating insanity, which may be detected.
   Q. Have you ever  visited the State Lunatic Asylum at Utica ?
   A. I have not.
   Q. Do maniacs frequently smile ?
   A. They do ; and their smile is very peculiar and unmeaning.
   Q. Is not the smile of the prisoner peculiar ?
   A. AVell, perhaps it is ; yet I don't  think it indicates insanity.
   Q. You say he is ignorant; what is  the degree of his intelligence ?
   A. He appears to have but little.
   Q. AVhat is the degree of his intellect ?
   A. It is difficult to tell by any examinations  that Avere made there in the
jail.  He  Avas there to be tried for life;  oppressed with the weight of his
crimes; ignorant and deaf, to be sure, but with  every motive to conceal and
deceive.   His intellect is of a low grade, but  hoAv much he has precisely,
cannot Avell  be determined under the disadvantages of his situation.
   Q. From Avhat you discover, can you compare his intellect to that of any
other being ?
   A. I should not think  he has  as much intellect  as an ordinary child of
fourteen years of  age.  In some respects, he Avould  hardly compare Avith
chUdren of two or three years.
   Q. AArith  a child  of what age  would you compare  him,  in respect to
knowledge ?
  A.  AVith  a child two or three years  old.
  Q.  Doctor, what is dementia ?
  A.  Dementia is an enfeebled state of all the faculties. 
344
THE TRIAL OF
   Q.  What are the symptoms of dementia ?
   A.  Demented persons are submissive, and easily controlled; having no
will of their OAvn, they are subject to the will of others.   They are also des-
titute of passion, or  only capable of being momentarily affected;  and are
incapable of any prolonged effort.
   Q.  What is an insane delusion ?
   A.  It is the  thorough belief of the reality of something in opposition to
the evidence of the senses.
   Q.  Might not the  prisoner haA'e been partially demented without your
discovering it iii the jail ?
   A.  I cannot  say Avhat might be.  I saw no evidence to satisfy me that he
was.
   Q.  Might he not  have been laboring under an insane delusion  on the
twelfth of March, and yet you not discover any evidence of it ?
   A.  I cannot  ansAver as to Avhat might have taken place before I saw the
prisoner.  I saw no evidence of delusion there in the jail.
   Re-Examination.—Q.  Do  you mean to express  any doubt as to the
sanity of the prisoner ?
   A.  No;  I think he is  as sane as ever he was.
   Q.  Did  you mean to  be understood that his mind is like a child, or that
his information is like a  child ?
   A.  I mean to say that he is very ignorant and depraved; that upon some
subjects his information  is  like that of a child.  I can't compare his native
strength of intellect with a child of any age.
   Dr.  Sylvester Willard, called and sworn, testified:  I am a physi-
cian and surgeon, and have been in practice twenty-three years.  Have been
six or eight times into the  jail to see the prisoner, for the purpose of ascer-
taining his mental condition.  I engaged his attention, and requested him to
tell me about the matter for Avhich he was imprisoned.   I began by saying,
" Bill, did you kill them  ?"   He answered Yes.  I said, " AVhat did you kill
then} with ?"  He said, " AVell, I killed them with a butcher knife."  I asked,
" AVhere did you get  your knife ?"  He  said, " AVhy, I  bought it—I bought
two."   I asked, " AVhat did you give for them ?"  He said, " I gave one and
sixpence for one."  I asked  him Avhat he did Avith his knife after he bought
it  He said a man helped him grind it; then he took it up to the big dam
and ground it himself.   I then told him to go on and tell me the Avhole story.
Then he said, " I took the knife and carried it home, and took it to the room
and hid it."  I told him to go on.  Ile continued, " Well,  I let it  lie there
till I got ready to go out to kill."  I again told him to proceed.   He  then
said, " When I got ready to go out and kill, that night, I went up stairs and
threw it out of the window."  I told him to go on.  He said, " I threw it out
of the'win(low, so that they shouldn't see me when I went down stairs."  I
told him, " Go on."  He continued, " I went down  stairs, myself, and went
round and got my things, and then I went off up south."  I then asked Avhere 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
345
  he went to.  He said, " I went up to Van Nest's."  I asked what he went
  there for.  He said, " I went there to kill them."  I asked Avhat he did when
  he first Avent there.  He said, " I saAv a light in the house,  and didn't go in
  when I first went there."  I asked what he then did.  He said, " I stayed
  out round the house."   I asked how long he stayed.  He said, " I stayed a
  httle while, until I saw a man  come out and go away; then I went into the
  house, and saw  Mr. Aran Nest."  I asked what he did  then.  He said, " I
  stabbed him."  I asked  if he killed him.  He  said  Yes. I am not able to
  give all my questions and his answers, but I continued to inquire, and he to
  answer, until he told me that he killed Mr. ATan Nest in the house, and the
  Avoman out of doors, and the chUd in the bed, and that it was asleep and was
  covered  up in  the bed  clothes—and that  he then went up stairs, and  was
  driven down by a man Avho struck him—that he stabbed  the old lady out
  near the front gate.  I asked how many he kiUed.  He said, " I killed five."
  I asked whom.   He said, " Van Nest, his wife and child, and the woman at
  the front gate."  I asked how many he meant to kill.  He said, " All I see."
  I asked what made him stop.  He said, " I got my hand cut and  couldn't
  kill any more."  I asked how he got his hand cut, and who  cut it. He said,
  " The woman at the gate."   I asked what she cut it Avith.   He said, " AVith
  my knife.  I s'pose the piece that Avas broken off."   I asked hoAv she came
  to cut it with his knife that was broken off." He said, " I s'pose she pulled
  it out of  her body."  I asked what he did then.  He said, " I went  to the
 stable and got a horse, and rode him  aAvay down to Mrs. Godfrey's."  He
 said, " I meant to kill  her."  I asked  why he didn't kill her.  He said, " I
 didn't like to go into the house in the dark."  I asked if it did not look hard
 to  kill those folks.  He  said, " It looked hard."  I asked what he did after
 that.  He said, " I rode down back to Auburn—the horse  fell." I  asked
 Avhat he did then. He  said, " I stabbed him."  I  asked what he  stabbed
 him for.  He answered, " 'Cause he  hurt  my leg."  I asked what he  did
 then.   He said, " I went on to the middle road to  Skaneateles, and took
 another horse, and rode on tOAvards  Syracuse."  I asked  about his  knife.
 He said,  " Threw it away near Syracuse."  I  asked where he Avas going.
 He said, " I was going out of the county until my hand got well, and then
 come back again."  I asked if he knew what they did Avith people that mur-
 dered.  He said, " They hang 'em."  I asked if he thought they would hang
 him.   He said, " I don't think they will hang me."  I asked what he thought
 they would do with him.  He said, " I thought they might kill me."  I asked
 Avhy he killed those people.   He said,  " Because they put me in  State Pri-
 son, and I couldn't get my pay."  I asked if he thought Van Nest put him
 in prison.   He answered No.  I then asked what  made him  kiU those  inno-
 cent people, and  said it was not right to kill innocent people.  He said,  " I
 meant to kill every body."               '
  After getting these matters of plain  relation,  I undertook to excite  his
fears.  I then said to him that they were going to hang him, and that  we 
346
THE TRIAL OF
   had come as his friends to see if we could do him any good.   I  asked him
   what Avord Ave should carry back to  court.   He said " I  don't knoAV."   I
   asked him to teU  us  something.   He said, " Don't knoAV."  I asked if we
   should not tell the court that he didn't do it.  He said, ;' No, that Avouldn't
   be right."   AVe then told him that there had been a great deal of noise about
   this matter,  and it is time it was settled.   I then inquired Hoav much he
   would ask if I would  pay him off  He said, "I don't  know."  I then asked
   him to say something—no matter what.  He said, " I don't know."  I asked
   if it should be one dollar or one hundred—to say something.  He said, " I
   don't knoAV."  I handed him a dollar bill, and asked Iioav much it Avas. He told
   me rightly,  and the same in regard to a three dollar bill, but a ten  dollar
   biU he called one.  I talked with him at great length, and felt his pulse.  In all
   my examination I did not find evidence sufficient to make me think him in-
   sane.
     Cross Examination.—There are symptoms  of insanity in the prisoner,
   but there is not in my opinion sufficient evidence to make it out.  The act
   of killing itself, is such as* insane persons might perform, but it is not enough,
   of itself, to make  out insanity.   I have not heard of any  act in this matter
   that necessarily indicates insanity.  A sane mind, means a sound,  weU reg-*
   ulated and well ordered mind;  having the regular exercise of reason and
   the other faculties.  An insane  mind is the reverse—an  unsound state of
   the reason and other faculties, or their irregular exercise.  A demented man
   may have a temporary insanity,  and  yet he cannot be said to have an un-
   sound mind.  His mind may be  sound, but its exercise irregular.
     Q.  Does drunkenness affect the reason ?
     A.  It sometimes destroys it, or in such a state  it is  sometimes gone.
     Q.  AAThere does that reason go ?
     A.  I never kept track of it, to knoAV where it  is gone.
     Q.  Does drunkenness affect the inteUect ?
     A.  It is not brought into exercise.
     Q.  Where is his intellect at such times ?
     A.  I cannot say Avhere.   A drunken man has not the regular exercise of
   his mind.
     Q.  How is it when a man is perfectly intoxicated ?
     A.  He exercises his reasoning faculties so far as he has any.
     Q.  Is the  irregular  exercise  of the faculties  in insanity continuous  or
   occasional ?
     A.  Sometimes continuous, but sometimes intermittent.
     Q.  AVhen the exercise is irregular,  is not that a temporary insanity ?
     A.  A man who has an irregular exercise of the mental  faculties for once,
*   may or may not be insane.
     Q.  Is insanity generally chronic ?
     A.  It is not necessarily chronic.
     Q.  Is it generally  active or violent? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
347
   A. Sometimes it is violent and active, at others inactive.
   Q. Have you had any experience in insanity ?
   A. Not a great deal;  I don't  profess to be an adept, yet I have seen a
 few insane persons.
   Q. Is insanity a disease ?
   A. It may or may not be a disease of the physical structure of the brain.
 There are functional derangements Avithout organic disease.
   Q. Do insane men have lucid intervals ?
   A. They often do.
   Q. Are men temporarily insane ?
   A. It is not ahvays permanent.  Persons may be bewildered, as by a blow,
 for instance, and not shoAV the effect of it aftenvards.
   Q. Might he not have been insane on the twelfth of March, without its
 being discovered hoav ?
   A. If he is diseased at this moment, and not the last or next, the disorga-
 nization would be hardly discoverable.
   Q. AVhy, in your opinion, did the prisoner require prompting ?
   A. AVhether he thought I-didn't want to  hear any more, or whether  he
 had a motive for stopping, I cannot say.
   Q. Now, sir, was it not because he could not proceed ?
   A. I think he requires  impressions to be  repeatedly made on him, to in-
 duce him to narrate.
   Q. Is he not,  sir, a very duU man ?
   A. In memory he is not dull; it is very tenacious.
   Q. If he had motives for his incoherence, Avhat, in your opinion, were they ?
   A. I know not what his  motives were ; Avhether he thought I Avanted  to
 hear no more, or whether he didn't choose to answer.
   Q. Unexplained, Avas it  not an evidence of dullness ?
   A. It Avas, perhaps, one evidence of dullness.
   Q. Did his failure to go on appear to arise from inability or imbecility ?
   A. I cannot say that  it arose from either ; I cannot tell why he did not
 go on.
   Q. You are sure, I suppose, that he did not go on ?
  A.  When I jogged him he went on.
   Q. Did you ever see a sane man, twenty-three years old, Avho  did not
knoAV whether he could read or not ?
  A.  I  have no recollection of ever having seen one.
  Q. Could he read correctly ?
  A.  He was ignorant of Avords, but knew his letters.
  Q.  Does he not think he can ?
  A.  He appears to think so.
  Q.  Was it not strange that he thought he could read when he could not ?
  A. It would not be strange if he thought he did read.
  Q. May not a man be insane and yet be able to remember ? 
348
THE TRIAL OF
  A.  It is supposed that there may be some forms of insanity in which me-
mory  does not immediately participate.
  Q.  May not a man be insane without any appreciable disturbance of his
intellect ?
  A.  There is a form of insanity laid doAvn in the books, where the passions,
emotions and affections are deranged, without any appreciable disturbance
of the intellect, but my impression is that a derangement of the inteUect ge-
nerally follows.
  Q.  AVhat is your opinion of the prisoner's conscientiousness ?
  A.  There are instances in which he has  manifested conscience, or poAver
to distinguish between right and wrong; but it is comparatively inactive, as
is shown by his crime.  His conscience is dull  and sluggish.
  Q.  How do you distinguish between sluggishness and morbidness of con-
science ?
  A.  A conscience may be sluggish when, in the face of a flagrant act, you
cannot bring it to bear upon that act.   A morbid conscience is as likely to
be excited by  the most trifling offence as it would be over the dead bodies
of those they have slain.
  Q.  Upon what does a man's conscience depend ?
  A.  Its proper cultivation and exercise, depend upon himself.
  Q.  Doctor,  may not  the prisoner's conscience be in a morbid state ?
  A.  He has shown no signs of morbidness of conscience.
  Q.  Do not his acts, some of them, indicate that his mind Avas disordered ?
  A.  I suppose you ask that in reference to  the question of responsibiUty.
His acts evince some intelligence and great depravity, but  I think him re-
sponsible.
  Q.  AVhy do you think him responsible ?
  A.  He has been capable of planning and carrying into execution, and that,
in my estimation,  proves him to be responsible.
  Q.  Are there not cases where insane men plan and execute homicides ?
  A.  There may be cases of  insanity in which a person may be capable of
carrying out plans bad in themselves; but whilst he may plan and carry into
execution, he will generally approbate his doings and take no pains to avoid
the consequences.  But such was not the case  with the prisoner.
  Q.  AVas the prisoner capable of comparing ?
  A.  He distinguished betAveen hanging and  killing.
  Q.  What do you suppose was his motive in  killing these people ?
  A.  He may have killed them from revenge, and it may have been done
for pay.
  Q.  If pay was his object, how could he get  it by murdering that famUy ?
  A.  He sought to get his pay peaceably, but  could not get it; and he may
have considered kiUing to be the best compensation he could get—revenge.
  Q.  Was that a sufficient motive for such an act ?
  A.  It appears that he has stated that he thought he would  kUl around, 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      349
If that were his reasoning, it is evidence of his Aveakness in teUing that if he
killed around the country, they Avould pay him.
  Q.  Do you see any evidence of unsoundness or soundness in the fact that
he held conversation with you so familiarly ?
  A.  I do not.   He may not have comprehended the consequences of com-
municating the  facts, but that Aveakness falls short of insanity.
  Q.  How do you explain the idea that he did not expect to be hung ?
  A.  I cannot  tell where such an unlikely idea came from;  but I think that
he did not suppose his telling me increased his danger.
  Re-Examination.—Q. Doctor Avhat  did the  prisoner  say he stabbed
the horse for ?
  A.* He said he stabbed the horse because he fell down and hurt his leg.
   Q.  Did you  find the  prisoner always aAvake ?
  A.  No;  we once found him  asleep.
   Q.  When?
•   A.  During the trial and after the adjournment of the court, whilst a jury
was being obtained.
   Q.  Did you  say any  thing to him about bones ?
  A.  Once, whilst talking with him with a view to ascertain the state of his
mind, I said to him that the doctors wanted his  bones.
   Q.  AVhat were the words used ?
   A.  I said, " The doctors  AA'ant your bones, and want to know if you are
willing that they should have them.   What do you think about it, Bill ?"
   Q.  AVhat was his reply ?
   A.  " I don't think much about it," and to the question repeated, he said,
" I don't believe it"
   Q.  Did you ask any  thing further about the bones ?
   A.  Yes;  I asked him if he ever  saAv any bones—and  he  said yes.   I
asked Avhere.   He said, " In Doctor Pitney's office."
   Q.  Did you ask him  any  thing further in respect to the bones ?
   A.  I asked him again if he did not believe they Avanted his bones, and he
then  answered No.
   Q.  AVhat is  the reputation of Doctor Pitney, as a medical man ?
   A.  His standing  is very respectable, and in surgery his experience is very
great.
   Dr. Leander B. Bigkloav, re-called, testified:  I have been in prac-£
tice twenty  years, and reside in Auburn.    I  have resided  here twenty-six',
years this fall.   I am noAv physician to the  State Prison, and have  been, in
all, about seven years—I have been connected  with the prison nine or ten
years. I have  had more or less insane persons in the prison, and those who
feigned insanity.  I have had a partial acquaintance with the mother of the pri-
soner for the last eighteen or tAventy years.   She is a hard working Avoman, but
is subject to intemperance.   Jane Brown  has  not resided  in this place for
some years.   She was a daughter of Harry Freeman.  I never heard of her 
350
THE TRIAL OF
being crazy, until the commencement of this trial.  I never saAv any thing to
indicate insanity in her, except ordinary intoxication.  I have not seen Sid-
ney Freeman much of late years.   I think him an insane man.  I remember
his insanity from  the singularity of his delusion.  He imagined that Jesus
Christ Avas in his throat, choking him.  I remember that this prisoner came
twice, during his confinement in the prison, to the Hospital.  I merely kneAV
him as a child before he went to prison.   I first saAv him in jail, at the com-
mencement of this  court.  I Avas requested to go there by the district attor-
ney, and Avent at his urgent request.   I had been  before  requested by Dr.
Pitney to visit the prisoner,  and had  refused.
  I haA-e seen him in jail a number of times—from six to ten times previous
to the  sixth of July.  I went to see him with the vieAv to satisfy myself in
reference to his sanity or insanity.  I wrote down my questions and his an-
swers,  at the  time I questioned him.  I may haA-e put some questions to him
without writing them down—once, when Dr. Coventry was in.  AArith this
exception,  I think I have done so when  I went for the purpose of question-
ing him.   At the  examination, when Dr. Coventry Avas  present, I asked
what was  going on in the court, at his suggestion.  He answered, in effect,
that he thought some witnesses were sworn.  He said he stopped at the first
house this side of ATan Nest's.  I think I then asked him, " AVhy didn't you
go  in ?"  He answered, " The  door  was  fastened—I took hold of it, and
couldn't get in."   He said he heard a sound in the house.  I do not think
the remark Avhich  he frequently makes about his being confined in prison,
is an evidence of insanity.  I do not think this is an extraordinary remark,
from a convict of his degree of intellect.   I do not discover any thing that I
consider an insane delusion in this man's case.  I have seen him hold a book
and designate letters correctly, but he did not pronounce words by the com-
bination of those letters.  Have seen him in court.  Do not consider it  an
evidence of insanity that a man thought he could  read when he could not.
I should think  there would  be no  difference, necessarily, in pretending  to
read when he could not, and not knowing how.   Should not think him insane
from his manner of counting.  Should think it might be from want of edu-
cation.  Do not see any thing in his external appearance that denotes insan-
ity.  Have seen this smile—have seen it continued  to a pretty hearty laugh.
I did not consider  it an  idiotic laugh.  AVe both laughed at the same thing.
I haA'e seen the prisoner's grandfather  within the last year.  The old gen-
tleman is a very pleasant man, and never speaks Avithout smiUng—he smiles
generally  before speaking.  I think  what is thought smiling, is not; but is
done by turning his tobacco in his  mouth.  I see no evidence of insanity in
his smile.   His getting  up nights while at John De Puy's, without any other
circumstance, would be  to me an evidence of insanity ; but taking De Puy's
testimony—his  going to different  persons and  telling them not to  let him
have liquor, is an  evidence that he  did drink, and of his getting up to drink
and being intoxicated.   In this case, if the killing were an insane act, I should 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
351
look for the  getting up nights to  immediately precede the act.  So far as I
have examined this man, I don't know that I can designate a symptom of
dementia.  His attention is readily called and attracted.  I have not noticed
that his attention Avas easily called off.   In dementia memory is destroyed.
I find no difference  in the memory of the prisoner in recent and  remote
events.   The prisoner remembers as well what occurred five years ago, as
five  days.  From  the  examination I have had,  my impression  is that  he
knoAvs  Avhat is going on in court.   He knows the subject matter of this issue.
I came to this conclusion from asking him questions.  Don't know as I have
occasion to suspect that he has answered me otherwise than honestly.  Can't
say I think he has answered  me freely.  He has required frequent urging
before he would answer.  When he approached the scene of his murders,
he Avould stop and Avould go no further, except by prompting.  That prompt-
ing consisted in saying, " AVhat then"—" AVhat next"—" Go on," &c. AVhen
speaking of his escape, he has given me the principal points from taking the sec-
ond horse down to Phoenix.   He said, " I thought I would go doAvn back there
and cure up my hand."  If these things he told me should prove  true,  it
Avould  make no difference in  making up my mind.   His statements  may be
confused, at times, Avhen a good many  are in the cell at once, or when tAvo
or three ask questions at the  same time.  AATiere he makes mistakes, it may
or  may not be from design.  I  heard Mr.  Austin's testimony.   From  his
testimony, I think he either misrepresented to Mr. Austin, or had forgotten ;
and from my knoAvlcdge of him, I  think  he did the  former.   I think he
feigned Avhen he said he was  sick in the jail, six years ago—the same in the
prison.   Have no doubt of his ability to detail the facts of the murder.  He
no  doubt was very much excited Avhen he had  entered upon  the murder.
My saying, " go on,"  or  " Avhat next," to him  Avhen relating  the facts, I
don't think strengthened his memory, but would rather confuse him if he could
not recollect, and he would be as likely to take up the narration at some other
point,  as the one in immediate connection.  I  never heard him  say he had
" work to do," or " do more Avork," in my interviews Avith him.  My impres-
sion Avould be, from the connection, that he meant to come back to work.
I don't consider that killing people comes under the  head of work.
  A part of Burrington's barn stands within the limits of the road—the door
opens on the road.  The house stands some sixteen feet from the road.  Taking
all the evidence in this case together, I am satisfied that he  is an ignorant,
DULL, STUPID, MOROSE AND DEGRADED NEGRO, BUT NOT INSANE.
  Cross Examination.—I did  not go to the jail for the purpose of con-
fusing the prisoner.  On the contrary, Avhen  I  found that Avhen numbers
came in it did, I stopped.  My  object in  saying to him, " go on," was to
see if he could go on with a connected chain of events.   AA'hen he was told
to go on, it did not seem to confuse him.  He  seemed to take up the chain
and go on.  When a child is told to go on, in reading, it  is simply to go on
in the  process of reading.  AVhen I told Freeman to go on, it was to have 
352                         THE TRIAL OF
  him continue, because he stopped.  I do not think he smiles at all times,
  when others think he does.   I went to the jail for the purpose  of  pre-
  paring  myself as a witness, for the purpose of testifying.  I Avas  on  this
  stand on  AAtednesclay, and went into the jail afterwards, and  came  into
  the court and testified to questions and ansAvers put and answered then.
  I was requested  by Dr. Pitney to go to the jail, who said Mr. Seward Avanted
  him and some other physician to go and examine the prisoner.  I told him
  I had not seen the prisoner,  and would not go in.   I did not go.   I made
'  the same objection to the district attorney, at first.
    Re-Examination.—I  have known  men in prison,  over twenty-three
  years old, who could not multiply two by four, and avIio could not read.  I
  have seen both white and colored men in that condition.   A few days since,
  I examined a prisoner by the name of James Madison.  He is a negro, twenty-
  four years of age.  I asked him to let me hear him count.  He said, " TAvice
  ten is twenty—three times ten is fifteen."  I asked him how much two times
  four was.   He  said, " It Avould be  nine."  I asked hoAv many days there
  were in a week.  He answered Six.   I asked how many shilHngs there were in
  a dollar.  He said, " I couldn't tell that."  I asked how many days there were
  in  a month, and how many cents there Avere in a shiUing, and he made the
  same answer.  I asked  hoAv many hours there were in a day.   He said, " I
  don't knoAV, sir—I couldn't tell."   He  counted up to thirty regularly,  and
  then said, "forty, fifty,  sixty,  seA'enty, eighty, ninety, sixty, forty, forty-one.
  forty-two, forty-three, forty-five, forty-seven, forty-eight, forty-nine."  I then
  said, " Then Avhat ?"  He replied, " I don't knoAV—I can't make it out."  I
  asked hoAv many quarts there  were in a gallon.  He said, " I can't tell."  1
  asked how many pecks there Avere in a bushel.   He said, " I guess it is three
  pecks—three or four.  Let me see—I believe it is two pecks in a half a
  bushel.  I guess it is four  pecks in a bushel."   I  asked  how much six  and
  seven were.   He said,  " It would be thirteen."  I then asked him to count
  again.  He began  with "ninety," and continued,  "thirty,  tAventy-three,
  twenty-four, twenty-five,  tAventy-six, twenty-seven,  twenty-eight,  twenty-
  nine, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty ; that's as far as I Avent the  first time—I can't
  go no further.   Stop—I can go one more—sixty, sixty-one, sixty-two, sixty-
  five, sixty-seven—there, I Avon't count  any more.   That's as  far as I Avent
  the  first  time, and I made a balk."   The other Avas  a Avhite man, by the name
  of Jacob Miller.  His  age Avas twenty-nine.   Seeing him in the prison, 1
  called him up to  me and asked him if he could read.  He said he could.  I
  asked him to call over the  letters of the alphabet.   He called them correctly.
  I then pointed to this sentence—" The old Romans used to write in the Latin
  language."  He then began to read by saying, " T-h-e o-l-d R-o-m-a-n old man
  u-s-e-d seat  t-o  Av-r-i-t-e church in t-h-e  L-a-t-i-n  tin 1-a-n-g-u-a-g-e Jesus."
  I asked him if he  could count bills.   He said, " I can't count one bill from an-
  other."   He said nine and nine were  nineteen, and that six and five wen
  fifteen, and that  seA'en and eight Avere eighteen.   He said three times four 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      353
  were thirteen, and counted to forty-five, and from fifty to seventy-nine cor-
  rectly ; but he could not count correctly to one hundred.  He didn't know
  how many pints there were in a quart, nor how many pecks there were in a
  bushel.   I have conversed  with the counsel for the people, by their request.
  I don't knoAV that they expressed to me  any opinion, whatever, of the pri-
  soner.  Since the decision on the first trial, I have frequently expressed the
"  opinion that the  prisoner was sane.   I have  seen some  indications which,
  when taken by themselves, might indicate an insane rather than a sane state
  of mind;  but I think they are explained by his conversation or conduct, so
  that I think he is not insane.  I  have  no doubt, Avhatever, but that the
  PRISONER IS SANE.
     Dr. Thomas  Spencer, called and sworn, testified:  I am Professor of
  the Theory and Practice of Medicine in the Medical College at Geneva.  I
  have taught in that department ever since the Medical College was organ-
  ized. I have  examined  the prisoner in respect to his sanity.  I have had
  from ten to twelve interviews with the prisoner, between the first  of June
  and the sixth day of July.   These interviews averaged  something like an
  hour each.  I was present at one time Avhen Mr. Hall, at my request, inter-
  rogated  the prisoner.   I noticed his answers, which correspond with the
  testimony of Mr. HaU, in relation to that  interview.   I was present with Dr.
  Bigelow at several interviews, and requested him to adopt the plan of ob-
  taining written answers.   At my first interview, I took with me the prisoner's
  uncle, who resides here.  My object then  was to compare the prisoner's
  present condition of mind  with his former condition, as  a test of sanity or
  insanity.  With the same view I went to the cell with others, with whom he
  had lived in boyhood,  to test his memory and aU the faculties of his mind.
  The objections to other modes of examination were, that they were  frequently
  hurried and irregular,  and would tend to produce confusion of mind; espe-
  cially as the prisoner was frequently told that they were going to hang him.
  It appears that some one had suggested the idea of hanging.  I have sought
  opportunity to go in with every physician that asked me. I  have been in
  with Doctors Doane,  Bigelow, Pitney and Dimon.   I have made  such an
  examination that, taken in conjunction  with other  facts, I am  enabled to
  form a satisfactory conclusion as to the state of his mind.
     The facts as to the  reading lessons,  the  cyphering lessons,  as to the
  murder,  and the reasons he has  given for it, such as revenge,  connecting it
  with pay for his time in prison, I have heard gone over;  I have ascertained
  that he has slept well, eat well, and has been in good physical health gene-
  rally, and, after  due deliberation, I  have come to the conclusion  that the
  prisoner is sane.  I have no reasonable doubt of it.   I attended the prelim-
  inary as weU as the present trial.  I have taken careful notes of  the whole
  testimony.  I have bestowed much mental labor upon this case, that I might
  analize the whole testimony, and arrive at a certain result as to the prisoner's
  sanity.  I attended the preHminary trial  and heard  aU the testimony j and
                   23 
354
THE TRIAL OF
the effect of all the evidence has been to lead me to a greater certainty; but
on a question of this kind no man can feel  perfect certainty.  He can only
feel proximate certainty.  A man cannot say he sees no indications of in-
sanity in the prisoner, for there  are circumstances and  actions which are
common to sanity,  as weU as to insanity.  But my beHef is, that there are
none of the most constant, most  descriptive symptoms of insanity in this
case.
  Insanity is the deranged, impulsive, incoherent, deluding exercise of some
or all the faculties of mind;  suspending  the control of conscience, reason
and judgment, over the thoughts,  words  and acts of the patient.   This
definition, I beHeve, covers every form of deranged mind which renders a
person irresponsible for his  acts.  Insanity, then, is a disease having  symp-
toms—sanity, a healthy exercise of the powers of the mind.   The essential
point in insanity is a change—generally sudden, occasionally slow—in the
action of the mind and body.
  1. A change from himself, in comparison with himself.
  2. A change as compared with  the rest of mankind, of his  own  grade
of mind.
  It is  a medical fact, that in dementia there is a want of coherence of idea
and a want of attention on the part of the patient.  In every form of insanity
there is more or less want of attention  and coherence of thought between
questions and answers put to an insane patient.   A man who feigns insanity
always wanders more  or less from a question in  his answers.   And why ?
Because the insane man always  wants  this coherence and attention in a
greater or less degree.  Other physicians have so SAvorn on this  trial, and I
fuUy concur in their opinions in  this particular.   With the exception of
some confusion of  thought, as I believe produced by the rapid examination
and the number present at a time on many occasions,  there  has been  a
general  coherence between the questions  propounded and the prisoner's
answers to them.   So far as I have heard the detaUs of witnesses, of exami-
nations like to those I have made, the same  coherence of thought has been
exhibited wherever the prisoner was made  to understand or comprehend
the question.   Finding,  in  this  case, a general relation  and coherence of
thought between questions and answers as they have been made, the con-
clusion of my mind is  irresistible,  that the prisoner's mind must be sane.
  I would, however, mention that I have instituted a course of investigation
which has led me to far greater certainty than I should otherwise have felt.
It was  to prove, affirmatively, that sanity exists, by  comparing the facts that
have been brought out, with the several faculties of mind; also to compare
those facts with the most constant and descriptive symptoms of insanity.
To this end I  divided up and  marked memorically the several  faculties of
mind, as they are generaUy agreed upon by those who study the physiology
of mind.  I have referred to those faculties by names which every one can
understand, and I have divided them into three classes. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      355
     1.  The involuntary faculties, actions or feelings of mind.
     2.  The voluntary faculties of the mind.
     3.  The intermediate faculties of the mind.
     The involuntaryTaculties I marked with the odd numbers, and they may
   be designated the  odd,  unbalancing, tempting,  affective,  and instinctive
   faculties.  Of these, I make sensation, hunger, thirst, love of society, children,
*  money, combat, fame, nature's  laws, love of divine  things,  revenge, anger,
   joy, hope, fear, self preservation.  Between self preservation and the volun-
   tary faculties, I place conscience, as the  essential balancing  faculty between
   the voluntary and involuntary faculties.
     The most voluntary faculties  are, attention, perception,  memory, under-
   standing, comparison,  combination, reason,  invention, judgment, sense of
   justice, pleasure  in  right, horror of wrong actions, attention, consideration,
   and will, and other voHtions,  mental and muscular.  Will, I mark as the
   thirtieth faculty.   As aids of conscience in regulating the voluntary faculties,
   I would name sympathy and sorrow, for human  weal  and  woe.  We have
   three other intermediate faculties, and which are the essential seat of insanity.
   They are conception, imagination and association.
     AU the faculties are united into one whole, as in health and strength they
   act together.  I have, in an imaginary way, connected all as one whole, by
   telegraphic wires, and ready to act together from an imaginary  centre—the
   will—simultaneously, for we know that as a whole they are  united.   At this
   point will be observed, what I caU an  imaginary centre—the wiU; all are
   acting under the influence  of the will.   [See chart,  next page.]
     Conscience regulates the wUl  whilst we are awake, and sane.  When we
   are asleep, and insane, the thoughts may be considered as going around the
   will and conscience.   The insane man is essentially  a dreaming  man awake.
   He mistakes his own fancies  and  imaginations for  realities, which was the
   definition given by Dr. Brigham of the delusions of insanity.   The insane
   man makes the same mistake that a sane man does Avhen dreaming.  I men-
   tioned as the three intermediate faculties, conscience, sorrow and sympathy.
   The upper  ones are  conception, imagination, and association, and are the
   essential seat of insanity of dreaming. They are the feeders of the mind.  I
   shall therefore be pardoned for saying that conception is the thought-stating
   faculty of mind; the faculty which receives the impressions of sight, noises,
   touches,  smeUs and tastes.  Imagination is the thought-gathering, thought-
   grouping faculty—the storehouse of thought—the thoughts without order.
   However disorderly may be the thoughts in sleep, we view them  as realities;
   so do the insane.  Association is the thought-relating  or thought-cohering
   faculty of mind.  The derangement of  these  three intermediate faculties,
   between the involuntary, or least voluntary,  and the voluntary, or most vol-
   untary, constitute the essential elements of insanity.
     The brain, the little brain, spinal marrow and nerves, are  the instruments,
   or media, connecting the  mind with material things, and  are  the seat of 
356
THE TRIAL  OF
the disease  called insanity.  To Ulustrate my views, I have prepared the
foUowing diagram:
         THREE CLASSES—THIRTY-SIX FACULTIES.
  I.  Involuntarv Faculties,    H.  Intermediate
Actions, or Feehngs of Mind.        Faculties.
III.  Voluntary
  Faculties.
1 Sensation.
t|B"
31 Conception.
2 Attention.
C|J
tr
3 Hunger.
32 Imagination.
4 Perception.
u
5 Thirst.
7 Love of Society.


9    "  Children.
Money.


Combat.


Fame.


Nature's Laws.


Divine Things.
21 Revenge,   ")
23 Anger,


25 Joy, Hope,


27 Fear,
 And other pas
.   sions, propen-
   sities and mo
ciation. 6 Memory.	
w -	
K	8 Understanding.
3	
B	10 Comparison.
3"	
s-	12 Combination.
i"	
3	14 Reason,
s	16 Invention.
	18 Judgment.
CO	
0	20 Sense of Justice.
0	22 Pleasure in Right.
B	24 Horror of Wrong Acts.
3 a	26 Invention, Co-ordination.
3	28 Other Volitions, mental and
p	moral.
V Unascertained Centre of Thought,
  Sensation and Volition.
X Y Z Dreaming or Insane Road  j ~Qq
 of Thought around Conscience
 and WiU.
dy.
V A B C D Union of all the Mental
  Faculties, as if by electric wires, as
  one whole. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
357
  In the prisoner's case, the facts detailed by the witness Lynch, show the
healthful performance of the faculties of perception, imagination and associ-
ation.  He recurred to an incident that occurred in the prisoner's childhood.
He recollected of being whipped, and told the story.  He spoke of running
away to his mother, and other matters connected with that affair.  In insanity
we almost always have strange sights, and hear strange noises.  We have
negative evidence that the prisoner has seen very few strange sights, if any,
and  that symptom is, therefore, absent.  As to strange noises, he  does not
hear any.
   Excessive  hunger wiU produce insanity,  as at sea, where men  eat each
other.   Derangements have lucid intervals.  A man was kicked by a horse
on his forehead.   He had alternate turns of derangement with perfect sanity.
When he was for a feAV moments insane, he  would complain of hunger, but
when sane he would not.  In his sane expressions he would stop, and insane
ones begin, and when his incoherent thought was over, he would go on with
the subject upon which he was first talking.  With respect to thirst, I see no
evidence of derangement  in the prisoner.  In traversing  this case, I have
compared the acts of the prisoner with the thirty-six faculties of the  mind,
and by recurring to the evidence, I wUl  show them aU to be  in a healthy
state.
   To show that  hunger existed, I refer to  the evidence  of his furnishing
himself food economically, by moving to a  house where he could provide for
himself.   That is as a sane economical man would do.  He went  out in
search of labor precisely as a sane man would.   Now the insane  are ex-
ceedingly improvident.  In respect to fear, hope, self preservation, it appears
that the prisoner shook  in jail and wanted counsel,  but didn't know the
lawyers.  He also said that if they would let him go this time,  he would do
better in future.  In this he also exhibited comparison—he would do  better
or righter.  A man who knows what it is  to do righter, knows what it is to
do wronger.   This  shows to us that conscience would yet whisper right or
wrong—that conscience existed.   So also did the remark about  the child
being  rather small.   In giving the reasons  for committing the murder, he
spoke of  having  been in prison wrongfuUy, was agitated, and one witness
thought he was going to cry.  That exhibited a sense of injustice, and that
that had not lost  its influence on the  prisoner's mind.   His love of money
was evinced on various occasions.  He Avent to the justice to get  pay from
those who owed  him.  He hurled a two shilling piece at the man,  which
may be done, however, by the insane or ill  tempered.   Combativeness was
exhibited when he stoned the boys, and when he threw the flatiron at the
witness who whipped him at the Seminary.   These  were impulsive  move-
ments.  In the prison, he  struck a man for moving his shoes.   He struck a
keeper twice, and afterwards went  at him with a knife.  This is one  of the
symptoms of homicidal mania, yet it is like the symptom of moral depravity.
It shows a continuance of his old habits of  mind, and is negative evidence 
358
THE TRIAL OF
that insanity does not exist, and positive evidence of moral depravity.  Up
to the time of this murder, I have not been able to find one single fact, ex-
cept of a temporary  character, which  shows  insanity.   The strongest
evidences of insanity to be found in the prisoner,  are his getting up nights,
singing, dancing, and going through a mock fight, as if with his fellow men.
On the preliminary trial, these facts led me momentarily to the belief of
insanity.  I entertained the pleasant belief that I could  testify that he  was
insane, untU I remembered having  seen  just such symptoms produced by
intemperance.
  Revenge is here associated with the idea  of pay.  I myself have heard the
prisoner,  in substance,  say, that he  committed the murder from revenge.
The idea of pay and revenge, associated,  is the  essential insane delusion,
according as  the learned doctors from Utica,  have testified.   But let us
compare this with descriptions already given of insane delusions.   Mistaking
fancies and imaginations for realities, is one definition of an insane delusion.
An insane delusion  is one that  is contradicted  by the reason and  sense of
aU mankind.  All insane delusions,  like the delusions of sane men,  are the
effects of  false facts or reasonings.   They lead  men  into delusions.   Insane
men always have these fancies—think they see something that appears a
reality and leads them into delusions.  How is this wrong beHef here;  is it
an  absurdity or an  insane delusion ?  To determine this, we must see on
what it is  founded—how he gets up  this delusion.   He says that he was im-
prisoned innocently.  He says he didn't steal the horse, and  has uniformly
said so.  I conclude that he did not, and if he  did not, then his assertion is
true.   It is a fact, then, that he had been wrongfuUy imprisoned, and had not
been paid for his time.  He believes he ought  to have pay.  If a  man has
worked five years for nothing, it is  not an absurdity that he  ought to have
pay.  When one boy strikes another, the strikee says, " I'U pay you for
that,"  or in other words, " I'U get my pay by striking you."   That displays
the faculty of revenge.   How is it here ?  Who ought to pay him ?  Against
whom wUl he revenge himself, if the people have not paid him ? How wiU
he  get his pay ?  Now, is this conclusion a belief that he can properly re-
venge himself in that way ?  Because the people  won't  pay him ? Who
tried him and imprisoned him five years ?  The  people—the whole  people
of  the state.   The idea of general  revenge, is therefore associated  with a
true fact—that the  whole people sent him to the State Prison.   Admitting
it to be right  to revenge injuries,  it was right for the prisoner to avenge
himself.  He confesses  that it is wrong to avenge injuries; he confesses that
he committed the crime; and can the conclusion be resisted that he com-
 mitted the act knowing it to be  wrong ?  His knowing it to be wrong, shows
 that  conscience was in operation.
   He exhibits  the  faculty of attention.  When a question was put to him,
he always attended  to it, indicating that  he apprehended it, and showing
 that his faculty of perception was  sane.   He remembers, he  understands 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
359
and comprehends what is said.  His answers correspond with the questions
put, when he has had time for  deliberation.  To some extent he can com-
bine numbers—can teU a one, three and five dollar bUl.   His excuses have
shown that reason has been in operation, and rightly exercised.   As to the
reason he gives that he could get pay by revenge, it is an insane what ?   Or
an absurd what ?   It is either an insane delusion or an absurd reason;  and
to my mind it is only an absurd reason, and my reason  for that opinion, is
that no sane man can get up any thing but  an absurd  reason for murder.
He misjudged in reference to a true fact—that the whole people imprisoned
him;  but we are all liable to misjudge from false facts.  It has not the char-
acter of an insane delusion ;  it is not founded on fancies or imaginations.  It
is, in  my opinion, but an absurd conclusion of a sane mind.
   Having now established, affirmatively,  that all  the faculties of the mind
are healthful, I will  proceed to notice the facts  showing the same thing
negatively.   In the books, we have mania, monomania and dementia.  The
question here has been  narrowed  down to monomania or dementia.   The
negative proofs that dementia does  not exist,  are that the prisoner attends,
comprehends, and, within the compass of  his mind, reasons coherently.  If
monomania  existed, he should  have the symptoms.   Monomania is charac-
terized by some absurd belief, in fancy or imagination.   A man believes his
legs are glass.  He will sit still for fear of breaking  them.   The preacher
believes himself to have become an apostle, or the Saviour.  Those are in-
sane delusions.   They contradict the reason and the  sense.   The monoma-
niac who has the homicidal propensity, is affected with these symptoms.   He
believes some unjust necessity requires him to kill  his fellow—his father or
his mother, perhaps, or his chUdren—to keep one from starving, or to make
angels of  another.  In lucid intervals these  temptings  are disclosed,  and
friends  are  begged to avert the  catastrophe;  and  generally that  is done
before committing the act, but this is by no means uniform.   How then can
we distinguish between an impulse  of moral depravity and the impulse of
insanity? The best authorities say that homicidal insanity is always followed
by furious madness, or by suicide.   But there are exceptions.  Other facts
have  to come  in;  but homicide is almost always  succeeded  by general
mania—furious  insanity.  The sane guilty generally make arrangements as
to the instruments, time,  place  and manner of  escape.  The insane guUty
do not.  It is true that they  frequently do, but their movements are a good
deal more hurried, more rapid than those of the  sane.  They are impulsive.
They  become impulsive because the imagination goes the  cross road, and not
around, by reason and judgment.
  In the case at bar, the  facts show that the prisoner was in a hurry, at the
very moment of starting for the  murder.  That looks  something  like an
insane impulse; yet he was deliberate—he enquired if there were chores to
be done, before he left, and  put some snow in the tub.  This deliberation
balances the insane impulse, for both do not go together. Again, conceal- 
360
THE TRIAL OF
ment of intention is  the leading symptom of the sane criminal; and dis-
closure of intention, is a leading symptom of the insane.  By the confessions,
he concealed his instruments—threw one out of the window—passing by the
sleigh he had it under his  clothes—he concealed various other movements
in the construction of his knives—and then fled amongst strangers.   Sane
criminals generally conceal, until they become convinced that they cannot
escape the penalty.   The prisoner confessed after he was apprehended—yet
at first denied the murder.  But when confronted with Mr. Van Arsdale, in
a manner that would convince  any sane man that he could not  escape, he
confessed  the  murder.   He  has  made the  same confession to  me and to
other Avitnesses.   Does not this look like the sanity of crime.   If he had
been affected with homicidal insanity,  we should reasonably expect to find
him  affected with furious madness.   But  he has each time conveyed the
same train of thought, and almost always used the same words.   That does
not happen in cases of impulsive insanity,  for there is more or less incohe-
rence, want of memory  or  want of  comprehension there, which have not
been exhibited to any appreciable extent in the prisoner,  either in the tes-
timony of witnesses  or in the examinations made by me.   I can no longer
doubt that the prisoner is sane.  He has a low order of rational, uneducated
mind.  I have bestowed great labor in this investigation; and in view of aU
the facts bearing on the  case,  I  entertain no reasonable doubt that the pris-
oner is NOT INSANE.
  Q.  Doctor, what attention have you paid to the subject of insanity ?
  A.  I have studied  and taught it to my class in the Medical College, for
several years.  I have now surrendered that department  to Dr. Coventry.
I have, however, during  my whole professional Hfe, given more or less atten-
tion to the subject of insanity.
  Q.  In your opinion, which is the safest  criterion for judging of the in-
sanity or sanity of the prisoner—his acts previous to the murder, or his con-
versations since ?
  A.  All should be taken together.  Those occurring  previously would be
the most certain, because the prisoner may seek to deceive  us,  since the
commission of the act.
  Q.  Is not aU the testimony  derived from his statements since the murder,
founded on the supposition that those statements  were true ?
  A.  I have gone upon  the assumption that he intended to speak the truth,
but I have not relied so much upon that, as the manner of his statements.
  Q.  Can you conceive of a case of  insanity where no external  signs of
disease, in mind or body, are discoverable ?
  A.  No, Sir.  I cannot conceive of any case where a disease of mind or
body is not manifested by some external symptoms.
  Q.  Do you find any evidence in this case, showing any attempts to reason
the prisoner out of this idea about pay ?
  A.  I do not  The justice, I believe, told him that he could not get pay ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      36l
  Q.  Do you infer from the evidence, that this man ever thought that Van
Nest said, " If you eat my liver, I'll eat yours ?"
  A.  That is an expression of the ancients.  If Van Nest spoke to him, he
might have heard that.  I don't think the prisoner has imagination enough
to conceive it.
  Q.  One of the witnesses observed that the prisoner said, that he thought
he should go  to heaven, because he was good.  What is your  idea about
that ?
  A.  I don't think his faculty relating to divine things, his conscience, has
been much cultivated.
  Q.  If restlessness is indicative of homicidal mania, does it not immediately
precede the offence ?
  A.  It does, and follows, also.  It is one of  the most characteristic symp-
toms.
  Q.  Have you ever visited the institutions for the insane, in England?
  A.  I have visited the asylums in London and Paris.
   Q.  Is there any thing in the circumstances of this case, that precludes the
idea of going to the house of Van Nest after plunder ?
   A. Nothing, independent of his own declarations.
   Q. If he  had  homicidal monomania, and  he knew that Van Nest had
nothing to  do with his imprisonment, is it not  irreconcilable that he did not
attempt  to kill the first man he met, instead of going to,  and lying in wait
about the house ?
  A.  I should not regard it as an  impossibUity.   A  man acting under an
insane delusion would be likely to attack the first man he met.
  Q.  In your judgment, would it not be indispensable in this case, in order
to show an insane delusion, that the prisoner had an insane impulse  to kUl
that family ?
  A.  It would not lead to that house at all.  Insane men generally don't
deliberate—they  don't generally plan.   There are exceptions, however.
  Q.  Do you see any thing in the  prisoner's reading  and counting, that is
inexplicable  ?
  A.  In that I see nothing  inexpHcable  at all.  In that I  see no particular
indications of insanity—no fancies or insane delusions.  Of his reading, the
facts all show that he never learned to read.  He never  had any more in-
struction than a chUd,  and when  that instruction was left off, his life was an
oblivion.   WhUst under the influence  of hope and fear, he was,  soon after
the murder,  set to reading.   An uneducated mind wouldn't make a very
nice distinction between letters,  words and thoughts.  He would have no
just conception of reading, any more than the blind would have of sight
A man fell head first from the scaffold, producing concussion of the brain.
Recovering from that,  he was unable to speak.   By accident, one day, the
Bible was  handed to him,  and he  read right  off.  The Bible taken away,
it was some time before he could speak.  In the prisoner's case, the faculty
of association called up his reading. 
362
THE TRIAL OF
  Q.  Is there any thing in the personal appearance of this  prisoner indi-
cating insanity?
  A.. His smUe at first induced me to believe him insane.  But I have seen
other people who were addicted to that singular habit  I have investigated
the matter thoroughly, and have come to the conclusion that there is noth-
ing in his personal appearance that necessarily indicates insanity.
  Cross Examination.—Q. Was the loss of speech a physical or mental
affection ?
  A.  Both.   The brain was injured and the mind impaired.
  Q.  In that case was the mind sound or impaired ?
  A.  It was impaired, yet the person was not insane.
  Q.  Do you find that any such accident  to the prisoner  produced  the
obHvious condition?
  A.  The facts show it negatively.  I find  no particular  physical calamity
which has changed him.
  Q.  Who were the ancient people who were accustomed to eat the liver ?
  A.  My recollection does not serve me upon that point.  I think I noticed
it in the history of Rome;  it may be Livy, Maver or Goldsmith.
  Q.  Did they eat the liver in its raw state, or after the process of cooking ?
  A.  My recoUection is quite vague on that point.
  Q.  Do you think the prisoner  has read Livy, Maver or Goldsmith ?
  A.  I rather think he has heard the expression  used, but I  don't think he
ever read those works.
  Q.  You say you find all his mental faculties sane ?
  A.  I see nothing but the result of moral depravity.
  Q.  What are your essential faculties, that make up the judgment ?
  A.  Conception, sensation,  imagination and association, are essential fa-
culties of the mind, as I have classified them.
  Q.  What are the faculties that are deranged in insanity ?
  A.  The voluntary faculties are generally affected.
  Q.  Is sensation entirely obliterated or only impaired, in the insane ?
  A.  It is generally impaired, but not obliterated.
  Q.  What evidence do you find that sensation in the prisoner is in regular
operation ?
  A.  That he sees well, hears, and manifests sensation in various ways.
  Q.  Do you pronounce every man who sees well and hears, sane,  or do
you only say that seeing and hearing  is an indication of sanity ?
  A.  I say that  seeing and  hearing, so far as they go,  are indications of
sanity.
  Q.  Do you know of a lunatic  who does not see as weU as the prisoner ?
  A.  Lunatics generally see as weU as the prisoner.
  Q.  Do  you not know a vast number of lunatics who have no Ulusions of
sight ?
  A.  In the chronic forms of insanity,  the  iUusion or haUucination would 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      363
be affected by eye sight, yet they are a more particular symptom of acute
insanity.
  Q.  Is sensation delicate in the prisoner ?
  A.  His hearing is rather  obtuse; the other senses are natural.  I know
of nothing, except a taste for ardent spirits, showing that organ vitiated.  It,
however, is not impaired, nor is his smeU.  I see no impairment of his sen-
sation.
  Q.  How in regard to the uneasiness of pain ?
  A.  The witness  Fuller said  the  prisoner  wanted  a doctor;  I  don't
think him a stoic.  His  not complaining did not show that he did not feel
pain.
  Q.  Do  you not find in the  prisoner, either great insensibUity to pain or
an absence of symptoms ?
  A.  Undoubtedly.  Any man can so control himself as not to betray the
pain he feels.  I do not infer from this, however,  that  he is a brute, for
brutes manifest pain.
  Q.  What manifestations of the power of conception do you find ?
  A.  In caUing up the conception of his boyhood, by the power of memory,
and of occurrences in the prison.
  Q.  Can you refer me to any case  of  mania, in which there was a  more
feeble power of conception ?
  A.  I don't know.  Conception  is generaUy quick in maniacs, but not in
demented persons.
  Q.  Did you ever  know a  maniac or demented  person who manifested
less imagination ?
  A.  I cannot call up any particular case.
  Q.  Is not his surprisingly low and feeble ?
  A.  It is not below that  of  many sane  men.  Like many of his other  fa-
culties, it is dull, as it is apt to be in uneducated men.
  Q.  Do you knoAV of any instance where he has exercised any imagination
at all ?
  A.  I have stated about the ancient custom of Hver eating,  and the inci-
dents of his boyhood.
  Q.  Did he add or color by the imagination ?
  A.  I cannot analyze the work of imagination,  but a man cannot relate
any occurrence without imagination.
  Q.  Wherein has he shown one work of imagination ?
  A.  In what he told about his boyhood, and about the prison.
  Q.  Did you ever know an  insane man who had less imagination than the
prisoner ?
  A.  I can only say, that they generaUy have more.
  Q.  Is weakness of imagination the evidence of insanity, with you ?
  A.  It is one of the evidences.
  Q.  Do you suppose there is a centre of sensation in the body ? 
364
THE TRIAL OF
  A.  I suppose there is.  But on my table it is only hypothetical.
  Q.  Where do you find the evidences of this distribution of the mind into
these  various faculties ?
  A.  The evidence is found in  our own  consciousness that those faculties
exist.  There are thirty-six in all.
  Q.  What is the little brain ?
  A.  The little brain lies in the back part of the head.
  Q.  Suppose a thought to start here,  at justice, what is its course ?
  A.  Conscience and wiU are avoided in the thoughts of the insane. [Here
the chart is explained to the jury.]   An insane man does not exercise con-
science or will.
  Q.  If, whilst passing through an insane hospital, an insane man should
knock you down,  would he exercise the will ?
  A.  It would be an irregular or involuntary exercise of it.
  Q.  Is not the will always exercised involuntarily, when not under the
influence of reason ?
  A.  There is always a distinction to be observed between volition and will.
One is the influence of muscular action, the other is not; yet we can hardly
separate them.   Faculties of the mind cannot be described like material
things.  In sleep, except in somnambulism, the mind has no power over the
body.
  Q.  What is waking somnambulism ?
  A.  It is a figurative expression for feigned somnambulism.
  Q.  If a man forty-three years  old should be asked his age, and he should
answer twenty-six, should you regard that as evidence of sanity or insanity ?
  A.  I should  infer neither, from that alone; but if a man of forty-three
should say he was twenty-six, I should infer ignorance.
  Q.  If he were  asked whether he had  business with two persons, with
whom he had business, and  should say he did not know them, what would
you infer ?
  A.  I should not infer that it was evidence of sanity or insanity.
  Q.  If he should be asked if he acknowledged the  execution of a deed,
shown him, and which he had signed, and he should say he did not under-
stand it, would  you regard that as evidence of real or feigned insanity ?
  A.  Why, I should think he told the truth.
  Q.  If he should  be told that  he had acknowledged it, already, before a
notary pubHc, and he should say, " It is possible," how then ?
  A.  It would need to be connected with other facts  before I would  infer
in respect to the question of sanity.
  Q.  If asked why he tore  up a note,  and should say, " I don't recoUect"
what would that be evidence of?
  A.  It might, in certain cases, when  connected with  other facts, be  some
evidence of either insanity or feigned insanity, but taken by itself it would
not be evidence of one more than the other. 
                           WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      365

    Q.  Suppose he mistook his father for his mother ?
    A.  I should infer that he was insane, or meant to misrepresent.
    Q.  Suppose the prisoner, when asked to point out the persons who were
  his keepers in the State  Prison, should say, "I don't know," would that be
  evidence of insanity ?
    A.  There would be no  special evidence about it—either of  insanity or
  feigned insanity.
    Q.  Suppose that when  Mr.  Lynch asked the  prisoner if his (Lynch's)
  wife had whipped him, he had said, "I don't remember ?"
    A.  The answer would have been rational.
    Q.  Suppose the prisoner  stated that  he went by  Cato to Schroeppel
  when in fact he Avent by Syracuse ?
    A. It might be evidence  of forgetfulness or deception, but not of insanity.
    Q.  Suppose when asked who he killed first, who secondly, and so on in
  order, he said, " I  don't know ?"
    A. The same.
    Q. If he had been asked if he bought  a knife of the witness Hyatt, and
  he had said he did not buy  it  there, what  inference would you have drawn
  from that ?
    A.  That he lied, or might have forgotten.
    Q.  Did you hear the evidence, that in  both the shops where he went for
 the knives, he was well known by those Avho worked there ?
    A.  I understood that some were strangers, and that some knew him.
  ^  Q.  Do you think that your table wiU aid the jury in coming to a conclu-
 sion as to the prisoner's sanity ?
   A.  Whether the jury will profit by it will depend very much upon my
 success in making it, and  upon the fact whether they understand  it.
   Q.  Did you state, as  one  of the  evidences of the prisoner's sanity, that he
 went among strangers ?
   A.  I don't recollect.  I believe he went to the De Puys', who turned him
 away.
   Q.  Do you regard that fact as evidence either of sanity or insanity ?
   A. It would not make much more on one side  than  upon the  other.  It
 might bear a trifle the most on the side of insanity.
   Q. What is the best exercise of coherence ?
   A. It is  best exemplified by  relating occurrences in order, as they are
 understood by mankind  in general.
   Q. If the prisoner had narrated the tragedy in the order  in which each
 act occurred, would not that have manifested coherence ?
   A. It is manifested in that way to a high degree.  That, however, would
 depend on the man's ability.
   Q.  If you find a person in  whose memory aU the facts are stored, and
who is yet unable to narrate  them without being prompted, is that evidence
of an inferior degree of coherence, than if he related without prompting? 
366
THE TRIAL OF
  A.  That would depend on obstinacy or dullness.  If he were willing, but
did not, it would show obstinacy or dullness.
  Q.  Can you suppose a man of ordinary intelligence who could not narrate
the incidents of this murder ?
  A.  I do not suppose it impossible.
  Q.  Did you ever see a sane man who could not do it ?
  A.  There is a deal of difficulty in many sane minds in getting up a story
as well as the prisoner does.
  Q.  Do you find  evidence of coherence, or memory only, in answering
leading questions ?
  A.  I find evidence of both.
  Q.  Would you expect an insane man to depart from the questions, or to
answer them correctly ?
  A.  I should expect  him  to depart from the questions.  In some of the
chronic forms of insanity they wiU go on and tell, at one time, but at another
they cannot.
  Q.  Then, if there had been a departure from the questions, how would
you distinguish between an  insane man and one feigning insanity ?
  A.  A man feigning insanity would wander.  If you spoke of a horse, he
would answer of a dog.  We must distinguish by a careful examination into
the symptoms of each.
  Q.  Is your plan of thirty-six faculties a perfect subdivision of the mind ?
  A.  I divided the faculties with thirty-six ; but the chart is not perfect  It
is such an analysis as comports with common names.  There are others, but
I have not been caUed upon to make out the additional Hst.
  Q.  How many other voHtions are there under No. 28, on your map.
  A.  I don't feel caUed upon to answer.
  Q.  As aids of conscience, you say you find the intermediate faculties of
joy and sorrow for human weal and woe ?
  A.  I have testified, generaUy, that the prisoner had  feeHngs of sorrow
and of sympathy; but they are at a low ebb.   His faculties  are aU duU, but
they are much higher than  those of a brute.
  Q.  Do you recollect your evidence as to his  distinguishing right from
wrong ?
  A.  I cannot repeat it, but I recollect of stating several facts bearing upon
that point
  Q.  What idea did you get from the witness to whom he said, " We'll do
what's right about it" ?
  A.  It was the expression of a man knowing right from wrong.  I see in
that nothing inconsistent with the idea of sanity, as he seemed to appreciate
right  from wrong.
  Q.  How did the prisoner apply his knowledge ?
  A.  He applied it to  the subject upon which they were conversing.  I may
as well say here, that I think the prisoner has a very dull mind.  He don't 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
367
get along without uttering an occasional absurdity.   He is a bundle of ab-
surdities.  The idea advanced by him was  not a very bright one, but so far
as it went it was no evidence of insanity.
   Q. What faculty is the imaginary centre referred to on your map, or what
faculty did you describe as such ?
   A. The imaginary centre of all the faculties is the  place Avhere they all
combine.  I  did not describe any faculty as the centre.  I said the centre
of the whole united by the hand of Omnipotence.
   Q. Do you mean to say that the will is not the imaginary centre ?
   A. I mean that all the faculties of the mind are that imaginary centre.
   Q. Which is excited first, the thoughts or wiU ?
   A. They are excited simultaneously.
   Q. What did you mean, then, by saying that first sensation, then thought,
and then the wiU were excited ?
   A. Because that is the order, as near as  we can get at them.
   Q. If a husband is jealous of his wife, Avith sufficient cause, is that a delu-
sion?
   A. Jealousy with  a sufficient cause is not  a delusion—without a  suffi-
cient cause it may be, depending upon circumstances.
   Q. Where do you locate  conception ?
   A. It  is a mere hypothesis.  It is situated in the forepart of the head.
   Q. What hospital of the  insane did  you visit in  London, and Avho had
charge of it ?
  A.  I visited the large hospital near Charing Cross, on the south side of
the Thames.   I don't recoUect the superintendent's  name.
  Q.  What kind of a hospital was it, and how many patients did it contain ?
  A.  It  was a hospital for the insane.  I don't recollect the  number of
patients  that it contained.
  Q.  How long were you there ?
  A.  I don't recoUect of being there more than one day.
  Q.  What asylum  for the  insane did you visit in Paris ?
  A.  I visited a large number of hospitals.  I stayed there four months.
  Q.  Can you name any of them ?
  A.  I cannot now.
  Q.  Which side of the Seine were they ?
  A. I cannot now tell.
  Q.  Can you not name one of them ?
  A. I cannot.   They were charity hospitals.
  Q. Were there any insane persons in  them ?
  A.  There are insane persons in all the hospitals in Paris.
  Q.  But did you see any insane persons there ?
  A.  I think there were some there.                                    ,
  Q.  Did you discover that the insane persons were hungry ? 
368
THE TRIAL OF
   A. I did not discover that they were more so than the citizens of Paris
generaUy.
   Q. Did you visit the hospital in Edinburgh ?
   A. I did, but not the hospital for the insane.  I did not visit any hospital
for the insane, out of London.
   Q. AVhat asylums for the insane, in this country, have you visited ?
   A. In America I have visited the  Hartford, and Utica,  and Ohio Asy-
lums.  I remember no other.
   Q. Have  you ever seen a deranged  person who provided for, and sus-
tained himself by his labor ?
   A. I don't now recoUect an instance of having seen a man deranged who
was a laboring man.
   Q. Do you think the prisoner is a provident, prudent person,  in his
affairs ?
   A. The story about his board is evidence of economy.  His drunkenness
is  the reverse.  I cannot say that I have seen  evidence  that he is a provi-
dent person.
   Q. If he had thirty-seven and  a half  cents only,  one week before  the
murder, and laid out one half of that amount in buying a knife to murder a
family with, three cents in mending a jack knife, and six cents for a pound
of soap, should you think him a provident person ?
   A.  In that I should not think  him especially provident or improvident.
There is not,  however, in that, the evidence of that extravagant  improvi-
dence which we find in the insane.
   Q.  Has the fact of his greasing his boots the  day of the murder any, and
if any, what influence on your mind, in reference to his sanity ?
   A.  I  don't see any evidence  of insanity in that.
   Q. What evidence of design or plan of escape do you find in the prisoner,
before the murders were committed ?
   A.  I  don't remember of any particular fact occurring before the murder,
that was evidence of it.
   Here  the testimony on both sides closed.
  Mr. Seward, then addressed the jury in behalf of the prisoner,  in sub-
stance, as follows:
May it Please toe Court,—Gentlemen of the Jury:
  " Thou shalt not Kill," and, " Whoso sheddeth  Man's blood by
Man shall  his blood be shed," are laws  found in  the code of that
people who,  although dispersed and  distracted, trace their history to  the
creation;  a history which  records that murder was the first  of Human
Crimes.
   The first  of these precepts constitutes a tenth part  of the Jurispru-
dence which God saw fit to establish, at an early period, for the government
of all mankind,  throughout aU generations.  The latter, of less universal 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
369
obligation,  is still retained in  our system, although other states, as intelH-
gent and refined, as secure and peaceful, have substituted for it the more
benign principle that  Good shall  be returned for Evil.   I yield  implicit
submission  to this law, and acknowledge the justice of its penaltv, and the
duty of courts and juries to give it effect.
  In this case, if  the Prisoner be  guilty of Murder, I do not ask remission
of punishment.  If he be guilty, never was Murderer  more guilty.   He has
murdered not only John G. Van Nest, but his hands are reeking with the
blood of other, and numerous,  and even more pitiable victims.  The slaying
of Van  Nest,  if a crime at  all, was the coAvardly crime of assassination.
John G. Van Nest  Avas a just,  upright, virtuous man,  of middle ao-e, of
grave and modest demeanor, distinguished by especial marks of the respect
and esteem of his felloAV citizens.   On his arm leaned  a confiding wife,  and
they supported,  on the one side,  children to  Avhom they  had  given being,
and, on the other,  aged and venerable parents, from whom they had derived
existence.  The assassination of such a man was an atrocious crime, but the
Murderer,  with  more than savage refinement,  immolated on the same altar
in the same hour, a venerable  and virtuous matron of more than three-score
years, and  her daughter, the wife of Van Nest, mother of an unborn infant.
Nor was this aU.  Providence, which, for its own  mysterious purposes, per-
mitted these dreadful crimes,  in mercy suffered the same  arm to be raised
against the sleeping orphan child of the butchered parents, and received it
into Heaven.  A whole family, just, gentle  and  pure, were thus,  in their
own house, in the night  time, without any  provocation,  without  one mo-
ment's warning,  sent by the Murderer to join the  Assemby of the Just;  and
eA'en the laboring man,  sojourning within their  gates, received the fatal
blade into his breast,  and survives through the mercy, not of the Murderer,
but of God.
  For WUliam Freeman, as a  Murderer, I have no commission to speak.   If
he  had silver and gold accumulated with the frugality of Croesus, and should
pour it  all  at  my feet, I would not stand an hour between him  and the
Avenger.  But  for the Innocent, it is my right, my duty  to speak.  If this
sea of  blood was  innocently shed, then it is my  duty to stand beside  him
until his steps lose their hold upon the scaffold.
  " Thou shalt not kill," is a commandment addressed not to him alone, but
to me, to you, to the Court, and to the whole community.   There are no
exceptions from that commandment, at least in civil life, save those of  self-
defence, and capital punishment for crimes, in the due and just administra-
tion of the law.  There is not  only a question, then, whether the Prisoner has
shed the blood  of his fellow man, but the question,  whether we shall un-
lawfully shed his blood.  I should be guilty of Murder if, in my present
relation, I  saw the executioner waiting for an insane man, and failed to say,
or failed to do in his behalf, aU that my ability aUowed. I think it has been
proved  of  the Prisoner at the bar, that,  during  all this  long and tedious
                  24 
370
THE trial of
  trial, he has had  no sleepless nights, and that even in the day time, when
  he retires from these halls to his lonely cell, he  sinks to rest like a Avearied
  chUd, on the stone  floor, and quietly slumbers till roused by the  constable
  with his staff, to appear again before the Jury.  His Counsel enjoy no such
  repose.   Their thoughts by day and their dreams by night are filled Avith
  oppressive apprehensions that, through  their inability or neglect, he may be
  condemned.
   I am arraigned  before you for undue manifestations of zeal  and excite-
 ment.  My answer to aU such charges shall be  brief.  AVhen this cause shall
 have been committed to you, I shall be happy, indeed, if it shall appear that
 my only error has been, that I have felt too much, thought too intensely, or
 acted too faithfully.
   If my error would thus be criminal,  hoAv great Avould yours be if you
 should render an  unjust verdict!  Only four months have elapsed since
 an outraged People, distrustful of judicial redress,  doomed the  Prisoner
 to immediate death. Some of  you have confessed that you approved that
 lawless sentence.   All  men now  rejoice that the Prisoner  Avas saved for
 this solemn trial.  But  this trial would be as  criminal  as that  precipitate
 sentence, if through any Avilful fault or prejudice of yours, it should proA-e
 but a mockery of justice.  If any prejudice of  Avitnesses, or the  imagina-
 tion of Counsel, or any ill-timed jest shall at any time have diverted your
 attention, or if any prejudgment which you may have brought into the Jury
 Box, or any cowardly fear of popular opinion  shaU have  operated to cause
 you to deny to  the  Prisoner  that  dispassionate  consideration of  his case
 which the laws of God and man exact of you, and if, owing to such an error.
 this wretched man fall  from among the Hving,  what will be your crime ?
 You wiU have violated the commandment, " Thou shalt not kUl."  It is not
 the form or letter of the trial by jury that authorizes you  to send your fel-
 low man  to his dread account, but it is the spirit that sanctifies that glorious
 institution;  and if, through pride, passion, timidity, weakness, or any cause,
 you deny the Prisoner one iota of aU the defence to which he is entitled by
 the law of the land,  you yourselves,  whatever his guilt may be, wUl have
 broken the commandment, " Thou shalt do no  Murder."
  There is not a corrupt or prejudiced  witness—there is  not a thoughtless
or heedless witness, who has testified what was not true in spirit,  or  what
 was not whoUy true,  or Avho has suppressed any truth, who has not offended
 against the same injunction.
  Nor is  the  Court itself above  the commandment.  If these Judges have
 been influenced by the excitement Avhich  has brought this vast assemblage
here,  and under such influence, or under any other influence, have  com-
mitted voluntary error,  and have denied to the Prisoner or shall hereafter
deny to him the benefit of any fact or any principle of law, then this Court
wUl have to answer for the  deep transgression, at that bar at Avhich we all
shall meet again.   When we appear there, none of us can plead that we 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
371
 were insane and knew not what avc did ;  and by just so much as our ability
 and knowledge exceed  those of this  wretch, whom the world regards as a
 fiend in human shape, will our guilt exceed his, if we be guilty.
   I plead not for a Murderer.  I have no inducement, no motive to do so.
 I have addressed  my fellow citizens  in  many various  relations, when  re-
 wards of wealth and fame awaited me.   I have been  cheered  on other
 occasions by  manifestations of popular  approbation and sympathy;  and
 where there was no such encouragement, I had at least the gratitude of him
 whose cause I defended.  But I speak now in the hearing of a people who
 have prejudged the Prisoner, and condemned me  for pleading in his behalf.
 He is a convict, a pauper,  a  negro, Avithout intellect,  sense, or  emotion.
 My child, with an affectionate smile, disarms my care-worn face of its frown
 whenever I cross  my threshold.   The beggar in the  street obliges me to
 give, because he says "  God bless you," as I pass.   My dog caresses me with
 fondness if I will but smile on him.  My horse recognizes me Avhen I fill his
 manger.   But what reward, what  gratitude, what sympathy and affection
 can I expect here ?  There the Prisoner sits.  Look at him.  Look at the
 assemblage around you.   Listen to their ill-suppressed censures and their
 excited  fears,  and tell me where among my neighbors or my fellow men,
 where even in his  heart, I can expect to find the sentiment,  the thought,
 not to say of reward or of acknowledgment, but even of recognition.  I sat
 here two weeks during the preliminary trial.  I stood here  between the
 Prisoner and the Jury nine hours,  and pleaded for the Avretch that he was
 insane and  did not even know he was on trial: and when all was done, the
 Jury thought, at least eleven of them thought, that I had  been deceiving
 them, or was self-deceived.   They read signs of intelligence  in his idiotic
 smile, and of cunning and malice in  his stolid insensibility.  They rendered
 a verdict that  he was sane enough to be tried—a contemptible compromise
 verdict in a capital case; and then they looked on, with what emotions God
 and they only know, upon his arraignment.  The District Attorney, speaking
 in his adder ear, bade him rise,  and reading to him one indictment, asked
 him whether he wanted  a trial, and the poor fool answered, No.  Have you
 Counsel ?  No.  And they went through the same mockery,  the Prisoner
 giving the same answers, until a third indictment was thundered in  his ears,
 and he stood before the  court, silent, motionless,  and beAvildered.   Gentle-
 men, you may think of this eA'idence Avhat you please, bring in what verdict
 you can, but I asseverate before Heaven  and you, that, to the best of my
 knowledge and belief, the Prisoner at the  bar does not at this moment know
 why it is that my shadow falls on you instead of his own.
  I speak with all sincerity and  earnestness; not because I expect my opin-
ion to have weight,  but I would disarm the injurious  impression that I am
speaking merely as a lawyer speaks for his client   I am not the Prisoner's
laAvyer.   I am indeed a volunteer in.his behalf;  but Society and Mankind
have the  deepest interests at stake.  I  am the lawyer for Society, for Man- 
372
THE TRIAL OF
kind, shocked, beyond the power of expression, at the scene I have witnessed
here of trying a maniac as a malefactor.   In this, almost the first of such
causes I have ever seen,  the last I hope that I shall  ever see, I wish that I
could perform my duty with more  effect.   If I suffered myself to look at the
volumes of testimony through which I have to pass, to remember my entire
want of preparation, the pressure  of time, and my wasted strength and en-
ergies, I should despair of acquitting myself as you and all good  men will
hereafter desire that I should have performed so sacred a duty.   But in the
cause of humanity we are encouraged to hope for Divine assistance Avhere
human powers are weak. As you aU know, I provided for my way through
these trials, neither gold nor silver in my purse, nor scrip;  and when I
could not  think  beforehand  what I  should say, I remembered that it was
said to those who  had a beneficent commission, that  they should take no
thought what they should say when brought before  the  magistrate, for in
that same  hour it should be  given  them what they should say, and it should
not be they who should speak, but the spirit of their Father  speaking in
them.
  You have promised, gentlemen, to be  impartial.  You will find it more
difficult than you have supposed.   Our minds are liable to be swayed by
temporary influences, and above all,  by the influences of masses around us.
At every stage of this trial,  your attention  has been diverted,  as it wiU be
hereafter, from the only question which it involves, by the eloquence of the
Counsel for the People, reminding you of the slaughter of that helpless and
innocent family, and of the danger to  which society is exposed by relaxing
the rigor of the laws.   Indignation against crime,  and apprehensions of its
recurrence, are elements on Avhich public justice relies for the execution of
the law.   You must indulge that indignation.  You cannot dismiss such
apprehensions.   You will in common with your feUoAV citizens  deplore the
destruction of so many precious lives,  and sympathize with  mourning rela-
tions and  friends.   Such sentiments  cannot  be censured when operating
upon the community at large, but they are deeply to be deplored when they
are manifested in the Jury Box.
  Then, again, a portion of this issue has been tried, imperfectly tried, un-
justly tried, already.   A Jury of twelve  men, you are told, have already
rendered  their  verdict that  the  Prisoner is now  sane.   The deference
which right minded men yield to the opinions of others, the timidity Avhich
weak  men  feel in dissenting from  others, may  tempt  you to surrender
your own  independence.   I warn you  that that verdict is a reed which
wiU pierce you through and  through.   That  Jury was selected without
peremptory challenge.  Many of  the Jurors entered the panel with settled
opinions that the  Prisoner was not only guilty of the homicide, but sane,
and all might have  entertained such opinions  for all that the Prisoner
could do.   It was a verdict founded  on  such evidence as  could be hastily
collected in a community where it required moral courage to testify for the 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
373
accused.   Testimony  was excluded  upon frivolous and unjust pretences.
The cause Avas  submitted  to the Jury on the Fourth of July, and under
circumstances calculated to convey a malicious  and unjust spirit into the
Jury Box.  It was a strange celebration.  The dawn of the Day of Indepen-
dence was not greeted Avith cannon or bells.   No lengthened procession was
seen in our streets, nor Avere the voices of orators heard in our pubHc halls.
An intense excitement brought a vast multitude here, complaining of the
delay and the  expense of what was  deemed an unnecessary trial, and de-
manding the sacrifice of  a victim, Avho had been spared too long  already.
For hours that assemblage Avas roused and excited by denunciations of the
Prisoner, and ridicule of his deafness, his ignorance, and his imbecility.   Be-
fore the Jury retired, the  Court was informed that they were ready to render
the verdict required.   One Juror, however, hesitated.  The next day was
the  Sabbath.   The Jury  were called and the Court remonstrated with the
dissentient, and pressed the necessity of a verdict.  That Juror gave way at
last, and the bell which  summoned our citizens to church for the evening
service, was the signal for the discharge of the Jury, because they had agreed.
Even thus a legal verdict could not be extorted.  The eleven Jurors, doubt-
less under an intimation from  the Court, compromised Avith the twelfth, and
a verdict was rendered,  not in the language of  the  law,  that the Prisoner
was " not insane," but that he Avas " sufficiently sane, in mind and memory,
to distinguish between right and wrong;" a verdict which  implied  that the
Prisoner was at least partially  insane, Avas diseased in other faculties beside
the  memory, and partially diseased in that, and that, although he had mind
and memory to distinguish between right and wrong in the abstract, he had
not reason and understanding and will to regulate his conduct according to
that distinction;  in short, a verdict by which  the Jury unworthily evaded
the  question submitted to them,  and  cast upon the Court a responsibility
which it had no right to assume,  but which it did nevertheless assume,  in
violation .of the law.  That twelfth Juror was afterwards drawn as a Juror in
this cause, and Avas challenged by the Counsel for the People for partiality
to the Prisoner, and the chaUenge was sustained by the Court, because,
although he  had,  as the  court say, pronounced by his verdict that the  Pris-
oner was sane,  he then declared that he believed the Prisoner insane, and
would die in the  Jury Box before he  Avould render a verdict that he was
sane.  Last  and chief of all  objections to that verdict noAv,  it has  been
neither pleaded nor  proved  here, and  therefore  is not in evidence before
you.  I trust, then, that  you  will dismiss to the contempt of mankind that
Jury and their verdict, thus  equivocating upon Law and Science, Health
and Disease, Crime and  Innocence.
   A'^ain.  An inferior standard of intelligence has been set up here as the
standard of the Negro race, and  a false one as  the standard of the Asiatic,
race.  This Prisoner traces a  divided lineage.   On the paternal side his an-
cestry is lost among the tiger  hunters on the Gold Coast of Africa, while  his 
374                         THE TRIAL OF
mother constitutes a portion of the small remnant of the NarraganseSt tribe.
Hence it is held that the Prisoner's intellect is to be compared with the depre-
ciating standard of the African, and his passions with the violent and ferocious
character erroneously imputed to the Aborigines.  Indications of manifest de-
rangement, or at least of imbecility, approaching to Idiocy, are, therefore, set
aside, on the ground that they harmonize with the legitimate but degraded
characteristics of  the races from which he is descended.   You, gentlemen,
have, or ought to have, lifted up your souls above the bondage of prejudices
so narroAV and so  mean as these.  The color of the Prisoner's skin, and the
form of his features, are not impressed upon the spiritual, immortal mind
which works beneath.   In spite of human pride, he is still your brother, and
mine, in  form and color accepted and apprOA'ed by his Father, and yours,
and mine, and bears equally with  us the proudest inheritance of our race—
the image of our Maker.  Hold him then to be a Man.   Exact cf him all
the responsibilities which should be exacted under like circumstances if he
belonged to the Anglo-Saxon race, and make for  him aU the aUowances
which, under like circumstances, you would expect for yourselves.
  The Prisoner Avas obHged—no, his Counsel were obHgcd, by law, to accept
the plea of Not. Guilty, which the Court directed to  be entered in his behalf.
That plea denies the homicide.  If the laAv had allowed it, Ave would gladly
have admitted all the Murders of which the Prisoner  Avas accused, and have
admitted them to  be as unprovoked as they were cruel, and have  gone di-
rectly before you on the only defence upon  which we have insisted, or shall
insist, or could insist—that he is irresponsible, because he was and is insane,
  We labor not only under these  difficulties, but umler the further embar-
rassment that the plea of Insanity is universally  suspected.   It i&the last sub-
terfuge of the guilty, and so is too often abused.  But howeA'er obnoxious to
suspicion this defence is, there have been cases Avhere it Avas true ; and Avhen
true, it is of all pleas the most perfect and complete defence that can be of-
fered in any human tribunal.   Our Savior forgave his Judges because "they
kneAV not what they did."  The  insane man Avho  has  committed  a crime,
kneAV not what he did.   If this being, dyed with human blood.be insane,
you  and I, and even the chUdren of our affections, are  not more  guiltless
than he.
  Is  there reason  to indulge a suspicion of fraud here ?  Look at this stupid,
senseless fool, almost as inanimate  as the clay moulded in the bri«k-yard, and
say, if you dare, that you are afraid of being deceived by him.  Look at me.
You  all know me,.   Am I a  man to engage in  a conspiracy to  deceiA'e you,
and defraud justice?  Look on us all, for although I began the defence of
this cause alone, thanks to the generosity, to the magnanimity of an enlight-
ened profession, I come out strong in the assistance of Counsel  never before
attached to me in any relation, but strongly grappled to  me now, by these
new and endearing ties.   Is any one of us a man to be suspected ?   The tea*
timony is closed.  Look through it all.   Can suspicion or maUce find in it
« 
\
AVILLIAM FREEMAN.
375
any ground to accuse us of a plot to set up a false and fabricated defence ?
I will give you, gentlemen, a key to every case Avhere Insanity has been
wrongfully, and yet successfully maintained.  Gold, influence, popular favor,
popular sympathy, raise that defence, and make it impregnable.  But you
have  never seen  a poor, worthless, spiritless, degraded  negro  like this, ac-
quitted wrongfully.  I wish this trial may prove that such an one can be ac-
quitted rightfully.   The danger  lies here.   There is not a avuite man or
white Avoman Avho would not have been dismissed longsince from the perils
of such a  prosecution, if it had only been  proved  that the  offender was so
ignorant and so brutalized as not to understand that the defence of insanity
had been  interposed.
  If he feign, Avho has trained the idiot to perform this highest  and most dif-
ficult of all intellectual achievements ?  Is it I ?   Shakspeare and Cervantes,
only, of all mankind, have conceived and perfected a counterfeit of insanity.
Is it  I ?   Why is not the imposition  exposed, to my discomfiture and  the
Prisoner's ruin ?   Where Avas it done ?   Was  it in public, here ? Was it
in secret,  in the jail ?  His deafened  ears  could not hear me there, unless I
were overheard by other prisoners, by jailers, constables, the Sheriff', and a
cloud of witnesses.  Who has  the keys of the jail ^   Have  I?  You have
had Sheriff, Jailer, and the whole Police upon the stand.  Could  none of these
witnesses  reveal  our plot ?   Were there none to watch  and report  the
abuse ?  When they teU you, or insinuate, gentlemen, thajt this  man has been
taught to feign insanity, they discredit themselves, as did the Roman senti-
nels, who, appointed to guard the sepulchre of our  Savior, said, in excuse of
the broken seal, that AvhUe they slept men came and rolled aAvay the stone.
  I advance towards the merits of the cause.  The law which it involves will
be found in the case of Kleim, tried for murder in 1844, before Judge Ed-
monds, of the First Circuit, in the city of New York, reported in the Journal
of Insanity for January, 1846, at page 261.  I read from the report  of the
Judge's charge:
  " He told the Jury that there was no doubt that  Kleim had been guilt}- of
the killing imputed to him, and  that under circumstances of  atrocity and
deliberation Avhich Avere calculated to excite in their minds strong feelings
of indignation against him.   But they must beware how  they permitted
such-feelings to influence their judgment.  They must bear in mind that
the object of punishment was not vengeance, but reformation ; not  to ex-
tort  from a man  an atonement for  the life Avhich he cannot  give, but by
the terror of the example, to deter others  from the like offences, and that
nothing was so likely to destroy the public confidence in the„administration
of criminal justice, as the infliction of its pains upon one whom Heaven has
already afflicted with the awful malady of Insanity."
  These Avords deserve to be Avritten in letters of gold upon tablets of marble.
Their reason and philosophy are apparent   If you send the lunatic to the gal-
•M
♦ 
376
THE TRIAL OF
lows, society will be shocked by your inhumanity, and the advocates for the
abolition of capital punishment will find their most effective argument in the
fact that a Jury of the country, through ignorance, or passion, or prejudice,
have mistaken a madman for a criminal.
  The report of Judge Edmonds' charge proceeds : " It was  true that the
plea of insanity was sometimes adopted as a cloak for crime, yet it was  un-
fortunately equally true, that  many more persons were unjustly convicted,
to Avhom their unquestioned insanity ought to have  been an unfailing pro-
tection."
  This judicial ansAver to the argument that Jurors are too likely to be swayed
by the plea of insanity, is perfect and complete.
  Judge Edmonds further charged the Jury,  " that it was by no means' an
easy matter to discover or define the line of demarkation where sanity end-
ed and insanity began," and that  it Avas  often " difficult for those most ex-
pert in the disease to detect or explain its beginning, extent, or duration ;"
" that the classifications of the disease were in a great measure arbitrary, and
the Jury Avere not obliged to bring the case of the Prisoner within any one of
the classes, because the symptoms  of the different kinds  were continually
mingling with each other."
  The application of this rule will render the present case perfectly clear, be-
cause  it appears from the evidence that the Prisoner is laboring under a com-
bination of mania or excited madness, with dementia or decay of the mind.
  Judge Edmonds furnishes you Avith a  balance  to weigh the testimony in
the case, in these words:
  " It Avas important that the Jury should understand hoAv much weight was
to be given to the opinions of medical witnesses.  The opinions of men who
had devoted themselves to the study of insanity as a distinct department of
medical science, and studied  recent  improvements and discoveries, especi-
aUy when to that knoAvledge they added the experience of  personal care
of the insane,  could never  be safely disregarded by  Courts and Juries ;
and on the other hand, the opinions of physicians who had not devoted their
particular attention  to the  disease, Avere not of any more  value  than the
opinions of common persons."
  This charge of Judge Edmonds furnishes a lamp  to guide your feet,  and
throws a blazing light on your path.  He  acknowledges, in the first place.
Avith distinguished independence for a Judge and a Lawyer, that " the laAv, in
its sIoav and cautious progress, still lags far behind the advance of true know-
ledge."  " An insane person is one who, at the time of committing the  act,
labored under such a defect of reason as  not to knoAV the nature and quality
of the act he was  doing, or if he  did knoAV it, did not know he was doing
what was wrong; and the question is not whether the accused knew the dif-
ference between right  and wrong generally, but whether he knew the dif-
ference between right and wrong in regard to the very act Avith which he is 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
377
  charged."   " If some controlling disease was, in truth, the acting power with-
  in him, which he could not resist, or if he had not a sufficient use of his rea-
  son to control the passions Avhich prompted him,  he is  not responsible.   But
  it must be an absolute dispossession of the free  and natural agency of the
  mind.  In the glowing but just language of Erskine, it is not necessary that
  Reason should be hurled from her seat;  it is enough that Distraction sits down
  beside her, holds her trembling in her  place,  and frightens her from her pro-
  priety."
   Judge Edmonds  proceeded: " And it must be  borne in mind that the
  moral as well as intellectual  faculties may be  so disordered by the disease as
  to deprive the mind of its controlling and directing power.
   " In order then to establish a crime, a man must have memory and intelli-
  gence to knoAv that  the act he is about to commit  is wrong; to remember and
  understand, that if he commit the  act, he will  be subject to punishment;  and
  reason and will to enable  him to compare and choose between the supposed
  advantage or gratification to be obtained by the criminal act, and the immunity
  from  punishment Avhich he will secure by abstaining from it.
   " If, on the other hand,  he have not intelligence enough to have a criminal
  intent and purpose; and  if  his moral  or intellectual powers are either so
 deficient that he  has not  sufficient will, conscience, or controlling  mental
 power;  or  if through the  overwhelming  violence of  mental disease his
 intellectual power is for the  time  obliterated, he is not a responsible moral
 agent."
   The learned Judge recommended to the Jury, " as  aids to a just conclu-
 sion, to consider the extraordinary and unaccountable  alteration  in  the
 Prisoner's whole mode of life ; the inadequacy between the slightness of the
 cause  and the magnitude of the offence; the  recluse and ascetic life which
 he had  led; his  invincible  repugnance  to all intercourse  Avith his felloAv
 creatures ;  his behavior and conduct at  the time the act was done,  and sub-
 sequently during his confinement;  and the stolid indifference Avhich he alone
 had manifested during the whole  progress of a trial upon which his life or
 death  depended."
   Kleim Avas acquitted and  sent,  according to law, to the  State Lunatic
 Asylum  at Utica.  The superintendent  of the Asylum, in a note to this re-
 port,  states that  Kleim is  uniformly mild and pleasant;  has not asked a
 question, or spoken or learned the name of any one ; seems very imperfectly
 to recollect the Murder or the trial; says he was put in prison;  does not
 know what for; and  was taken to the Court, but had no trial;  that his bodily
 health is good,  but that his mind is nearly gone—quite demented.
   You cannot fail, gentlemen  of the Jury, to remark the extraordinary sim-
 ilarity between the case of Kleim,  as indicated in the charge of  Judge Ed-
 monds, and that of the Prisoner  at the bar.   If I were sure you Avould
 receive such a charge, and be guided by it,  I  might rest here, and defy the
eloquence of the Attorney  General.  The proof of insanity in this case is of 
378                           THE TRIAL OF
 the same nature, and the disease  in the same form as in the case of Kleim.
 The only difference is, that the evidence here is a thousand times more con-
 clusiA-e.  But Judge Edmonds does not preside here.  Kleim was a Avhite
 man, Freeman is a Negro.  Kleim set fire to a house, to burn only a poor
 obscure woman and her child.  Here the madman destroyed a whole family,
 rich,  powerful, honored, respected and beloved.   Kleim was  tried in the
 city of New York;  and the  community engaged in their multiplied avoca-
 tions, and heedless of a crime not infrequent there, and occurring in humble
 life,  did  not overawe and  intimidate the Court, the  Jury, or the witnesses.
 Here a panic has paralyzed humanity.   No man or woman feels safe until
 the maniac shall be extirpated from the face of the earth.  Kleim had the
 sympathies of men and Avomen, willing witnesses, advocates  sustained and
 encouraged by popular favor,  and an  impartial Jury.  Freeman is already
 condemned by the tribunal of  public opinion, and has reluctant and timor-
 ous witnesses, Counsel  laboring  under embarrassments plainly to be seen,
 and a Jury whose impartiality is yet to be proved.
   The might that slumbered in this maniac's arm was exhausted in the par-
 oxysm which impelled  him to  his dreadful  deeds.   Yet an excited com-
 munity, Avhose terror has not yet culminated, declare,  that whether sane or
 insane, he must be executed, to gi\'e safety to your dwellings and theirs.   I
 must needs then tell you the laAv, which will disarm such coAvardly fear.  If
 you acquit the Prisoner, he cannot go at large, but must be committed to
jail,  to be tried by another Jury, for a second Murder.  Your dAvellings
therefore will be safe.   If such  a Jury find him sane, he Avill then be sent to
his fearful account, and your dwellings will be safe.   If  acquitted,  he will
be remanded  to jail,  to aAvait a third trial,  and your dweUings will be safe.
 If that Jury convict, he Avill then be executed, and your dwellings will be
 safe.  If  they acquit, he will still be detained, to answer a fourth Murder,
and your dwellings will be safe. Whether the fourth Jury acquit or convict,
your dwellings will stUl be safe; for if  they convict, he will then be cut off,
 and if they acquit, he must, according to the laAv of the land, be sent to the
 Lunatic Asylum, there  to be confined for life.  You may not slay him then,
for the public security,  because  the public  security does not demand the
sacrifice.   No security for home or hearth can be obtained by Judicial Mur-
der.   God will abandon him, who, through cowardly fear, becomes such a
 Murderer.  / also stand for the security of the homes and hearths of  my
fellow citizens, and have as deep an interest, and as deep a stake as any one
of them.   There  are my home and hearth,  exposed to every danger  that
can threaten theirs; but I know that security cannot exist for any, if feeble
 man undertakes to correct the  decrees of Providence.
   The Counsel for the People admit in the abstract that insanity excuses
 crime, but they insist on rules for the regulation of  insanity, to which that
disease can never conform itself.   Dr. Fosgate testified that the Prisoner
 was insane.   He was asked by  the Attorney General, " What if the law, nev- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
379
crtheless, hold to be criminal that same state of mind which you pronounce
insanity ?"  He answered Avith high intelligence and great.moral firmness,
" The law cannot alter the constitution of man as it Avas given him by his
Maker."
  Insanity, such as the Counsel for the People would tolerate, never did and
never  will exist  They bring its definition from Coke,  Blackstone  and
Hale, and it requires that by reason either of natural infirmity or of disease,
the wretched subject  shall be unable to  count  twenty,  shall not knoAV his
father or mother, and  shall have no more reason or thought than a brute
beast.
  According to the testimony of Dr. Spencer,  and the claim of the At-
torney General, an individual is  not  insane if  you find any traces or glim-
merings of the several  faculties of the human mind, or of the more important
ones.  Dr. Spencer has found in the Prisoner, memory of his wrongs and
sufferings, choice betAveen bread  and animal food, hunger to be appeased,
thirst to be quenched,  love of combat, imperfect knowledge of money, anger
and malice.  All of Dr. Spencer's  questions to the accused shoAV, that in
looking for  insanity, he demands an  entire obliteration of all conception,
attention, imagination, association, memory, understanding and reason, and
every thing else.  There never was an idiot so low, never a diseased man
so demented.
  You might as Avell  expect to find a man born Avithout eyes, ears, nose,
mouth, hands and feet, or deprived of them all by disease, and yet surviving,
as to find such an idiot, or such a lunatic, as the Counsel for the People
would hold irresponsible.   The reason is, that the human mind is not capa-
ble, AvhUe life remains, of such complete  obliteration.   What is the human
mind ?  It is immaterial, spiritual, immortal;  an emanation of the divine
intelligence, and if the frame in which it dAvells had preserved its  just and
natural proportions, and perfect adaptation, it Avould be a pure and heavenly
existence.  But that frame is marred and disordered in its best estate.  The
spirit has communication with the Avorld without, and acquires imperfect
knoAvledge only through the half-opened gates of the senses. If, from origi-
nal defects,  or from accidental causes, the structure be such as to cramp or
restrain the  mind,  it becomes or appears to be weak, diseased, vicious and
wicked.   I  know one Avho Avas  born Avithout sight, without hearing,  and
without speech, retaining the faculties of feeling and smell.  That child was,
and would have continued to be an idiot,  incapable of receiving or commu-
nicating thoughts,  feelings, or affections ;  but  tenderness unexampled, and
skill and assiduity unparalleled, have opened avenues to the benighted mind
of Laura  Bridgman, and  developed it into a perfect and complete human
spirit, consciously allied to all its kindred, and aspiring to Heaven.   Such is
the mind of every idiot, and of every lunatic, if you can only open the gates,
and restore the  avenues of the senses; and such is the human soul Avhen 
380
THE TRIAL OF
deranged  and disordered by disease, imprisoned, oonfounded, benighted.
That disease is insanity.
  Doth not the idiot eat ?  Doth not the idiot  drink ?  Doth not the idiot
knoAV his father and his mother ?   He  does  all this because he. is a man.
Doth he not smile and weep ? and think you he smiles and weeps for noth-
ing ?   He smiles and weeps because he is moved by human joys and sor-
rows, and exercises his  reason, however imperfectly.   Hath not the idiot
anger,  rage, revenge ?   Take from him his food, and he will stamp his feet
and throw his chains in your face.   Think you he doth this for nothing ?
He does it all because he is a man, and because, hoAvever imperfectly, he
exercises his reason.  The lunatic does all this, and, if not quite demented,
all things  else that man, in the highest pride of intellect, does or can do.
He only does them in a different Avay.  You may pass laws for his goA'ern-
ment   Will he conform ?  Can he  conform ?  What cares  he for your
laws ?   He  Avill not even plead;  he cannot plead his disease in excuse.
You must interpose the plea for him, and if you allow it, he, when redeemed
from his mental bondage, AviU plead for you, when he returns to your Judge
and his.  If you deny his plea,  he goes all the sooner, freed from imperfec-
tion, and with energies restored, into the presence of that  Judge.   You
must meet him there, and then, no longer bewildered, stricken and dumb,
he AviU have become as perfect, clear and bright, as those who reviled him
in his degradation, and triumphed in his ruin.
  And now what is Insanity ?   Many learned men have defined it for us,
but I prefer to convey my idea of it in the simplest manner.  Insanity is a
disease of the body, and I doubt not of the brain.  The Avorld is astonished
to find it so.   They thought for almost  six thousand  years,  that it was an
affection of the mind only.  Is it strange  that  the discovery should  have
been made so late ?   You know that it is  easier  to move a burthen upon
tAvo smooth rails on a level surface,  than over the  rugged ground.   It has
taken almost six thousand years to learn that.  But  moralists argue that
insanity shall not  be admitted  as a physical disease, because it Avould tend
to exempt the  sufferer  from responsibility,  and because it  would  expose
society to danger.  But who shall know,  better than the Almighty, the  Avavs
of human safety, and the bounds of  human responsibility?
  And is it strange that the brain should be diseased ?  AVhat organ, mem-
ber,  bone,  muscle, sineAv, vessel or  nerve is not subject to disease ?   What
is physical man, but a frail, perishing body, that begins to decay  as soon as
it begins to exist ?   What is there  of animal existence here on earth, ex-
empt from disease and decay ?   Nothing.    The  Avorld is full of disease,
and that is the great agent of change,  renovation and health.
  And Avhat wrong or error can there be in supposing that the mind may be
so affected by disease of the body as  to relieve man  from responsibility ?
You will answer, it would not be safe.  But who has assured you of safety ? 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
381
Is not the Avay of life through dangers lurking on every side, and though you
escape ten thousand perils, must you not fall  at last ?  Human life is not
safe, or intended to be safe, against the elements.  Neither is it safe, or in-
tended to be safe, against the moral elements of man's  nature.  It is not safe
against pestilence, or against Avar, against the thunderbolt of Heaven, or
against the Woav of the maniac.   But comparative safety can be secured  if
you will  be wise.  You can guard  against Avar, if you will cultivate peace.
You can guard against the lightning if you will learn the laws of electricity,
and raise the  protecting rod.  You will  be safe against  the maniac, if you
will watch the causes of madness, and renio've them.  Yet after all there will
be danger enough from all these causes, to remind you that on earth you are
not immortal.
   Although my definition  would not perhaps be strictly accurate, I should
pronounce Insanity to be a derangement of the mind, character and conduct,
resulting from  bodily disease.  I take this word derangement, because it is
one in common every day use.   We all understand what is meant when it
is said that any thing is ranged or arranged.   The houses on a street are
ranged, if built upon a straight line.  The fences on your farms are ranged.
A tower, if justly built,  is ranged ; that is, it is ranged by the plummet.  It
rises in a perpendicular range from the earth.   A file of men marching in  a
straight line are in range.  " Range yourselves, men," though  not exactly
artistical, is not an uncommon word of  command.  Now Avhat  do we mean
when we use the Avord " deranged "'?  Manifestly that a thing is not ranged,
is not arranged, is out of range.   If the  houses on the street  be built irregu-
larly, they are  deranged.  If the fences be inclined to the right or left, they
are deranged.   If there be an  unequal pressure on either  side, the  tower
will lean, that is, it wUl  be deranged.  If  the file of men become  irregular
the Hne is deranged.   So if a  man  be insane.  There was  a regular line
which he  was pursuing; not the same  line  which you or  I folloAv, for all
men pursue different Hnes, and every sane man has his own peculiar path.
AU these paths are straight, and all are ranged, though all divergent.   It is
easy enough to discover when the street, the fence, the toAver, or the mar-
tial procession is deranged.  But it is quite another thing to determine when
the course of  an individual life has become  deranged.   We deal not then
with geometrical or material lines, but Avith an imaginary line.  We have no
 physical objects for land-marks.  We trace the line backward by the light
of imperfect and unsatisfactory evidence, which leaves it a matter  almost of
speculation whether there has been  a departure or not.   In  some  cases, in-
deed, the task  is easy.  If the fond mother becomes the murderer of her off-
spring, it is easy to see that she is deranged.  If the pious man, Avhose steps
were firm and whose pathway led straight to Heaven, sinks  without tempta-
 tion into criminal debasement, it is easy to see that he is deranged.  But in
 cakes where no natural instinct or  elevated principle throws its  light upon 
3^2
THE TRIAL OF
 our research, it is  often the most difficult and  delicate of all human investi-
 gations to determine Avhen a person is deranged.
    We have tAvo tests.  First, to ccripare the  individual after the  supposed
 derangment with himself as he was before.  Second, to  compare his course
 with those  ordinary lines  of human  life which Ave expect  sane persons, of
 equal inteUigence, and similarly situated, to pursue.
    If derangement, which is insanity, mean only AA'hat we have assumed, how
 absurd is it to be looking to detect AA-hether memory, hope, joy, fear, hunger,
 thirst, reason, understanding, wit, and other faculties remain  !  So long as life
 lasts they never cease to abide with man, whether he pursue his straight and
 natural way, or the crooked and unnatural course of the lunatic.  If he be
 diseased, his faculties avUI not cease to act.  They will only act differently.  It
 is contended here that the prisoner is not deranged because he  performed his
 daily task in the State Prison, and his occasional labor afterwards; because
 he grinds his knives, fits his Aveapons, and handles the file, the axe, and the
 saAv, as he was instructed, and as he was wont to do.  Now the Lunatic Asy-
 lum at Utica has not an idle person in it, except the victims of absolute and
 incurable dementia, the last and worst stage of all insanity.   Lunatics  are al-
 most the busiest people in the world.  They have their  prototypes only in
 chUdren.   One lunatic will make a garden, another drive the plough, ano-
 ther gather flowers.   One writes poetry, another essays, another  orations.
 In short, lunatics eat, drink, sleep, work, fear, love, hate, laugh, weep, mourn,
 die.  They  do all things that sane men do, but do them in some peculiar way.
 It is said, however, that this prisoner has hatred and anger, that he has remem-
 bered his wrongs, and  nursed and cherished revenge; wherefore, he cannot
 be insane.   Cowper, a  moralist  who had tasted the bitter cup of Insanitj,
 reasoned otherwise:            i

               " But violence can never longer "sleep
                Than Human Passions please. In ev'ry heart
                Are sown the sparks that kindle fiery war;
               Occasion needs but fan them and they blaze,
               The seeds of murder in the breast of man."

   Melancholy springs  oftenest from  recalling and brooding over wrong and
suffering.  Melancholy is the first stage of madness, and it is  only  recently
that the less accurate name of monomania has been substituted in the place
of melancholy.  Melancholy is the foster-mother of anger and revenge.   Un-
til 1830 our statutory definition of lunatics was in the terms " disorderly per-
sons, who, if left at large, might endanger the lives of others."  Our laws
now regard  them as merely disorderly and dangerous, and society  acquies-
ces, unless madness rise so high that the madman slay his imaginary enemy,
and then he  is pronounced sane.
  The rrisaner lived with Nathaniel Lynch, at the age of eight  or nin'e, 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      383
 and labored occasionally for him during the last winter.   Lynch A'isited him in
 the jail, and asked him if he remembered him, and remembered Hving Avith
 him.  The Prisoner ansAvered, Yes.   Lynch asked the Prisoner Avhether he
 was whipped while there, and by Avhom, and why.  From his answers it ap-
 peared that he had been whipped by his mistress for playing truant, and
 that he climbed a rough board fence in his night clothes and fled to his mo-
 ther.  Upon this evidence, the learned Professor from Geneva College, Dr.
 Spencer, builds an argument that the Prisoner  has conception, sensation,
 memory, imagination, and association, and  is  most competent for the scaf-
 fold.  Noav here  are some verses to which I would invite the Doctor's atten-
 tion :
             " Shut up in dreary gloom, like convicts are,
             In company of murderers!  Oh, wretched fate 1
             If pity e'er extended through the frame,
             Or sympathy's sweet cordial touched the heart,
             Pity the wretched maniac who knows no blame,
             Absorbed in sorrow, where darkness, poverty, and every curse impart."

   Here is evidence not merely of memory and other faculties, but of  what
 we  call genius.  Yet these  verses are a sad effusion of Thomas Lloyd, a
 man-slaying maniac in Bedlam.
   The first question of fact here, gentlemen, as in every case where insanity
 is gravely insisted upon, is this :
   Is the Prisoner feigning or counterfeiting Insanity ?
   What kind of man is  he  ?  A youth  of twenty-three, without learning,
 education, or experience.  Dr. Spencer raises him just above the brute;
 Dr. Bigelow exalts him no  higher; and  Dr. Dimon thinks that he has
 intellectual  capacity not exceeding  that  of  a child of  ten  years, with the
 knowledge of one of tAvo or three.  These are the People's witnesses.   All
 the witnesses concur in these estimates of his mind.
   Can you  conceive of such a creature comprehending such a plot, and
 standing up in his cell in the jail, hour after hour, day after day, week after
 week,  and month after month, carrying on such a fraud; and alk the whUo
 pouring freely into the ears  of inquisitors curious, inquisitors friendly, and
 inquisitors hostile, without discrimination or alarm, or apparent hesitation or
 suspicion, with " chikl-like simplicity," as our witnesses describe it, and with
 " entire docility," as it is described by the witnesses for  the People, confes-
 sions of crime, which, if they fail to be received as evidences  of insanity,
 must constitute an insurmountable barrier to his acquittal ?
   I am ashamed for men who, Avithout evidence of the Prisoner's dissimula-
 tion, and in opposition to the unanimous testimony of all the witnesses, that
 he is sincere, still think that this poor fool may deceive them.   If he could
 feign,  and Avere feigning, Avould he not want some counsel, some friend, if
not to  advise and assist, at least to inform him of the probable success of the
fraud ?  And yet no one of his Counsel or witnesses has eA'er conversed with 
384
THE TRIAL OF
 him, but in a crowd of adverse Avitnesses;  and for myself, I have not spoken
 with him in almost tAvo months, and during the same period  have  never
 looked upon him elsewhere than here, in the presence of the Court and the
 multitude.
   Would  a sane man  hold nothing back? admit every  thing?  to  every
 body ? affect no ignorance ? no forgetfulness ?  no bewilderment ? no confu-
 sion ?  no excitement ?  no delirium ?
   Dr. Ray, in his Treatise on the Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity, (p. 333,)
 gives us very different ideas from all this, of those who can feign, and of the
 manner of counterfeiting:
   " A  person who has not made the insane a subject of study, cannot  simu-
 late madness, so as to deceive a physician  well acquainted  Avith the disease.
 Mr. Haslam declares,  that ' to sustain the character of a paroxysm of active
 insanity, would require  a continuity of exertion beyond the power of a sane
 person.'  Dr.  Conolly affirms  that he can hardly imagine a case which
 would  be proof against an efficient system  of observation.
   " The  grand fault committed by impostors  is, that they overdo the cha-
 racter  they assume.
   " The really mad, except in the acute stage of the disease, are, generally
 speaking, not  readily recognized as such by a stranger, and they retain so
 much of the rational as to require an effort to detect the impairment of their
 faculties.
   " Generally speaking, after the acute stage has passed off, a maniac has no
 difficulty in remembering his friends and  acquaintances, the places he  has
 been accustomed  to frequent, names, dates, and events, and the occurrences
 of his life.   The  ordinary relations of things are, with some exceptions, as
 easily and clearly perceived as ever, and his  discrimination of character seems
 to be marked by his usual shrewdness.     *     *    *    *    A person
 simulating mania  will frequently deny all knowledge of men and things Avith
 whom he has always been familiar."
   And now, gentlemen, I will give you a  proof of the difference between
 this real science and the empiricism upon which the Counsel for the People
 rely, in this cause.  Jean Pierre Avas brought before the Court of Assizes in
 Paris, in 1824, accused of forgery, SAvindling, and incendiarism.   He feigned
 insanity.   A commission of eminent physicians examined him, and detected
 his imposture by his pretended forgetfulness, and confusion in ansAvering in-
 terrogatories concerning his life  and history.   The most prominent of these
 questions are set  down in the books.  {Ray, p. 338.)  I  submitted  these
questions and ansAvers, with a statement of Jean Pierre's case,  to Dr.
 Spencer, and he, governed by the rules which have controlled him in the
 present cause, pronounced the impostor's answers to be evidence of insanity,
 because they showed a decay of memory.
  Again, gentlemen, look at the  various catechisms in which this Prisoner
has been exercised for two months, as a test of his sanity.   Would any sane 
WILLIAM FREEMAX.
385
man have  propounded a solitary one of all those questions to any person
whom he believed to be of sound mind ?  Take an instance.   On one occasion,
Dr. Willard, a Avitness for the People, having exhausted the idiot's store
of knoAvledge and emotion, expressed a wish to disco\*er whether the passion
of fear had burned out, and employing  Mr.  Morgan's  voice, addressed the
prisoner thus:  " BUI, they're going to take  you out to kill you.   They're
going to take you out to kill  you, Bill."  The poor  creature answered no-
thing.   " What do you think of it, Bill  ?"   Answer: " I  don't think about
it—I don't believe it."   " Bill," continues the  inquisitor, with louder and
more terrific  vociferation, " they're going to kill you, and the  Doctors want
your bones ; what do you think of it, Bill ?" The Prisoner answers: " I don't
think about it—I don't believe it."  The Doctor's case was almost complete,
but he thought that perhaps the Prisoner's stupidity might arise from inability
to understand the question.  Therefore,  lifting his voice still higher, he con-
tinues : " Did you ever see the Doctors haA'e any bones ?   Did you ever see
the Doctors have any bones, Bill ?"  The fool answers,  " I have."  " Then
where did you see them, Bill ?"   " In  Dr. Pitney's office."  And thus, by
this dialogue, the sanity of the accused is, in the judgment of Dr. Willard,
completely established.   It is no matter that if the Prisoner had believed the
threat, his belief Avould have proved him sane ; if he had been terrified, his
fears would have  sent him  to the gallows; if he had forgotten the  fleshiest*
skeleton he had seen, he would  have been  convicted of falsehood, and of
course have been  sane.   Of such staple as this are aU the questions which
have been put to the  Prisoner by all the witnesses.  There is not an inter-
rogatory which any one of you would have put to a child twelve years old.
  Does the prisoner feign insanity ?  One hundred and  eight witnesses have
been examined, of Avhom seventy-two appeared on behalf of the People.  No
one of them has expressed a belief that he was simulating.   On the contrary,
every witness to whom the inquiry has been  addressed, answers that the sin-
cerity of the Prisoner is beyond question.
  Mr.  John  R. Hopkins says : " I watched  him sharply to discover any si-
mulation, but I couldn't.  There was no deception.  If there had been  1
should have detected it."
  Ethan A. Warden, President of the village of Auburn, with  whom the
Prisoner had the most extended conversation, says:  " I suppose he thought
he spoke the truth."
  Ira Curtis,  Esq., testifies: "It did occur to me whether  the Prisoner,
with his appearance of sincerity, was attempting to play off' a game of im-
posture.  The thought vanished in a moment  There was too much before
me.  I have no doubt of his sincerity.  I don't believe it is in the power of
all in this room to  teach him to carry on  a piece of deception for fifteen min-
utes, because he would forget what he set about."
  Dr. Heraiance says:  " He spoke with so  much sincerity."
  The  Rev. John M.  Austin says: " He did not dissemble.  I should sup-
                 25 
386
THE  TRIAL' OF
 pose him the shrewdest man in the world if he did dissemble.   I haA'e  not
 the  slightest doubt that there was no attempt to dissemble."
   The tenor of the testimony of all the Avitnesses for the Prisoner, learned
 and unlearned, is the same.
   The Avitnesses for the People, learned and unlearned, concur.
   Dr. Big elo w says:  " He has betrayed no suspicion of me.  He has mani-
 fested entire docility to me."
   Dr. Spencer describes the manner of the witness in giving  all his an-
 swers, as " entirely frank."
   Dr. Clary concludes the question of sincerity against all doubt.  He
 says: "It seemed to me that he either thought he Avas  reading  or that he
 meant to deceive, and I don't think the latter, for he ahvays seemed  to be
 very frank."
   It being thus absolutely settled, gentlemen, that the  Prisoner does not
 simulate insanity, I pass to the second proposition in this defence, Avhich is,
 that
   It is proved that the  Prisoner is changed.
   I shall first ask you to compare him  noAv with himself in the earlier  and
 happier period of his life.
   Nathaniel Hersey, a witness for the  People, a colored man, knew the
 Prisoner seven years ago, and says : " He was a lively, smart boy, laughed,
 played, and  was  good natured; understood  as Avell as any body ; could teU
 a story right off'; talked like other  folks."
   This is the testimony of an associate of the Prisoner at the age  of sixteen.
   John De Puy is a brother-in-laAV of the accused, and has knoAvn him more
 than twelve years.  This witness says :  " The Prisoner was an active,  smart
 boy, lively as any other you could find, a good boy to work; set him to work
 any where, and he would do it; sociable and understood  himself, and had
 some learning; could read in the spelling book pretty well;  could  read  off
 simple reading lessons in the spelling book, smooth and decent."
   Davi^ Winner, a colored man, was the friend and  companion of the
 parents of the Prisoner.  He says:  " When this boy was twelve or thirteen
years old, he was a pretty sprightly lad, sensible, very lively.  I saw no dif-
ference between him and any other boy of sense, at that time."
   Nathaniel Lynch, a witness for the People,  in whose house the Priso-
 ner was an inmate at the age of eight  years, says: " He  was a lively, play-
ful boy, almost always smiling and  laughing, and  appeared to  be a lively,
 laughing, playful boy."
   Daniel Andrus, a witness for the People, testified that he employed the
 Prisoner  eight years ago, and talked with him then as he would Avith any
 other laboring man.
   Mary Ann Newark has known the Prisoner from childhood, and says:
 : He Avas  a lively, smart boy."
   Honest Adam Gray was  a friend of the Prisoner's parents,  and  says : 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      387
" He Avas a smart boy, was very  active;  always thought him a pretty cun-
ning kind of a boy."
   Dr. Briggs  knew  him twelve years ago, as  " a lad of ordinary intelli-
gence for boys of his condition."
   Robert Freeman Avas a felloAv servant with  the Prisoner, at the Ameri-
can Hotel, eight years ago, and though he never entered into any argument
with the Prisoner to find out his mother-wit, he says:  " He was playful be-
times, seemed to understand every thing, and very active."
   Dr. Van Epps knew the  Prisoner  in his early infancy,  and  says: " He
then appeared as bright and intelligent as children generally are at that age."
   Thomas F. Munroe, a witness for the  People, certainly not partial to
the Prisoner, says:  " In  his youth he  Avas quick and  active, and not much
different from other black boys."
   A. A. Vanderheyden, a witness for the People, represents the Prisoner
as " active and intelligent" in his youth.
   Aretas A. Sabin, a witness for the People, knew the Prisoner fifteen or
sixteen years ago,  and says that he Avas no more or less playful than other
boys, and that he wept on entering the State Prison at the age of sixteen.
   Jefeerson Wellington, a hostile Avitness, testifies that the Prisoner was
sociable and talked freely upon general subjects at the age of sixteen.
   Lewis Markham has known the Prisoner from childhood, and declares
that " he was a smart boy, pretty active, quick, sprightly, shrewd,  attentive
and faithful, Avithout any lack of conversational powers."
   Ethan A. Warden received the Prisoner into his,  family fifteen or six-
teen years ago,  " as a bright boy, and took him  for the reason that he Avas
so," and now declares  that '•' he was then a lad of good understanding, and
of kind and gentle disposition."
   Sally Freeman, the  Prisoner's mother, gives this simple account of him:
"  When he was young, he Avas  a very smart child, before he went to the
State  Prison.  He Avas always very playful and good natured.  About un-
derstanding things he was the same as other children."
   Finally, Deborah De Puy, who is of the same age with the  Prisoner, of
the same  caste, and moves  in the same humble sphere, testifies that she
" kneAV him before he  went to the State Prison, in childhood and youth;"
that " his manners, action, and mind, were very good—as good as other boys;"
that she " associated Avith him ; he Avas as bright as any body else ; he Avas
very cheerful;"  she had " been Avith him to balls and  rides; he acted very
smart on such occasions;" she " had talked with him often, and never disco-
vered any lack of intelligence."
   Such, gentlemen, is a complete picture of the childhood and youth of the
Prisoner at the bar.  Its truthfulness  and  fidelity arc unquestioned, for all
the witnesses on,both sides haA'e  drawn it for you.
   Look on that picture, and then on the one I shall now present, and, since
I must speak of a class  lowly and despised, 
388
THE TRIAL OF
                "Let not Ambition mock their useful toil,
                Their humble joys and destiny obscure :
                Nor Grandeur hear with a disdainful smile
                The short and simple annals of the poor."

   You haA'e seen that the Prisoner wept, as well he  might, Avhen he entered
 the State Prison at the age of sixteen.  It was the last manifestation he has
 ever given of a rational mind.
   Ethan A. Warden says: " I  saw the Prisoner in the State Prison.  He
 appeared stupid and different from what he used to  be, and from what I ex-
 pected he would be.  I cannot describe the  difference,  it was so  peculiar.
 I said  to him, ' Bill, are you here  ?' and repeated the  question two or three
 times; at first he did not understand, but at  last said,  ' Yes.'  He  appeared
 changed."
   John De Puy saw the Prisoner in the State Prison  at five different times,
 but was not allowed to speak with him.  De Puy says the Prisoner  " was car-
 rying something on his back like a knapsack, and walking back and forth in
 the yard.  He did not appear as he did before he went to Prison.  He ap-
 peared stupid, took no notice of any thing.  lie did  not know me, and took
 no notice of me.  I saw him at other times when at work and when idle, and
 then thought there was something the  matter with him.  I thought he  was
 not in  his right mind."
   William P. Smith was a foreman in one of the shops in the State Pri-
 son during  the  third year of the Prisoner's  confinement  there,  and  had
 charge of him.  He describes him as  " passionate, sullen, and stupid."   This
 witness relates that the Prisoner had  oiled his shoes neatly and set  them up-
 on a wood-pile, that a convict accidentally disturbed the shoes, and that the
 Prisoner struck the convict with  a billet of wood with great violence, for
 which offence he was punished; that at another time, with as little provoca-
 tion, he attacked another convict  with great  fury, for  displacing some yarn
 on a reel.  The witness says:  " When I sent him on an errand, he required
 repeated and very particular  instructions.  I considered his intellect at the
time very low indeed.   He kneAV very little, not much more than a brute or
 beast."
  Theron  Green, Avho was a keeper in the Prison and had charge of
 the Prisoner, declares that he "had A'ery little mind, was  a half-pay man,
 was slow, awkward,  dull, downcast,  and would have  frequent  freaks of
 laughing, without any  observable cause of laughter."  The witness tried to
 instruct him in  his cell on Sundays,  but he  could  learn nothing.   Mr.
 Green says: "He was irritable, malicious, and of bad temper; often viola-
 ted rules, for which I  did not punish him, because I thought him irrespon-
sible.   I  think that he had as much capacity as a brute beast  I don't know
as he had more.  If more, there was none to spare.  I  remarked when he
 left the shop, that he ought not to  go at large."
  Horace Hotchkiss was a teacher  in the Sunday School,  at the State 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
389
 Prison, and says that the Prisoner " was dismissed from the School because
 he could not be taught to read."
   Such is the imperfect history of the  Prisoner at the bar,  while  he was
 shut up from the observation of men, and deprived by the discipline of the
 State Prison of the use of speech and of the privUege of complaint.
   He was discharged from Prison  on the twentieth of last September.
   Alonzo  Wood, the  new Chaplain of the State Prison,  visited  him in
 his cell there twice during the last month of his confinement, and asked him
 questions, which the Prisoner  noticed only  by inclining  his  head.   The
 Chaplain expressed a hope to him on the day of his discharge that he might
 be able to keep out of Prison thereafter, and inquired whether he wanted a
 Bible.   "I understood him to say," says the witness, " that it Avould be of no
 use—that he couldn't read."   At the Clerk's office he received the usual
 gratuity of two dollars,  for which he was required to sign a voucher.  He
 answered, " I haA'e been in Prison five  years unjustly, and ain't going to
 settle so." The officers, including the Reverend Chaplain, laughed heartily
 at what they thought gross ignorance.
   The Prisoner's faithful brother-in-law, John De Puy, was waiting in the
 hall to conduct him homeAvard.  His narrative is simple and affecting.  " I
 sat down," says De Puy, " on the  long chair  in the hall.  He came out and
 passed as if he didn't know me.  I went up and touched him, and asked him
 if he knew me, and he kind o'laughed.   We came along to Applegate's,
 where I stopped to assist to raise a new buUding.   He sat down on a pile of
 boards.   He  sat there and acted very stupid and dull, and said nothing."
 They asked me what damned fool  I had  with me sitting there ?
   " He  didn't know the value  of his money.  He had received four half
 dollars, and thought  they  were quarters.  We went to the  hatter's for a
 cap—found one worth half a dollar ; he  threAv down two halves.  I handed
 one back to him and told him to come out.   After he came out, he insisted
 that he had paid  only half enough for the cap, and that they would make  a
 fuss about it."   All the leisure hours of that day and the next were spent
 by the Prisoner, according to De Puy's account, in giving relations of the
 injustice and cruelty he had suffered in the Prison.  He was very deaf, and
 assigned as the cause of it, that  Tyler, one of the keepers in the Prison, had
 struck him across the ears with  a board,  and had knocked his hearing off so
 he couldn't hear, and his hearing had never  come back.   " I asked him,"
 says the witness, " if they had done any  thing for his deafness."   He said,
 " Yes,  they put salt in my ear, but it didn't do any good, for my hearing
 Avas gone and all knocked off."
  Again.  The Prisoner  told De Puy that while eating, he had broken his
dinner knife in the Prison, and the keepers had threatened to put him back
five years for that; and  says De Puy,  " he asked me if they could  do it:'
He complained to De Puy, as we shall have occasion to see hereafter,  that 
390
THE TRIAL OF
he had been wrongfully imprisoned, and wanted to find the people who had
done him such injustice, for the purpose of getting pay from them.
  Such was the change which had come over the Prisoner.   The bright,
lively, social, active youth of sixteen, had become a drivelling, simple fool.
  The Prisoner remained with De Puy  some tAvo or three months.   He
asked for Esquires, to get warrants for the people aa ho put him  in the State
Prison ; at one time said  the justices  refused to give him warrants; at an-
other time, that " he had got it all fixed," and he wanted  De Puy  to go
down and see that he got  his pay right; at another,  said that " he couldn't
do nothing with them—they cheated him all the time, and he couldn't live
so."  He followed De Puy seven miles, to Skaneateles,  and brought him
back to  Auburn, to help the Prisoner in a dispute with Mr. Conklin,  the
harness-maker, about sawing some wood, for which he claimed  thirty-seven
and a half cents, and Conklin  refused to pay him more than twenty-fiAt
cents.   De Puy, dealing with the Prisoner as Dr. Brigham would,  made
peace by paying  him  the difference,  and settled in the same way a differ-
ence between the Prisoner and Mr. Murfey. the merchant.
  The  Prisoner's mind was very unsteady during  the winter.  De Puy
continues: " He  did not knoAV half the time what he was doing;  he would
go up the  street, then turn  and  run violently in the other  direction.   He
never commenced any conversation with any body; never asked a question;
smUed without cause ;  got up out of his bed at night many times, some times
two or three times in the same night,  and  on such occasions Avould sing ir-
regularly,  dance and spar,  as if  with a combatant; saying sometimes :  ' By
God! I'll see you out;' sometimes he would take  a book and mumble words
as if reading, but there was no sense in the Avords.  When asked afterwards
what he got up nights for, he answered that he didn't know."  The Prisoner
never talked with any body after coming out of Prison unless to answer, in
the simplest way,  questions put to him.
  Many persons remember the  Negro,  with his saw,  deaf,  sad and sullen,
seeking  occupation about the wood-yards, during the  half  year of his en-
largement. Few  stopped to converse with him,  but the reports of all con-
firm what  has been testified by De Puy.   Those who knew  the Prisoner at
all, were chiefly persons of his own caste.
  Mary Ann Neavark says that she saw him after he came out of Prison.
and he  resided with her several days before the homicide.   He did  not
recognize  her in the street.  " He sat still  and silent when in the house,
asked no questions,  and  answered  quick  and short-like.  His manner of
acting was queer-like; he never mentioned any name or spoke of any body."
  Nathaniel Hersey, the Prisoner's old friend, found him changed, had
to speak loud to him,  " he appeared to be quite stupid."   Hersey asked
him what ailed  him ; " he said he Avas deaf, that they rapped him over the
head at  the Prison." 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
391
  Robert Freeman discovered that he appeared downcast when he first
came out of Prison.  He spoke to the Prisoner, Avho took no notice.  Robert
took hold of his hand and asked him how he did.  The witness  says  " he
appeared more dull and  downcast, and I could not tell what the matter was;
could never  establish any communication with him."
  Old Adam Gray, who knew him as a " pretty cunning kind of a boy,"
testifies:  " I think there is a change in him.  It doesn't seem to me that he
knoAvs as much as he did before he went to Prison.  He doesn't seem to talk
as much, to have so much life, nor does he seem so sensible.   Last Avinter he
boarded with me two months.  He would get up nights, take his saw and go
out as if he  was going to work, and come back again and go to bed.   On
such occasions he would try to sing, but I couldn't understand what he said.
He made a noise appearing as if he was dancing."
  Some  three  vreeks before  the  homicide, the Prisoner was boarding at
Laura Willard's.  The truthful  and simple-minded David Winner, seems
to have been led by Providence to visit the house at that time.   He  says,
" I saAv him first at his  uncle Luke Freeman's.   He then appeared to be a
foolish man.  I asked if that Avas  Sally's son.  I did not  know him.  They
told me it Avas.  I said,  he is very much altered.  They said, he has  just
come out of State Prison.   He had altered very much in his looks and be-
havior.  He was sitting doAvn in a chair in the corner, snivelling, snickering
and laughing, and having a kind of simple look.  I spoke to him; he didn't
speak; I saw nothing  for him  to laugh at. I staid  three days and three
nights at Laura Willard's,  and slept with  William in the same bed.   At
night he got up and talked to himself; I couldn't understand Avhat he said.
He appeared to be foolish.   I gave  him a dollar to go doAvn to Bartlett's to
get a quarter of a pound of tea and two pounds of sugar, and to the market
and get a beef steak.   He went to market and got it all in a beef steak.
He got a dollar's Avorth  of beef steak.  When I asked what that Avas for, he
said nothing, but laughed at me.  He got up nights two or three times, and
I felt cold and told Laura I wouldn't  sleep  Avith him any more, and I went
and slept in the other room.   I got afraid of him, and I wouldn't sleep with
him any more.   He sung Avhen he got  up nights, but you couldn't under-
stand what he sung.   There was no meaning in what he sung."
  Deborah De Puy says,  " After he came  out of Prison, there was a
change.  If I talked to  him very loud he Avould talk; say very little only to
ansAver me.   He didn't  act cheerful, but very stupid;  never said any thing
until I talked to him.   He never talked  to me  as  he  did before he went to
Prison.  He had a strange smile.  He Avould laugh very hearty without any
thing to laugh at.  He wouldn't know what he Avas laughing at.  He would
knock at the door, and I Avould  let him in, and he would sit down and laugh.
I would ask what he was laughing at;  he said,  he didn't knoAV.   When I
asked questions, he would either answer yes, or no, or don't know.  I asked 
392
THE TRIAL OF
him how his hearing was hurt.  He said they struck him on the head with
a board and it seemed as if the sound Avent down his throat.  I have asked
him why he Avas  so stupid.  I don't think  he is in his right mind  now, nor
that he has been  since he came out.   The reason is that he never used to
act so sUly, and sit and laugh so, before he went to Prison."
  His mother, Sally Freeman, describes the change which ha-1 come
over her child, in language simple and touching:  " I never knew he was
fooHsh or dumpish before he Avent to  Prison.  After he came out of Prison,
he didn't act  like the same  child.   He was changed, and didn't appear to
know any  thing.   As to being lively after he came out, I didn't see any
cheerfulness about him.   He Avas either  sitting or standing when I after-
wards saw him, and Avhen I asked him a question he would ansAver, but that
is all  he would  say.   He  appeared very duU. He never  asked me any
questions after he came out, only the first time  he saAv me he asked me if I
was well.  From that time to this he has  never asked me a  question at all.
He didn't  come to see me more than half  a dozen times.  When he came,
perhaps he would ask me how I did,  and  then sit down  and laugh.  What
he laughed at was more than I could tell.  He  laughed as he does now.
There Avas no reason why he should  laugh.  He was laughing to himself.
He didn't  speak of any thing Avhen he laughed. I never inquired what he
laughed at.  I didn't think he was hardly right, and he was so deaf I didn't
want to.  I asked him how he got deaf,  and he told  me his ear  had fell
down, or some such foolish answer he gave me.  He would  stay an hour or
so.  He generally sat still.  I Avent to see him in the Jail after he killed the
Van Nest family, on the first day of the  trial. He laughed when I went
in, and said he was well.   I talked to him.  I  asked him if  he knew what
he had been doing.   He stood and  laughed.  I asked  him how he came
there.   He didn't say much of any thing, but stood and laughed.   When I
went away he didn't bid me good-bye nor ask me to come  again.  I have
never been  to see him since,  and have never received any message from
him of any kind since he has been  in Jail.  I don't know that he noticed
me when I was on examination before.   I  don't think he is  in his right
mind, or that he  has been since he came out of Prison.   The reason  is that
he acts very foolish, and don't seem as though he had any senses."
  You will remember that we have seen the Prisoner a smart, bright,  lively,
cheerful, and playful youth, attending Deborah De Puy at balls, parties,
and rides;  for Negroes enjoy such festivities as much  and even more than
white men.  Deborah says he no longer attends.  But from the testimony
of John De Puy avc find him at a dance in the house of Laura Willard, on
the night before the slaughter of the Van Nest family.   The scene Avas the
same as before.   There was music, and gallantry, and revelry, and  merri-
ment, and laughing, and dancing.   But while all others Avere thus occupied,
where was the Prisoner, and how was he engaged ?  He was leaning against 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
393
 the wall, sullen, gloomy, silent, morose;  pressing wilh his hand the knife
 concealed in his bosom, and waiting his opportunity to strike to the heart
 his brother-in-law and benefactor.
   This is the change which had come over the Prisoner Avhen he emerged
 from the State Prison, as observed by the few of his kindred and caste, who
 had known  him intimately before.  Hoav many Avhite  men Avho  knew him
 in his better days, have we heard confirm this testimony, by saying that they
 lost sight of him Avhen he went to Prison ; that they met him in the street
 aftenvards,  doAvncast and  sullen, Avith  his  saw in his hand, seeking casual
 occupation;  that they spoke to him but he did not hear or did not answer,
 and they passed on!   Only two or three such persons stopped to enquire
 concerning  his misfortunes, or to sympathise with him.
   William P. Smith says: " The first time I saw him after he came out
 of  Prison, was in November.  I asked him how he did.   He made no an-
 swer.   A little black  boy with him told  me he was deaf.  I spoke to him to
 try and induce conversation, and finally gave it up; I couldn't make  him un-
 derstand.  He appeared  different from what I  had known him  before;
 appeared dumpish;  didn't say much, and seemed to stand around. I met
 him once or tAvice in the street—merely met him—he noticed nothing."
   Doctor Hermance did not know him before  he went to Prison.  His
 peculiarities attracted the  Doctor's attention, and he  enquired the cause.
 The Prisoner answered that he had been five  years in the State Prison, and
 he  Avasn't guilty, and they wouldn't pay  him.   The Doctor says: "I discov-
 ered that he was very deaf,  and inquired  the cause of his deafness.  He
 stated that  his ears dropped.  I  thought  his manners very singular and
 strange; and what he said  about pay very singular and strange.   He spoke
 in a very gloomy,  despondent state of mind.   There appeared to be a sin-
 cerity in his manner.  The ton'e of his voice was a duU and monotonous tone.
 I thought at the time  that he was deranged."
   To complete this demonstration of the change,  I have only to give you
 the character of the  Negro now,  as he is described by several of  the wit
 nesses,  as Avell on the part of the People as of the Prisoner, Avho  have seen
 him in Prison, and as he is admitted to be.
  Warren  T. Worden, Esq., an astute and experienced member of the
 bar, visited him in his cell in the Jail, and says: " I formed an opinion then,
 that he  knew nothing, and I expressed it   I do not believe him sane.  I
 don't beHeve he understands what is going on around him.  He would lauo-h
 upon the galloAvs as readily and as freely as he did in  his cell.  He Avould
 probably know as much as a dumb beast who was taken to the  slaughter
 house,  as to  Avhat was to be done  with  him.   If  that  state  of  mind  and
knowledge constitutes  insanity, then he is insane."
  Doctor Fosgate, one of the soundest and  most enlightened men in our
community,  who was his physician in the Jail, and dressed his  wounded
hand, describes him as " insensible to  pain, ignorant of his condition, and of 
394                         the trial of
course indifferent to his fate ; grinning constantly idiotic smiles, without any
perceptible cause, and rapidly sinking into idiocy."
  Ira Curtis, Avho knew him in his youth, and has now carefully examined
him in the Jail, says :  " He is incapable of understanding; he is part fool,
bordering on idiocy ;  crazy and idiot both, and crazy and insane both.  If
all the Doctors in the world should say he was not a fool, I shouldn't beHeve
them."
  Doctor Briggs, who, it will be recollected, knew him at the age of eight
or nine, examined him in the Jail, and says :  " My opinion is and Avas, that
he has less mind than Avhen I knew him before—that his mind has become
impaired."
  William P. Smith, who  knew him before he went to the  State Prison
and while there, patiently examined him in the Jail, and says: " There was
a change, a sensible change in the man.  He didn't appear to knoAV as much,
to have as  many ideas about him, as many looks of intelligence.   I don't
know as I could describe  it A'ery well.  There was a sloAvness, a dullness;  I
thought what Httle intellect he had seemed to  sink loAver down, from some
cause or  other.  His physical strength and vigor were good in the Prison.
He appeared active, strong and energetic.  Now, his manner appears more
dull, stupid and inattentive."
  Dr. Van Epps says:  "Xow he appears to have the intellect of a child
fiA-e years old."
  Ethan A. Warden, the Prisoner's earliest and fastest  friend, says: " I
look at him now and when he liA'ed with me. He appears different.  I could
not get any thing that appeared like sorroAv for what he had done, or feel-
ing for the crime.  I don't think him much aboA'e a brute."
  John R. Hopkins says : " I think him in inteUigence but little above the
brute."
  I need not pursue the parallel further.   There is no dispute as to his pre-
sent ignorance and debasement.
  Dr. Dimon, a witness  for the People, although he pronounces the  Priso-
ner sane,  says he  should think " he has not  as much intellect  as a child of
fourteen years of age ; is in some respects hardly equal to a child of three or
four," and in regard to knoAvledge compares him with " a child  tAA-o or three
years old, who knows his A, B, C, and can't count twenty-eight."
  Dr. Bigeloav, a leading witness for the People, declares: " I belieA'e him
to be a dull, stupid, moody, morose, depraA'ed, degraded negro, but not in-
sane ;" and Dr. Spencer, swearing to the same conclusion, says : "He  is
but Httle above the brute, yet not insane."
  I submit to you, gentlemen  of the Jury, that by comparing the Prisoner
with himself, as he Avas in his earlier, and as he is in his later history, I have
proved to you conclusively that he  is visibly  changed and altered in mind,
manner, conversation and action, and that all his faculties  have become dis-
turbed, impaired, degraded and debased.  I  submit also,  that it is proved, 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
395
First, that this change  occurred between the sixteenth  and the  eighteenth
years of his life, in the State Prison, and that therefore the change, thus pal-
pable, was not, as the Attorney General contends, effected by mere lapse of
time and increase of years, nor by the natural development of latent dispo-
sitions ;  Secondly, that inasmuch as the convicts in the  State Prison are ab-
solutely abstemious from intoxicating drinks, the change Avas not, as the At-
torney General supposes, produced by intemperance.
  I have thus arrived at the third proposition in this case, which is, that
  The  Prisoner at the Bar is Insane.
  This  I shall demonstrate, First, by the fact already so fully established, that
the Prisoner is changed;   Secondly, by referring to the predisposing causes
which might  be expected to produce Insanity;  Thirdly, by the incoherence
and extravagance of the Prisoner's conduct and conversation, and the delu-
sions  under Avhich he has labored.
  And  noAv as to predisposing causes.  The Prisoner was born  in this vil-
lage,  twenty-three years ago, of parents recently emerged from slavery.  His
mother  Avas a woman of violent passions, severe discipline, and addicted  to
intemperance.  His  father died of delirium tremens, leaving his children  to
the neglect of the world, from Avhich he had learned  nothing but its vices.
  Hereditary insanity was added to the Prisoner's misfortunes, already suffi-
ciently  complicated.   His aunt, Jane Brown, died  a lunatic.   His  uncle,
Sidney  Freeman, is  an acknoAvledged lunatic.
  All Avriters agree,  Avhat it needs not writers to teach, that neglect of edu-
cation is a fruitful cause of Crime.   If neglect of education produces crime,
it equally produces Insanity.   Here was a bright, cheerful, happy child, des-
tined  to become a member of the  social state, entitled by the principles  of
our Government to equal advantages for  perfecting himself in intelligence,
and even in political rights, with each of the three millions of our citizens,
and blessed by our religion with, equal hopes.  Without his being taught  to
read,  his mother, Avho lives by menial  service, sends him forth at the age  of
eight  or nine  years to like employment.   Reproaches are cast on his mo-
ther,  on Mr.  Warden, and on Mr. Lynch, for not sending him to school, but
these  reproaches are all unjust.  How could she, poor degraded Negress and
Indian as she was, send her child to school ?  And where Avas the school  to
which Warden and Lynch should have sent him ?  There Avas no school for
him.  His feAV and wretched  years date back to the beginning of my ac-
quaintance here, and during all that time, with unimportant exceptions, there
has been no school here for children of his caste.  A school for colored chil-
dren  was never established here, and all the common  schools were  closed
against  them.  Money would  always procure  instruction for my children,
and relieve me from the responsibility.  But the colored children, avIio have
from  time to  time been confided to my charge, haA'e been cast upon my own
care for education.   When I sent them to school with my oavii children, they
were  sent back to me with a message that they must  be withdrawn, because 
396
THE TRIAL OF
  they were black, or the school would cease.   Here are the fruits of this un-
  manly and  criminal prejudice.  A whole family is cut off in the midst  of
  usefulness and honors by the hand of an  assassin.  You may avenge the
  crime, but whether the Prisoner be insane or criminal, there is a tribunal
  where this neglect will plead powerfully in his excuse, and trumpet-tongued
  against the " deep damnation" of his " taking off."
    Again.  The Prisoner was subjected, in tender years, to seA'ere and unde-
  served oppression.  Whipped at Lynch's;  severely and unlawfully beaten
  by Wellington, for the venial offence of forgetting to return a borrowed um-
  brella ; hunted by the Police on charges of petty offences, of Avhich he was
  proved innocent; finally, convicted, upon  constructive and probably per-
 jured evidence, of a crime, of which it is now universally, admitted he Avas
 guiltless,  he  was plunged into the State Prison at the age of sixteen, instead
 of being committed to a House of Refuge.
    Mere imprisonment is often a cause of Insanity.   Four insane persons have,
 on this trial, been mentioned as residing among us, all of whom became in-
 sane in the  State Prison.  Authentic statistics show that there are never
 less than  thirty insane persons in each of our two great penitentiaries.  In
 the State Prison the Prisoner was subjected to severe corporeal punishment,
 by keepers Avho mistook a decay of mind and morbid melancholy, for idle-
 ness, obstinacy and malice.   Beaten, as he was, until the organs of his hear-
 ing ceased to perform their functions, who shall say that other and more im-
 portant organs connected with the action of his mind, did not become dis-
 eased through sympathy ?   Such a life, so filled with neglect, injustice and
 severity, with anxiety, pain, disappointment, solicitude and grief, would have
 its fitting conclusion in a mad-house.  If it be true, as the wisest of inspired
 writers hath  said, " Verily oppression  maketh a wise man mad," what may
 we not expect it  to do Avith a foolish, ignorant, illiterate man!    Thus it is
 explained Avhy, when he came out of Prison, he was so dull, stupid,  morose;
 excited to anger  by petty troubles, small in our view, but mountains in his
 way; filled in his waking hours with moody recollections, and rising at mid-
 night to sing incoherent  songs, dance without music, read uninteUigible jar-
 gon, and combat Avith imaginary enemies.
   How otherwise than on the score of madness can you explain the stupid-
 ity which caused him to be taken for a fool at Applegate's, on his Avay from
 the Prison to his home ?  How  else, the ignorance which made him incapa-
 ble of distinguishing the coin which he  offered at the hatter's shop ?  How
 else, his ludicrous apprehensions of being re-committed to the State Prison
 for five years, for the offence of breaking his dinner knife ?  How  else, his
 odd and strange  manner of accounting  for his deafness, by expressions, all
 absurd and senseless, and varying Avith  each interrogator: as to  John De
 Puy, " that Tyler struck him across the ears with a plank, and  knocked his
 hearing off, and that it  never came back ; that they put salt in his  ear, but
it didn't do any good, for his hearing Avas gone—all knocked off;" to the Rev. 
                           WILLIAM FREEMAN.                     397

  John M. Austin, " the stones dropped down my ears, or the stones of my
  ears dropped doAvn;" to Ethan A. Warden,  "got stone in my ear; got it
  out; thought I heard better when I got  it out;" to Dr. Hermance, " that
  his ears dropped ;" and to the same witness on another occasion, " that the
  hearing of his ears fell doAvn;" to his mother, "that his ear had  fell down ;"
  to Deborah De Puy, " that Tyler struck him on the head with a board, and
  it seemed as if the sound went down his throat;" to Dr. Brigham, " that
  he was hurt when young, it made him deaf in the right ear;" also, "that in
  the Prison he was struck with a board  by a man, which made  him deaf;"
  and also, " that a stone was knocked into, or out of his ear" ?
    It is noAv perfectly certain, from the testimony of Mr. Van Arsdale and
  Helen Holmes, that the Prisoner first  stabbed Mrs. Van Nest, in the
  back yard, and then  entered the house and  stabbed  Mr. Van  Nest, Avho
  fell lifeless at the instant of the blow.  And yet, sincerely trying to give an
  account of the dreadful scenes,  exactly as they  passed, the Prisoner has in-
  variably stated, in  his ansAvers to every witness, that he entered the house,
  stabbed Van Nest, went into the yard, and then, and not before, killed Mrs.
  Van Nest.   It was in this order that he related  the transaction to War-
  ren T.  Worden, to John M. Austin, to  Ira  Curtis, to Ethan  A.
  Warden, to William P. Smith, to  Dr. Van Epps, to James H. Bost-
  wick, to Dr. Brigham, to  Nathaniel Lynch,  to Dr. Willard, to Dr.
 Bigelow, and to Dr.  Spencer.  How else  than on the score of madness
 can you explain this confusion of memory ? and if the Prisoner was  sane,
 and telling a falsehood, Avhat was the motive ?
   How else than on the score of a demented mind will you explain the fact,
 that he is without human  curiosity; that he has never, since he came out of
 Prison, learned a fact, or asked a question ?  He has been  A-isited by hun-
 dreds in his cell, by faces become familiar, and  by strangers, by fellow pri-
 soners, by Jailers, by Sheriff, by Counsel, by Physician, by friends, by ene-
 mies, and  by relations, and they unanimously bear witness that  he  has ne-
 ver asked a question.  The oyster, shut up within its limestone walls, is as
 inquisitive as he.
   How else will you explain the mystery that he, who seven years ago had
 the capacity to relate connectively any narrative, however extended, and
 however complex in its details, is now unable to continue any relation of the
 most recent events, without the prompting of perpetual interrogatories, al-
 ways leading him by known land-marks; and that when under such disci-
 pline he  ansAvers, he  employs generally the  easiest forms, " Yes,"  " No,"
 " Don't know" ?
  Then mark the confusion of his memory, manifested by contradictory re-
 plies to the same question.  Warren  T. Worden asked him:  " Did you
go in at the front  door ?   Yes.   Did you go in at the back door ?  Yes.
Were you in the hall when your hand was cut ?  Yes.   Was your hand cut
at the gate ?   Yes.  Did  you stab Mrs. Wyckoff in the hall ? Yes.  Did 
398                         the trial of
you stab Mrs. Wyckoff at the gate?  Yes.  Did  you go out at the back
door ?  Yes.  Did you go out at the front door ?  Yes."
   Ethan A. Warden asked him, " What made you kill the child ?"  " Don't
know any thing about that."   At another time he ansAvered, '• I don't think
about it; I didn't know it Avas a child."   And again, on  another occasion,
" Thought—feel it  more;" and to Dr. Bigelow, and other Avitnesses, Avho
put the question, whether he  Avas not sorry he killed the  child, he replied,
"It did look hard—I rather it was bigger."  When the ignorance, simplicity
and sincerity of the prisoner are admitted, hoAv otherwise than on the ground
of insanity, can you explain such  inconsistencies as these ?
   The testimony of Van  Arsdale and Helen Holmes, proves that no
words could have passed betAveen the Prisoner and Van Nest, except these,
" What do you Avant here in the house ?" spoken by Van Nest, before the
fatal bloAv Avas struck.   Yet when  inquired of by Warren  T. Worden
what Van Nest said to him when he entered the house, the Prisoner said,
after being pressed for an answer, that Van Nest said to him, " If you eat
my liver, I'll eat yours :" and  he at various times repeated to the witness the
same absurd expression.   To the Rev. John M. Austin he made the same
statement, that Van Nest said, " If you eat  my liver, I'll  eat your liver;"
to Ira Curtis the same; to Ethan A. Warden  the same; to Lansingh
Briggs the same;  and the same to almost every other Avitness.  An ex-
pression so absurd under the circumstances, could never have been made by
the victim.   How otherwise can it be explained than as the vagary of a mind
shattered and crazed ?
   The Prosecution,  confounded  Avith this  evidence, appealed to Dr. Spen-
cer for relief.  He, in the plentitude of his learning, says, that he has read
of an ancient and barbarous  people, Avho used to feast upon the livers of
their enemies, that the Prisoner has not  imagination enough to have invent-
ed such an idea, and that he must someAvhere have heard the tradition.  But
when  did this demented Avretch,  Avho reads " woman" for " admirable," and
" cook" for "Thompson," read Livy or Tytler, and in what classical circle
has he learned the customs of  the ancients ?   Or, what perhaps is more per-
tinent, who were that ancient  and barbarous  People, and Avho was their His-
torian ?
   Consider noAv the Prisoner's earnest and well-attested sincerity in belie-
ving that he could read, Avhen either he never had acquired^ or else had lost,
the poAver of reading.  The Rev. Mr. Austin visited him in Jail, at an early
day, asked him Avhether he could read, and  being  ansAvered that he could,
gave him a Testament.  In frequent visits afterwards, when  the Prisoner
was asked Avhether  he had  read his Testament, he answered, " Yes," and it
was not until after the lapse  of two months that it Avas discovered that he
was unable to spell  a monosyllable.
  Ira  Curtis says : "I asked him if he could read ; he  said, ' Yes,' and
commenced reading, that is he pretended to, but he didn't read what Avas 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      399
there.  He read, ' Oh! Lord—mercy—Moses'—and other words mixed up
in that Avay.  The Avords Avere not in the place Avhere he seemed to be read-
ing, and it was  no reading at all, and some words he had over I had never
heard  before.   I took the  book  from  him, saying, ' You don't read right.'
He said, ' Yes, I do.'   I said,' AVilliam,  you can't read.'  He said, ' I can.'
I gave him a paper, pointed  him to the word, ' admirable'—he pronounced
it ' woman.'  I pointed to  the word ' Thompson'-—he read  it ' cook.'  He
kneAV his letters, and called them accurately, but could not combine them.
I asked him to count.   He commenced and counted from one up to twenty,
hesitated there some time,  and finally counted up to twenty-eight, and then
jumped to eighty.  Then I started him at tAventy, and he said ' one.'  I told
him to say ' tAventy-one ;' but he seemed to have difficulty in saying ' twen-
ty-one.'  He tried to go on.  He did count up to twenty regularlv, by hesi-
tating ; but never Avent higher  than tAventy-eight correctly.  I asked him
hoAv much tAvo times four Avas,—he said ' eighty.'  Hoav much two times three
was—he said ' sixty or sixty-four.' "  Many other witnesses on both sides of
this cause, Mr.  Austin, Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Hotchkiss, Mr. Worden, Mr.
Smith, Dr. Van Epps, Dr. Brigham, Dr. Mc Call, Dr. Coventry, Dr.
Willard, Dr. BigeloW, Dr. Clary and Dr. Spencer, have Avith varied
ingenuity, sought to detect a fraud in this extreme ignorance and simplicity,
and have unanimously testified to you that the  simpleton sincerely believes
he reads accurately,  and as  honestly thinks he counts  above  twenty-eight
correctly, Avhile in truth he cannot advance beyond that number  in count-
ing, and cannot read at all.  Yet he must, at least, haA'e learned in the Sun-
day School that he could not read, and the keepers  of the Prison show that
he put up his daily manufacture  of rings and of skeins of thread, in quanti-
ties accurately counted, to  the number of several dozen.
  I think  you will  agree  Avith Doctor Hun, that there is not a sane man
twenty-three  years of age, brought up in this country, who does not know
whether he can read,  and who cannot count twenty-nine.
  Mark his indifference and stupidity as to his situation.   Ethan A. War-
den asked him, " Do you expect to be hung ?  ' Don't think about it.'   Do
you like to be in Jail ? ' Pretty Avell.'  Is it a good place ?  ' Y^g.'  Do you
sleep Avell ?  ' Yes.'  Do you think of Avhat you've done ?  ' No.'"
  William P.  Smith asked him in the  Jail  if he knew whether he was
in Jail or  in the Prison.  He  hesitated some time, and finally thought he
was in the Jail,  but Avasn't sure.   " Do you  knoAV Avhat  you are  confined
here for ?"  " No."
  Dr. Van Epps asked him what  he was put in Jail for.  "Don'tknow.*'
Aftenvards he seemed to recollect himself  and said, " horse."
  Dr. Brigham says, " I tried in various ways  to ascertain if he kneAV what
he Avas to be tried  for.  I  tried repeatedly and never could get a distinct
ansAver.  It was often ' I don't know,' and sometimes ' a horse.'  I asked him 
400
THE TRIAL OF
at one time, what his defence would be.  ShaU we say that you did not kill ?
He answered very quickly, looking  up, ' No.'  But may we not say so ?
' No, that would be wrong; I did do it.'  Some one asked him when others
were there, May we say you are crazy ?  ' I can't go so far as that.'  I asked
him if he had employed any body to defend him, and  said,  Mr. Seward  is
now here, you had better employ him  and tell him what to say.  Here is Mr.
Seward, ask him.  He said, in a reading tone, ' Governor Seward, I want
you to defend me,' repeating the words I had told him to use."
  WThen on trial for  stealing a horse, six years ago, he had  Counsel  of his
own choice, and Avas treated and tried as a man who understood  and knew
his rights, as indeed it is proved that he did.   Here his  life is at stake.  He
does not know even the name of a witness for or against him, although his
memory recaUs the names of those avIio testified against  him  on his trial for1
stealing the horse, and the very effect of  their testimony.
  Dr. Brigham says,  " I  asked him Avhat he could prove  in his defence.
He replied, ' The Jury can prove that I Avas in Prison five years for stealing
a horse, and didn't steal it'"
  When  asked if he is not sorry for crimes so atrocious, he answers always,
either, " No," or " Don't knoAV."
  On  the very day when he was to be arraigned, he had no  Counsel; and,
as Mr. Austin testifies, Avas made to  understand, with difficulty, enough to
repeat like a parrot a consent that I should defend him.   The Attorney
General says, the Prisoner " knew he  was guilty, and that Counsel could do
nothing for him.  If he was as wise and as intelligent as Bacon himself, he
could give no instructions to Counsel that would help him."   Aye, but is he
as wise and as intelligent as Bacon ?   No, gentlemen, no man eA-er heard of
a sane Murderer in whose bosom the love of life and the fear of death were
alike extinguished.
  The accused sat here in Court,  and  saw Dr. Bigelow  on the  stand
SAvearing  away his Hfe, upon confessions already taken.   Dr. Bigelow,
folloAved him from the Court to his cell, and there the Prisoner, with child-
luce meekness, sat down on his bench and confessed further for hours, all
the while holding the lamp by whose light Dr.  Bigelow recorded the testi-
mony, obtained for the purpose of sealing his fate beyond a possible delive-
rance.
  He  was asked about  the Judges here, was  ignorant where they sat, and
could only remember that there was  a good looking man on the elevated
stage, which  he was told Avas the bench.  He was asked what  they  say in
Court, and he says, " They talk, but I hear nothing;"  what or whom they
are talking about, and he says, " Don't know;" whom he has  seen here, and
he recalls not his Judges, the  Jury, the Avitnesses or the Counsel, but only
the man who gave  him tobacco.
  From his ansAvers to Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Austin, Mr. Smith, and others, 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      401
  as well as from the more reliable testimony of his mother, of his brother-in-
  law, of Mr. Lynch, Mr. Warden, Mr. Hotchkiss, and others, we learn
  that in his childhood, and in State Prison, he attended Sunday School and
  Divine Worship.  Yet Ave find him at the age of twenty-three, after repeated
  religious instructions,  having no other idea of a Supreme Being and of a
  future state, than that Heaven was a place  above, and God was above, but
  that God Avas no more than a man or an animal.  And when asked by Mr.
  Hopkins what he kneAV about Jesus Christ, he answered that he came to
  Sunday School  in  the  State Prison.  What  did he do there?   "Don't
  know."   Did he take a class there ?  " Don't know."   Did  he preach ?
  " Don't know."   Did he talk ?   " Don't knoAV."   The  Prisoner gave the
  snme ansAA'ers to the Rev. Mr. Austin, to Mr.  Hotchkiss,  his Sunday
  School teacher,  and to Dr. Brigham.
    Mr. Horace  Hotchkiss says:  "I asked  him in Jail, if you shall be
  convicted and executed, what will become of you ?   He ansAvered, ' Go  to
  Heaven.'   I asked him why, and he replied, ' Because I am good.' "   Dr.
  Brigham inquired : " Do you know any thing of Jesus  Christ ?" " I saw
 him once."   " Did you  kill him at Van  Nest's ?"  The poor fool  (as  if
 laboring Avith some confused and inexplicable idea) said, " Don't know."  I
 think, gentlemen, that you will agree with Dr.  Hun,  Dr. Brigham, and
  the other intelligent witnesses,  who  say that, in their opinion, there is no
 Bane man  of the age of twenty-three, who has been brought up in church-
 going families, and  been sent to Sunday School, whose religious  sentiments
 would, under such circumstances, be so confused and so absurd  as these.
   To the Rev. Mr. Austin, he said after his arrest, " if they will let me go
 this time, I will try and do better."  And well did that witness remark, that
 such a statement evinced a want of all rational  appreciation of the nature
 and enormity of  his acts, for  no man twenty-three years old, possessing a
 sound mind, and guilty of four-fold Murders, could suppose that he would
 be alloAved to escape  all punishment by simply promising, like a petulant
 child, that he would " do better."
   Mark his  insensibility to corporeal  pain and suffering.  In the conflict
 with Mrs. Wykoff, he received a blow which divided a sinew in his  Avrist,
 and penetrated to the bone.  The Physicians found him in the Jail Avith his
 wound, his  legs  chained, and heavy irons  depending unequally from his
 knees.  Yet he manifested absolute insensibility.   Insane men are generally
 very insensible to pain.  The reason is, that the nervous system  is diseased,
 and the senses do not convey to the mind accurate ideas of injuries sustained.
 Nevertheless, this passes for nothing Avith  Dr. Stencer,  because there was
an ancient sect of Philosophers who triumphed, or affected to triumph, over
the Aveakness of our common nature, and because there are modern heroes
Avho die Avithout a groan  on the field of battle.   But in Avhat school of Phi-
losophy, or in Avhat army, or in Avhat  battle-ship Avas this idiot trained, that
he has become insensible to pain, and  reckless of death ?
              26 
402
THE TRIAL OF
  I proposed,  gentlemen, at the close of the testimony, that you should ex-
amine  the  Prisoner for yourselves.  I regret that the offer was rejected.
You can obtain only very imperfect knowledge from testimony in Avhich the
answers of the Prisoner  are given with the freedom and volubility of the
interrogators.   We often judge  more justly from the tone,  manner and
spirit of  those with Avhom we converse,  than from the language they use.
AU the witnesses  agree that the Prisoner's tone and modulation are slow,
indistinct, and monotonous.  His  utterance, in fact,  is that of an idiot, but
on paper it is as distinct as that of Cicero.
  I have thus  shoAvn you, gentlemen, the difficulties which attended you  in
this  investigation, the law  concerning  insanity, the nature and character-
istics of that disease,  the great change which the  Prisoner has undergone,
and some of those marked extravagances which denote lunacy.   More con-
clusive evidence yet remains ;  and first, the delusion by Avhich the Prisoner
was overpowered, and under whose fearful speU his crimes were committed.
  Delusion does  not always attend insanity,  but  Avhen  found, it is the
most unequiA'ocal of all proofs.   I  have  already observed that melancholy is
the first stage of madness, and  long furnished the name for insanity.  In the
case of  Hatfield,  who fired at the King  in Drury-Lane Theatre,  Lord
Erskine, his Counsel, demonstrated that insanity did not  consist in the ab-
sence of any of the intellectual faculties, but in delusion ; and that an offen-
der Avas irresponsible, if his criminal acts Avere  the immediate, unqualified
offspring of such delusion.  Erskine there defined a delusion to consist in
deductions from the immovable assumption of the matters as realities,  either
without any foundation Avhatever, or so distorted and disfigured by fancy  aa
to be nearly the same thing  as their creation.
  The learned men here have given us many illustrations of such delusions;
as that of the man who believes that his legs are of glass,  and therefore re-
fuses to move, for fear they  will break;  of  the man who fancies himself the
King of the French; or of him who confides to you the precious secret, that
he  is  Emperor of the Avorld.   These  are palpable  delusions, but  there
are others equally, or even more fatal  in their effects,  which have their
foundation in some  original fact, and are thus described by Dr. Ray, at page
210 of his Avork:
  " In another class of cases, the  exciting  cause of homicidal insanity is of
a moral nature, operating upon some  peculiar physical predisposition, and
sometimes folloAved by more or less physical disturbance.  Instead of being
urged by a sudden imperious impulse to kill, the subjects of this form of the
affection, after suffering for a  certain  period  much gloom  of  mind and de-
pression of spirits,  feel as if bound by a sense of  necessity to destroy life,
and proceed to the fulfilment of their destiny, with the utmost calmness and
deHberation.   So reluctant  have Courts and Juries usually been to  receive
the plea of insanity in defence of  crime, deliberately planned and executed
by a mind in which no derangement of  intellect has ever been perceived, 
                          WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       403

that it is of the greatest importance that the nature of these cases should not
be misunderstood."
  Our learned witnesses have given  us  various  definitions of a delusion.
Dr. Hun's is perhaps as clear and accurate as any: "It is a cherished opin-
ion opposed by the sense and judgment of all mankind."  In simple speech,
it is Avhat is called the predominance of one idea, by which reason is sub-
verted.    I shall noAv show you  such  a predominance of one  idea,  as will
elucidate the progress of this Maniac from the first disturbance of his mind,
to the dreadful catastrophe on the shores of the Owasco Lake.  That  delu-
sion is a star to guide your judgments to an infallible conclusion, that the
Prisoner is insane.   If you mistake  its course, and consign him to a scaffold,
it Avill rest over his grave, indicating him as a martyr, and you as erring or
unjust Judges.
  In  April, 1840, Mrs. Godfrey,  who  resides in the town of  Sennett, on
the middle road,  four miles north-east  of Auburn, lost a horse.  One  Jack
Furman,  a hardened offender, stole the horse.  For some purpose, not now
knoAvn, he- put him in  the care of the  Prisoner, who Avas  seen  Avith him.
Both Furman and Freeman  Avere arrested.  The former Avas the real thief
and Freeman constructively guilty.  Freeman was arrested  by Vanderhey-
den,  taken into an  upper chamber,  and there declared his innocence  of the
crime.  He Avas nevertheless committed to Jail.  All the Police, and the
most  prejudiced of the Avitnesses for  the People, have testified their entire
conviction that the  Prisoner  Avas innocent.  Furman Avas selected by  favor
as a witness  for the  People.   Freeman,  while in Jail,  comprehending his
danger, and conscious of his  innocence, dwelt upon the injustice, until, hav-
ing no other hope, he broke Prison and escaped.   Being re-taken, he assigned
as the reason for his flight, that Jack Furman stole the horse, and Avas going
to SAvear him into the State Prison.   The result was as he apprehended.
He Avas convicted  by the perjury of Furman, and  sentenced to the  State
Prison for five years.  This Avas the first act in the aAA'ful tragedy, of Avhich
he is  the hero.   Let Judges and Jurors  take warning from its fatal conse-
quences.   Hoav deeply this injustice sank into his mind, may be seen from
the testimony of Aretas A. Sabin, the keeper, Avho said to him on the
day he  entered the  Prison, " I am  sorry to see  you come here so young."
The Prisoner Avept   Well would it have been, if this,  the last occasion on
which the Prisoner yielded to that infirmity, had, ominous as it Avas of such
fatal  mischief, been understood and heeded.
  A year passed away, and he is found in the Prison, neglecting his allotted
lab,or, sullen, and morose.
  James E. Tyler, the keeper, says:  "I had  talked to him, and found it
did no good.  I called him up to punish him—told him  I Avas going  to pun-
ish him for  not  doing more Avork, and should  do so  repeatedly until he
should do more work. When I talked Avith him about doing more Avork, he
gave  as an excuse, ' that  he was there  wrongfully, and ought not to work.'" 
404
THE TRIAL OF
The excuse aggravated the severity of his  castigation.   Such was Peniten-
tiary cure for incipient insanity.
  Van Keuren, a foreman in one of the shops at the Prison, represents the
Prisoner as sullen, intractable, and insolent.   He caused him to be punished,
although  he then discovered,  on all  occasions, the  idiotic laugh,  Avithout
cause or motive, which marks the maniac.
  Silas  E. Baker  remarked the same idiotic laugh when the Prisoner
was at his work, in his cell, and in the Chapel.
  William P. Smith, a foreman in the Prison, remarked his peculiarities,
but unfortunately was not then led  to their true cause.
  Theron Green,  as has been already seen, discovered the same pecu-
liarities, divined their cause,  held him irresponsible, and gave an unheeded
warning  against his enlargement.
  The discipline of  the  Prison forbids conversation betAveen convict and
convict, and betAveen keepers and  prisoners.   The  iron that had  entered
the Prisoner's soul Avas necessarily concealed, but De Puy, and Warden,
and Green, who thought him changed then, as Avell as Smith, Van Keu-
ren, Baker, and Tyler, who regarded him only as ignorant and obstinate,
give conclusive evidence that the ruin of his mind was betrayed, in a visible
change of his appearance, conduct and character.
  The time at length arrived, when the secret could no longer be suppressed.
The new  Chaplain,  the  Rev.  Alonzo Wood, was in the Agent's office
when the  Prisoner was discharged.  Two dollars, the  usual  gratuity, was
offered him, and*he was asked to sign a receipt.  " / aint going to settle so."
For five years, until it became  the ruling  thought of his life, the idea had
been impressed upon his mind, that he had been imprisoned AvrongfuUy, and
would, therefore,  be entitled to payment,  on his liberation.   This idea was
opposed "by the judgment and sense of all mankind."  The Court that con-
victed him,  pronounced him guilty, and spoke the " sense and judgment of
mankind."  But still he remained unconvinced.   The keepers who flogged
him, pronounced his  claim unjust and unfounded, and they were exponents
of the  " sense and judgment of all mankind."  But imprisonment, bonds and
stripes, could not remove the one inflexible idea.   The Agent, the keepers,
the Clerk, the spectators, and  even the Reverend Chaplain laughed at the
simplicity and absurdity of the claim of the discharged convict, Avhen he
said, " I've worked five years for the State, and aint going to settle so." Alas !
little did they knoAv that they were  deriding the delusion of a Maniac.  Had
they been wise, they Avould have known that
                                                                   «
                  "So foul a sky clears not without a storm."

   The peals of their laughter were the warning  voice of Nature, for  tha
safety of the family of Van Nest.
   Thus closes the second act of the sad drama. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
405
   The Maniac  reaches his home, sinks sullenly to his seat,  and hour after
hour, relates to John De Puy the story of his wrongful imprisonment, and
of the cruel and  inhuman treatment  which  he had suffered, enquires for
the persons Avho had caused him to be unjustly convicted, learns their names,
and goes about drooping, melancholy and sad, dAvelling continually upon
his Avrongs, and studying intensely in his beAvildered mind how to  obtain
redress.  Many passed him,  marking  his altered countenance and carriage,
without stopping to enquire the cause.  Dr. Hermance alone sought  an ex-
planation :   " I met  him about the first  of December last;  I thought his
manner very singular and strange.  I enquired the cause.   He told me that
he had been in the Prison for five years,  and that he Avasn't guilty, and that
they wouldn't pay him.  I met him afterwards in the street, again remarked
his peculiarities, and enquired the cause.  He answered as before, that he
had been in State Prison five years wrongfully,  and they wouldn't pay him."
   The one idea disturbs him in his dreams and forces him from his bed; he
complains that he can make  no gain and can't live so;  he dances to his own
wild music, and encounters visionary combatants.
   Time passes until February.  He visits Mrs. Godfrey at her house in
Sennett  He  enters the house,  deaf, and stands mute.  " I gave him a
chair," says Mrs. Godfrey, "he  sat down.   I  asked which Avay he was
travelling.  He wanted to knoAV if that Avas the place where a woman had a
horse stole, fiA-e years before.   I told  him it was.  He said he had been to
Prison for stealing the horse, and  didn't steal it neither.  I told him I knew
nothing about that, Avhether  it was he, or not.   He said he'd been to  Prison
for stealing a horse, and didn't steal it, and he Avanted a settlement.   John-
son, who was there, asked him if he should knoAV the horse if he should see
it.  ' No.'  ' Do you Avant the horse ?'  ' No.  Are  you the man Avho took
me up ?  Where  is the man  Avho kept the tavern across the way and helped
catch me ?'  ' He  is gone.'   I asked him if he  was  hungry.   Pie said,  he
didn't know but he was.  I gave him some cakes, and he sat and ate them."
   Here were exhibited at once the Avildness of the maniac, and the imbecil-
ity of  the  demented  man.  His  delusion Avas opposed to 'ipAe sense and
judgment of all mankind."   Mrs.  Godfrey and Mr. Johnson exposed its
fallacy.  But stUl  the one idea remained,  unconquered and unconquerable.
The maniac Avho came to demand pay for five years unjust imprisonment, was
appeased Avith a morsel of cake.
  He was next seen at Mr. Seward's office, a Aveek or ten days before the
murder.  He asked if that was a 'Squire's office, and said he wanted  a Avar-
rant.   Mr.  Parsons, the Clerk,  says: " I didn't  understand, until he had
asked once or tAvice.   I asked him what he Avanted a Avarrant for.  He said,
for the man avIio had been getting him into Prison,  and he Avanted  to get
damages.   I told  him the Justices' offices were  up street,  and he went
aAvay."
  Next we  find him  at the office of Lyman  Paine,  Esq.,  Justice,  on the 
406
THE TRIAL OF
Saturday preceding the death of  Van Nest.   Mr. Paine says:  "He
opened the door, came in a feAV feet, and  stood nearly a minute Avith his
head doAvn, so.  He looked up and said: ' Sir,  I icant a warrant.' ' What for.'
He stood a little time, and then said again : ' Sir, I want a warrant.'  ' What
do you Avant a warrant for ?'  He stood  a minute,  started and came up close
to me,  and spoke very loud : ' Sir, I want a warrant.   I am very deaf and
can't hear very Avell.'  I asked him in a louder voice, what he Avanted it for.
' For a man Avho put me to State Prison.'  ' What is your name ?'  ' Wil-
liam  Freeman; and I want a warrant for the man who put me to Prison.'
I said :  ' If you've been to Prison, you have undoubtedly been tried  for
some offence.'  ' I have; it was for stealing a horse, but I didn't  steal it
I've  been there  five years.'   I asked Avho  he wanted a warrant for.   He
told some name—I think it was Mr. Doty."   (You Avell remember, gentle-
men, that Mr.  Doty, Mr. Hall, and Mrs. Godfrey, all of Sennett, and Jack
Furman, of this town,  were the witnesses against him.)  " I told him if  he
wanted a Avarrant, it  must be for perjury—he must give me the facts and I
would see.  He stood two or three  minutes  and  then said: ' Sir, I want a
warrant.'  I asked further information.  He  stood a little Avhile longer, took
out a quarter of a dollar, threw it on the table, and said: ' Sir, I demand a
warrant'—appeared in  a passion, and soon after went out.  He returned in
the afternoon, said he Avould have  a Avarrant, and gave the names of Mr.
Doty and Mrs. Godfrey."
   Mr. Paine saw, in all this, evidence of stupidity, ignorance, and malice,
only, but not of Insanity.  But, gentlemen, if he could have looked back to
the origin of the* Prisoner's infatuation, and forward to the dreadful catas-
trophe on the  shore of  the OAvasco Lake, as we noAv see it, who can doubt
that  he  Avould then have  pronounced the Prisoner a maniac, and have
granted,  not the  Avarrant he asked,  but  an order  for his commitment to the
County Jail, or to the Lunatic Asylum ?
   Denied the  process to which he thought himself entitled, he proceeded a
day or two later to the office of James H. Bostavick, Esq. another Justice.
" I saAv him.'^avs this witness, " a day or two before the murder.  He came,
and  said he wanted a warrant.  I asked for  whom.  He replied; ' for those
that  got me to Prison.   I tvas sent wrongfully.  I want pay.'  I asked him
who the persons  were.   He mentioned a widoAv and  tAAO men.   He men-
tioned Mrs. Godfrey as the widoAv woman,  Jack Furman and David W.
Simpson as the tAvo men."   (Simpson  Avas  the  constable by Avhom he  Avas
arrested the second time for stealing the  horse.)   Mr. Bostavick  declined
issuing the Avarrant, and informed him there Avas  no remedy,  and again  ex-
pounded to him the " sense and judgment of all mankind," in opposition to
his delusion.
   According to the testimony of John  De Puy, the  Prisoner was agitated
by alternate hope and despair in regard to his redress.   At one time he  told
De Puy, that he had  got it all fixed,  and wanted him to go down to  the 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
407
Justice's office and see that he was paid right.   At another, he told De Put
that the " 'Squires Avouldn't do nothing about it; that he could get no Avar-
rant, nor pay, and he couldn't live so."
  Then it Avas that the one  idea completely overthrew what remained of
mind, conscience and reason.   If you  believe Hersey, Freeman, about a
week before the Murder, showed him several butcher knives ;  told him he
meant to kill De Puy, his brother-in-laAv, for trivial reasons, Avhich he as-
signed,  and said that he had found  the folks that put him in Prison,  and
meant to  kill them.  Hersey says:  "I asked  him who they Avere.   He
said, they  were Mr. Van Arcst, and said no more about them.  He didn't say
where they lived,  and nothing about  any other man,  woman or widow."
This Avitness admits that he suppressed this  fact on the preliminary exami-
nation.
  If  you reject this testimony, then there is no evidence that he ever had
any forethought of slaying Van Nest.  If you receive it, it proves  the
complete subversion of his understanding; for John G. Van Nest, and all
the persons  slain,  resided not in Sennett, nor in Auburn, but four mUes
south of the latter place,  and eight miles from the house of Mrs. Godfrey.
The Prisoner, within a Aveek before the crime, named to the magistrates
every person  who was concerned  in his previous  conviction.   We have
shoAvn that neither John G.  Van Nest, nor any of his family or kindred,
nor any person connected with  him, Avas, or could have  been, a party, a
magistrate, a Avitness, a constable, a sheriff, a grand Juror,' Attorney, petit
Juror, or Judge in that prosecution,  or ever knew or heard of the prosecu-
tion, or ever heard or knew that any such larceny had been committed, or
that such a being  as the  Prisoner existed.   Mrs. Godfrey and the wit-
nesses on the former occasion, became known to the remaining family and
relatives of Van Nest, here in Court,  for the first time, during these trials.
  You Avill remember that Erskine's test of a delusion that takes aAvay re-
sponsibility,  is—that the criminal act must be  the  immediate, unqualified off-
spring of the delusion.  I shall now proceed to show that such is the fact in
the present case.
  The first Avitness to Avhom the Prisoner spoke concerningthe deeds Avhich
he had committed, Avas George B. Parker.   This  Avas at Phcenix, Oswe- '
go county, immediately after his arrest, within twenty hours after the perpe-
tration of the crime.  " I pushed very hard for  the reasons," says the wit-
ness ; " Avhat he had against Van Nest.   11 suppose you know I've been in
State Prison five years,' he replied.  ' I Avas put there innocently;  I've been
whipped, and knocked, and abused, and made deaf, and there Avon't any body
pay me for it.' "
  Vanderheyden arrived soon afterAvards.  He says: "I called the Pri-
soner aside, and said to him;  ' Noav Aver'e alone, and  you may as Avell tell
me  how you came  to commit  this.'   He says tome: ' You know there is no 
408
THE TRIAL OF
 law for me.'  I asked him what he meant by that' no law.'  He said, ' tiiky
 ought to pay me.' "
   Ethan A. Warden folloAved him into his cell in the Jail, and asked him,
 " When you started  from home, Avhat  did you go  up there for?  11 must
 go.'  Why must you go ?  ' / must begin my work.'   What made you do it ?
 ' They brought, me up so.'  Who brought you up so?   ' The Slate.' ^ They
 didn't tell you to kill, did they ?  ' Don't know—won't pay me.'  Did  you
 know these folks before you went to Prison ?  ' No.'   Was you there a few
 days before, to get work ?  '  Yes.'  Did  they say any thing to offend you or
 make you angry ?   ' AW  What made you kill them ; Avhat  did you do it
 for? ' / must begin my work.'   Didn't you expect to be killed?  'Didn't
 know but I should.'  If you expected to  be killed what  made you go ; did
 you go to get money ?   ' ATo.'  Did you expect to get money ?  ' No.'  Did
 you intend to  get the horse ?   ' No.'  How did you come to  take him ?
 ' Broke  my things,  (meaning knives)—hand was cut—came into my mind-
 take the horse—go—and—get so—could do more work.'  If you had not broke
 your things, Avhat would you  have done ?  ' Kept to  work.'   Did you mean
 to keep- right on ?   ' / meant to keep to work.'  Would you have killed  me
 if you had met me ?   ' 'Spose I should.'  What made you begin at that house ?
 • Stopped two or three places, thought it wasn't far out  enough to begin.' Are
 you not sorry you killed so many ?  ' Don't think any thing about it.'
   The Prisoner has invariably given  similar answers to every person who
 has asked him the motive for  his crime.
   Warren T. Worden, Esq., says, " I  asked him why he took the horse ?
 He ansAvered, ' My hand was hurt, and  I couldn't kill  any more.'  I asked
 him Avhy he killed them ? and he answered, ' Why did they send'me  to State
 Prison when Iioasn't guilty.'   And in making this reply he trembled, and I
 thought he Avas going  to weep.  I told him they would hang him noAv; he
 showed no feeling."
   Dr. Fosgate says that Dr. Hurd  asked him what he killed those folks
 for ?  He replied, " They put me in Prison."
   John R. Hopkins says, "I turned his attention to the idea of pay—if he
 had got his pay*for his time in Prison ?  That question  raised  him  up  and
 he  looked comparatively intelligent, and brightened up his Avhole  counte-
 nance.  He  said, 'No.'  Who ought  to  pay you ?   ' All of them.'   Ought
 I ?  He looked up Avith a flash of  intelligence, said nothing, but looked in-
tently at me, and the ansAver Avas conveyed by the look.   I asked if this man,
 (pointing to Hotchkiss) ought to pay him.  He looked at him, as at me, and
said, ' Do what's right,' or ' we'll do what's right.'   We then  spoke about his
trial, and he was stupid and dull  again."
  The Rev. J. M. Austin says: "I  put questions to find his  motiA'e  for
killing that family.   His ansAvers  were  very broken and incoherent, but in-
variably referred to his being  in Prison innocently.  Had the persons you 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
409
 killed any thing to do with putting you into Prison ?  ' No.'   Did you know
 their names ?   ' No.'  Why did you kill that particular family ?   No direct
 answer, but something about being put in Prison wrongfully.  Do you think
 it right to kill  people Avho had no hand in putting  you into Prison ?  He
 gave an incoherent reply.  I gathered, ' shall do something  to get my pay.'
 Hoav much pay ought you to  have ?  ' Don't know.'  Was it right to kill
 those innocent persons for Avhat had been done by  others ?   ' They put me
 in Prison.'  Who  did—the Van Nest family ?  ' ATo.'  Why then did  you
 kill them ?  Did you think it  right to kill that  innocent child ? I under-
 stood from his gestures in reply, that he was in a labyrinth, from which he
 was incapable  of extricating himself.  How did you happen to go that  par-
 ticular night?  ' The time had come.'  Why did  you enter that particular
 house ?  ' i" went along out and thought I might begin there.'  I asked if he
 ever called on Mrs. Godfrey.  He said, ' / went to Mrs. Godfrey to get pay,
 and she wouldn't pay me.  I went to Esquires Boshvick and Paine and  they
 wouldn't do nothing about it."
   Mr.  Ira Curtis, says: "I asked him how he came up there.  ' / went
• up south a piece.'   Hoav far ?   ' Stopped  at the house beyond there.'  What
 for ?   ' To get a drink of water.'  What did you go into Van Nest's house
 for ?   ' Don't know.'   Did you go in to murder or kill them ?  ' Don't know.'
 Was it for money ?  ' Didn't know as they had any.'  Did yon kill the child ?
 ' They said I killed one, but I didn't.'  What did you kill them for ?  '  You
 know I had my work to do.'  Had you any thing against these people ?  ' Don't
 know.'   Why didn't you commence.at the other place ?   ' Thought it wasn't
 time yet.'  He said  ' they wouldn't pay him.  He had been imprisoned and  they
 wouldn't pay him.'"
   Dr. Hermance  says: "Dr. Pitney asked him how he happened to go
 up. ' It rained and I thought it would be a good time.'  Why did you go to
 Van Nest's, and not to some other family ?   No answer.  Why  didn't  you
 come and kill me ?   He smiled, but gave  no ansAver.  Don't you think  you
 ought to be hung for killing Van Nest and his family ?   The same question
 was repeated authoritatively, and he replied : ; Sent to Prison for nothing—
 ought I to be hung?'  Suppose you had found some other'person,  would  you
 have killed any other as well as Van Nest ?  ' Yes:  I asked, Avhy did  you
 kill Van Nest  and his family ?  ' For that horse.'   What do you mean by
 killing  lfor that horse ?'  ' They sent me to Prison and they won't pay  me.'
 Had Van Nest any thing to do Avith sending you to Prison ?   ' ATo.'"
   Dr. Briggs  says : " When I repeated the question, why did you kill Van
 Nest ?  he replied, ' Why was I put in Prison five years ?'"
  William P.  Smith, asked: "Why did  you kill  those people?  'I've
been to Prison  wrongfully five years.    They wouldn't pay me.'   Who ?
' The people, so I thought I'd kill somebody.'  Did you mean to kill one more
 than another?   ' No:  Why did  you go so far out of toAvn ?  ' Stopped at
one place this side;  wouldn't go  in; couldn't see to fight; 'twas dark; looked 
410
THE  TRIAL OF
up street; saw a light in next house ; thought I'd go there :  could see to fight.'
Don't you knoAV you've done wrong?  'No.'  Don't you think tAvas Avrong
to kill the child?  After some hesitation he said, ' Well—that looks  kind
o'h-a-r-d:  Why did you think it was right ?  ' I've been in Prison five years
for stealing a horse, and I didn't do it: and the people won't pay me; made
up my mind, ought to kill somebody.'  Are you not sorry ?   ' No.'  Hoav much
pay do you Avant ?   ' Don't know ; good deal:  If I count  you out a hundred
dollars,  would that be  enough ?  He thought it wouldn't.   Hoav much Avould
be right ?  ' Don't  know.'   He  brightened  up, and finally said he  thought
'abouta thousand dollars ivould be about right.'"
  It would be tedious  to gather all the evidence of similar import.  Let  it
suffice, that  the witnesses Avho  have conversed with the  Prisoner, as avcII
those for the People as those for him, concur fuUy in the same statement of
facts, as to his reasons  and motives for  the  murders.   We have thus not
merely  established the existence of an insane delusion, but have traced di-
rectly to that overpoAvering delusion, the crimes which the Prisoner has  com-
mitted.
  How  powerful that delusion  must have been, may be inferred from the
fact that the Prisoner, Avhen disabled, desisted from his work, and made his
retreat  to his friends in OsAvego county, not to escape from punishment for
the murders, but as he  told Mr. E. A. Warden, to wait till  his wounded
hand should be restored, that he might resume his dreadful butchery ;  and,
as he told Dr. Bigeloav, because he counldn't "handle his hand.''  The in-
tenseness of  this delusion exceeds that under which Hatfield assailed the
King; that which compelled Henriette Cornier to dissever the head of
the child entrusted to her care; and that of Rabello, the Portuguese, who
cut to pieces with his  axe, the child who trod upon his feet.
  The next feature in the cause, which will claim your attention, gentlemen
of the Jury, is the  manner and circumstances of the act itself.
  In Ray's Medical Jurisprudence, at page 224, are given several tests by
which to distinguish between the homicidal Maniac and the Murderer.
   We shall best consider the present case by comparing it with those tests:
   I. " Ther§is the irresistible, motiveless impulse to destroy life."  Never was
homicide more motiveless, or the impulse more completely irresistible, than  in
the present case, as we have learned from the testimony already cited.
   II.  " In nearly all cases the criminal act has been preceded, either by some
well marked disturbance of the health, or by an irritable, gloomy, dejected,
or melancholy state ;  in short,  by many of the symptoms of the incubation of
mania."  How truly does this  language describe the condition of the Priso-
ner during the brief period of his enlargement!
   III.  " The impulse  to destroy is poAverfully excited by the sight of murder-
ous weapons—by favorable  opportunities of accomplishing the act—by con-
tradiction, disgust, or some other equally trivial and even imaginary circum-
stance." 
                          WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      411

  While avc learn from IIersey's testimony, that the Prisoner kept a store
of knives fit for such a deed, Ave find in the denial of his demands for settle-
ment, for pay, and for process, by Mrs. Godfrey and the magistrates, the
contradiction and causes of disgust here described.
  IV.  " The victims of the  homicidal monomaniac are either  entirely un-
known or indifferent to him, or they are amongst his most loved and cher-
ished objects."
  Freeman passed by his supposed oppressors and persecutors, and fell up-
on a family absolutely indifferent, and almost unknown to him, while he re-
served the final stroke for his nearest and best  friend, and brother-in-law.
  V. " The monomaniac  sometimes diligently conceals and sometimes avows
his purpose, and forms schemes for  putting it  into execution, testifying no
sentiment of grief."
  The Prisoner concealed his purpose from all but Hersey.   He purchased
the knife Avhich he used, in open day, at a blacksmith's shop, in the presence
of persons to Avhom he Avas well known, and ground it to its double edge be-
fore unsuspecting witnesses,  as coolly and deliberately as if it Avere  to be
employed in the shambles.   He applied at another blacksmith's shop Avhere
he Avas equally Avell knoAvn, to have another instrument made.  He shaped
the pattern in a carpenter's shop, carried it to the smith, disagreed about the
price,  and left the pattern upon the forge, in open  sight, never thinking to
reclaim it, and it lay there until it Avas taken  by the smith before the coro-
ner's inquest, as an evidence of his design.  So strange Avas his conduct, and
so mysterious the  form of the knife which he required, that Morris, the
smith,  suspected him, and told him that he Avas  going to  kill somebody; to
which  he answered Avith the  nonchalance of the  butcher, " that's nothing
to you  if you get your pay for the knife."  On the'tAvo days immediately pre-
ceding the murder, he is found sharpening and adjusting his knives at  a tur-
ner's shop, next door to his OAvn dAvelling, in the presence of persons to Avhom
he is AveU known, manifesting no  apprehension, and  affecting no  conceal-
ment.
  The trivial concerns of his finance and  occupation are as  carefully  atten-
ded to, as if the murder he was contemplating had been an  ordinary and
lawful  transaction.  Hyatt demands three shillings for the knife.  The Pri-
soner cheapens until the price is  reduced to eighteen pence, with the fur-
ther advantage that it should be sharpened, and fitted to a handle.  Hyatt
demands six pence for putting a rivet into his  knife.  He compromises, and
agrees to  divide the labor and pay half the price.  He deliberately takes
out his Avallet and lays doAvn three cents for SiMrsox, the turner, for the use
of the  grindstone.   On the very day of the murder, he begs some grease at
the Soap  Factory  to soften his shoes, and tells Aaron De:.iun that he is
going into the country to live  in peace. At four o'clock in the afternoon he
buys soap at the merchant's for Mary Ann Newark, the  poor Avoman at
whose house he lived.  He then goes cautiously to his room, takes the knives 
412
THE trial of
from the place of their concealment under his bed, throws them out of the
windoAv, to avoid exposure to her observation, and when the night has come,
and the bells are ringing for church, and all is ready, he stops to ask the Avoman
whether there is any chore to be done.  She tells him, none, but to fill the tub
with snoAv.  He does it as carefully as if there Avere  no commotion in his
mind, and then sallies forth, takes up his  instruments, and proceeds on his
errand of death.  He reconnoiters the  house on the north of Van Nest's,
Van Nest's  house, and  Brooks' house on the south, and finally decides
upon the middle one as the place of assault.  It does not affect  his purpose
that he  meets  Mr. Cox and Mr. Patten, under a broad, bright moonlight
He waits his opportunity, until Williamson, the visitor, has departed, and
Van Arsdale, the laboring man, has retired to rest.  With an energy and
boldness that no sane man, with  such a purpose, could  possess, he mortally
stabs four persons, and dangerously Avounds a  fifth, in the incredibly short
6pace of five minutes.  Disabled, and therefore desisting from  further de-
struction, he enters the stable, takes the first horse he finds, mounts him
without a saddle, and  guiding him by a  halter,  dashes tOAvards the town.
He  overtakes and passes  Williamson,  the visitor, within the distance of
three-fourths of a mile  from the house Avhich he had left in  supposed secu-
rity.  Pressing on, the jaded beast, worn out with age, stumbles and brings
him to the ground.  He plunges his knife into the breast of the horse, aban-
dons him, scours fonvard through the  town, across  the bridge  and on the
middle road to Burrington's ;  there seizes another horse, mounts him, and
urges forAvard, until he arrives among his relations, the De Puys,  at Schroep-
pel, thirty miles  distant.   They, suspecting him to have stolen the  horse,
refuse to entertain him.  He proceeds  to  the adjoining A'illage, rests  from
his flight, offers the horse'for sale, and when his title to the horse is ques-
tioned, announces his true name and residence, and refers to the De Puys,
who had just cast  him off, for  proof of  his good  character and conduct
When arrested and  charged Avith the murder, he denies the act.
  Noav the  sixth test  given by Ray, is,  that " while most maniacs having
gratified their  propensity to kill, voluntarily confess the act, and quietly give
themselves  up to  the proper authorities, a very few, only, and those to an
intelligent obserA'er show the strongest  indications of insanity, fly, and per-
sist in denying the act."
  VII. "Murder is  never criminally committed without some  motive ade-
quate to the purpose in the mind  that is actuated  by it, while  the insane
man commits the crime without any motive whatever, strictly deserving the
name."
  VIII. " The criminal never  sheds more blood than  is necessary for the
attainment  of  his object.   The  monomaniac .often sacrifices all Avithin his
reach, to the cravings of his murderous propensity."
  IX. " The criminal  either denies or confesses his  guilt; if the latter, he
sues for mercy, or glories in his crimes.   On the contrary, the maniac, after 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
413
gratifying his bloody desires, testifies neither remorse, repentance, nor satis-
faction."
  X.  " The criminal has accomplices; the maniac has none."
  XI.  " The murderer never conceives-a design to murder Avithout project-
ing a plan for concealing his victim, effecting  his escape, and baffling pur-
suit.  The maniac prepares the means of committing the crime,  Avith calm-
ness and  deliberation, but never dreams of the  necessity of concealing it
when done, or of escape, until his victim lies at his feet."
  Dr.  Bigelow and  others state that the Prisoner told them, as obviously
was the case, that he sought no plunder;  that he thought not of escape or
flight,  until his things were broken, and his hand was cut, so that he could
not continue his work.  He seized the nearest and the most worthless horse
in the stable, leaving two fleet animals remaining in their stalls.  He thought
only of taking Burrington's horse when the first failed :  all he cared for was
to get out of the county, there to rest, until his hand Avas cured,  so that he
could  come back and do more  work.  He rested from flight Avithin thirty
miles from the seat of his crimes, and, in selling his horse, was depriving
himself of the only means of making his escape successful.   When the per-
son of Van Nest was examined, his watch, pocket-book, money and trin-
kets were found all undisturbed.  Not an article in the  house had  been  re-
moved ;  and when the Prisoner Avas searched  upon his arrest, there was
found in his pockets nothing but one copper coin, the hundredth part of a
dollar.
   Without further detail, the parallel between the Prisoner and  the tests of
madness established by Medical Jurisprudence, is complete.
   It remains, gentlemen, to conclude the demonstration of the Prisoner's
insanity, by referring to the  testimony of the Avitnesses Avho have  given their
opinion on that question. Cornelius Van Arsdale and Helen Holmes,
the survivors of that dreadful scene at Van Nest's house, did not think the
Prisoner insane.   The  latter had only seen the Prisoner for a moment, du-
ring the  previous week, when he called there and asked  for Avork.   The
former had never  seen him before  that fatal night.  Both saAv him there,
only  for a moment, and under circumstances exhibiting him as a ruthless
Murderer.
   Williamson  thinks  he  was not insane, but he saAv the Prisoner only
 when  he  SAvept past him, fleeing from his crime.
   James Amos, Alonzo Taylor, George Burrlngton, and  George
 B. Parker, say they read no indications of  insanity in his conduct Avhen
 arrested; but neither of them  ever saAv him before, or has seen him since.
   Robert Simpson, the turner, George W. Hyatt and Joseph Mor-
 ris, the blacksmiths,  did not suspect him to  be insane, when he purchased
and sharpened his  knives.   Neither of them  ever knew him before, or  has
knoAvn him since. 
414
THE TRIAL OF
  Nathaniel Lynch, though he furnishes abundant evidence of the Pris-
oners insanity, is himself unconvinced.
  Aaron Demun, a  colored man, does not think him insane, but stands
alone, of all Avho kneAV him in his youth.
  Israel G. Wood and  Stephen S. Austin do not think him insane.
They Avere his Jailers six years ago, but they  have not examined him since
his  arrest.
  Vanderheyden and Munroe think him sane, but each testifies under
feelings which disqualify him for impartiality.
  Jonas Bp.oavn  thinks him not  insane, but never saAv him, except Avhen
he Avas buying a pound of soap at his store.
  John P.  Hulbert and Benjamin F. Hall  had  brief conversation?
with him, in the Jail, after his arrest, but made no examination concerning
his  delusion.
  Leaats Markhaai and Daniel Andrus think him not insane, but they
haAe made no examination of the subject;  while both g'lA'e evidence  that he
was once as  bright, active and cheerful, as  he is now stupid, senseless  and
imbecile.
  Benjamin Van Keuren, Aretas A. Sabin, Silas  E. Baker  and
James E. Tyler, all keepers in the State Prison, and Alonzo Wood, the
Chaplain, did not suspect him of insanity in the State Prison.  Their con-
duct towards him while there, proves their sincerity;  but his history under
their treatment, will enable you to correct their erroneous judgments.  It
was their business, not to detect and cure insanity, but to prescribe his daily
task, and to compel him by stripes to perform  it in silence.
  Michael S. Myers, the former District Attorney, Avho prosecuted the
Prisoner for stealing the horse, looks at him now, and can see no change in
his  personal appearance; but he has never thought the subject Avorthy of
an examination, and has not, in six years, spoken Avith or thought of the ac-
cused.
  Lyman Paine and James n.  Bostwick, to whom he applied for pro-
cess, continue now as Avell  convinced of the Prisoner's sanity, as thev were
when he applied  to them for warrants, Avhich  it was absurd for him to  ask.
Neither of them  has examined  him since his arrest, or stopped to compare
his conduct in the  Murder with his application for a warrant, or with the
strange  delusion Avhich brought him before them.
  Such  and so feeble is the testimony as to the Prisoner's sanity, given by
others than the medical Avitnesses.  Nor is the testimony of the medical  wit-
nesses on the part of the  People entitled to more respect.
  Dr. Gilmore  pronounces a confident opinion that the Prisoner is sane;
but the Avitness is without experience, or any considerable learning on  that
subject,  and  his opinion is grounded upon  the fact that  the accused  had in-
tellect enough to prepare for his crime, and sense enough to escape, in the 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      415
manner so cften described.  I read to the Doctor the accounts of several
cases in Bedlam, and Avithout exception he pronounced the sufferers sane
criminals.
  Dr. Hyde visited the Prisoner twice in his cell,  perhaps thirty minutes
each time, and as the result of those visits, says he Avas rather of the opinion
that he Avas  sane.   Dr. Hyde  expressly disavows any learning or experi-
ence on  the subject of insanity, and does not give the details  of his  exam-
ination.
   Dr. David Dimon  visited the Prisoner several times in Jail, but could
not discover any thing that he could call insanity.   He thinks there can be
no insane delusion in this case, because he thinks that an insane delusion is
the thorough conviction of  the reaHty of a thing, Avhich is opposed  by the
evidence of the sufferer's senses.  The Doctor claims neither  study nor ex-
perience ; pronounces the Prisoner to be of a grade of intellect rather small
for a Negro;  thinks he  has not as  much intellect as  a  child of fourteen
years of age, and in regard to  knowledge, Avould compare him Avith a child
two or three years old, Avho knoAvs his A, B, C,  but cannot count twenty-
eight.   Those avIio seek the extreme vengeance of the law, Avill, if successful,
need all the consolation to be derived from the sanity of the accused, if,  at
the age  of twenty-three,  he be thus imbecile in mind and  barren in know-
 ledge.
   Dr. Jedediah Darrow has read nothing on the subject of insanity for
forty years, an ;1 has never had any experience. He declares that his conclusion
is not to be regarded as a professional  opinion.   Ile talked Avith the Priso-
ner once in Jail, to ascertain his sanity, and thought it important to avoid all
allusion to the crimes he had committed, their  motives, causes and circumstan-
 ces.  He now thinks that it would  have been Avise, Avhere  monomania wa*
 suspected, to examine into the alleged delusion.  He contents himself with
 saying,  he  did not discover insanity.
    Dr. Joseph Clary visited the Prisoner in Jail: cannot give  a  deci-
 ded opinion;   his prevailing impression is,  that  the  Prisoner is not insane,
 but he has  not had opportunities enough to form a correct opinion.   He has
 never seen a case of Dementia, and knoAvs it only from definitions in books,
 which he has never tested.
    Dr. Bigelow, Physician to the Prison, discovered nothing in his exami-
 nations  Avhich  led him to  suspect insanity.  The Doctor has a  salary  of Five
 Hundred  Dollars per annum; his chief labor in  regard  to insanity is  to
 detect counterfeits in the Prison; and  although he admits that the Prisoner
 has answered him freely, and unsuspectingly, and fully, he accounts for the
 condition of his mind, by saying that he regards him " as an  ignorant, dull,
 stupid, degraded, debased, and morose, but not insane person."
    Dr. Sylvi:ster  Willard, Avithout particular experience  or learning  in
 this branch, concurs in these opinions.
    Dr.  Thomas Spencer, Professor  in the Medical  College at Geneva, 
416
THE TRIAL OF
  brings up the rear of the  People's witnesses.  I complain of his testimony,
  that it was covered by a masked battery.  The District Attorney opened the
  case Avith denunciations of scientific men, said that too much learning made
  men mad, and Avarned you  therefore against the educated men Avho might
  testify for the Prisoner.  I thought at the time that these Avere extraordinary
 opinions.  I had read,

              "A little learning is a dangerous thing,
              Drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring;
              These shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
              But drinking largely sobers us again."

   What Avas my surprise to find that all these denunciations against learn-
 ing and experience, made by the Counsel for the People, were only a cover
 for Dr. Spencer.
   He heralds himself  as accustomed  to teach, and informs us that he  has
 visited the principal Hospitals for the Insane in  London, Paris, and  other
 European capitals.  How unfortunate it  Avas that on his cross examination,
 he could not give the name or location of any Asylum in either of those  ci-
 ties !  Even the names and locations of the " Charenton" and " Bicctre" had
 escaped his memory.
   But it is no matter.  The Doctor overAvhelms us with learning, universal
 and incomprehensible.  Here is  his map* of  the mental faculties, in which
 twenty-eight separate powers of mind are described in odd and even num-
 bers.
   The arrows show the course of ideas through the mind.  They begin with
 the motives in the region of the highest odd numbers in the south-west cor-
 ner of the mind, marked A, and  go perpendicularly  northward, through
 Thirst and Hunger to Sensation, marked B ; then turn to the right, and go
 eastAvard, through Conception, to Attention,  marked C, and  then  descend
 southward, through Perception, Memory, Understanding, Comparison, Com-
 bination, Reason, Invention, and Judgment; wheel to the left  under the
 Will, marked D, and pass through Conscience, and then to V, the  unascer-
 tained center of Sensation,  Volition, and Will.  This is the natural turnpike
 road for the ideas when we are aAvake and sane.   But here  is an open shun-
 pUie, X, Y, Z, on which Ideas, Avhen we  are  asleep or insane, start off and
 pass by Conscience, and so  aA-oid paying  toll to that inflexible gate-keeper.
 Now all this is \ery well, but I call on  the Doctor to show hoAv the fugitive
 idea reached the Will at D, after going to the end of the shun-pike.  It ap-
peared there was no other Avay but  to dart back again, over the  shun-pike,
or else to go cringing, at last, through the iron gate of Conscience.
  Then there was another  difficulty.   The Doctor forgot the most impor-
 tant point on his o;vn map,  and could not tell, from memory, Avhere he had
located " the unascertained centre."
  •See page 356. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
417
   The Doctor pronounces the Prisoner sane because he has the chief intel-
 lectual faculties, Sensation, Conception, Attention, Imagination, and Associ-
 ation.  Now here is a delicate piece of wooden cutlery, fabricated by an in-
 mate of the Lunatic Asylum at Utica, who was acquitted of murder on  the
 ground of Insanity.  He who fabricated it evinced in the manufacture, Con-
 ception, Perception, Memory, Comparison, Attention, Adaptation, Co-ordi-
 nation, Kindness, Gratitude, Mechanical Skill, Invention, and Pride.  It is
 well for him that Dr. Spencer did not testify on his trial.
   Opposed to these vague  and unsatisfactory opinions is  the  evidence  of
 Sally Freeman, the  Prisoner's mother, who  knew him better than any
 other  one; of John  De Puy, his brother-in-law and intimate friend; of
 Ethan A. Warden, his employer in early youth ; of Deborah De Puy,
 his associate in happier days; of Adam Gray, who knew him in childhood,
 and sheltered him on his discharge from the State Prison; of Ira Curtis,
 in Avhose family he resided seven years ago; of Daa-id Winner, the friend
 of his parents; of Robert  Freeman, his  ancient fellow servant at the
 American Hotel; of John R. Hopkins, an intelligent and  practical man
 who examined him in jail; of Theron Green, who discovered his insanity
 in the State Prison; of the Rev. John M. Austin, the one good Samaritan
 who deemed it a pastoral duty to visit  even a supposed Murderer in Prison ;
 of William P. Smith, who has corrected now the error of his judgment
 while in the State  Prison; of Philo II. Perry, a candid and enlightened
 observer; and of Warren T. Worden, Esq., a Lawyer of great shrewd-
 ness and sagacity.
   Then there is an overwhelming preponderance of medical testimony.  The
 witnesses are, Dr. Van Epps, Avho has followed the accused from his cradle
 to the present hour, with the  interest of a humane and sincere friend; Dr.
 Fosgate, who attended  him in the Jail, for the  cure of his disabled limb ;
 Dr. Briggs, equal in public honors to Dr. Bigelow, and greatly his  supe-
 rior in candor as well as learning, and who compares the Prisoner now with
 what he was in better days; Dr. McNatjghton, of Albany, and Dr. Hun,
 of the same  place, gentlemen known  throughout the whole country for emi-
 nence in their profession ; Dr. McCall, of Utica, President of the.Medical
 Society of the State of New York;  Dr.  Coventry, Professor of Medical
 Jurisprudence in  Geneva College, and one of the Managers of the  State
 Lunatic Asylum at Utica; and Dr. Brigham,  the experienced and distin-
 guished Superintendent of that  Institution.  This last gentleman, after re-
 vieAving the  whole case, declares that he has no doubt that the Prisoner is
 now insane,  and was so when his crimes were committed; that he  should
 have received him as a  patient then, on the evidence given here, indepen-
 dently of the crime, and should now receive him upon all the evidence which
 has been submitted to you.
  Dr. Brigham pronounces the Prisoner to be a Monomaniac laboring un-
der the overwhelming progress of the delusion I have  described, which had 
418
THE TRIAL OF
 its paroxysm in the Murders of which he is accused;  and declares that since
 that time he has sunk into a deep and incurable Dementia, the counter-part
 of Idiocy.  In  these opinions, and in the reasons for them, so luminously as-
 signed by him, all the other medical gentlemen concur.
   You may be told, gentlemen, that Dr. Hun and Dr. McNatjghton testi-
 fied from mere observation  of the Prisoner without  personal examination.
 Yes! I will thank the Attorney General for saying  so.  It wiU recall the
 strangest passages of all, in this the strangest of all trials.  This is a trial for
 murder.  A verdict of guilty will draw after it a sentence of death.  The
 only defence is Insanity.   Insanity is to be tested by examining the Priso-
 ner as he now is,  and comparing him with what he was when the crime  was
 committed, and during all the intervening period, and through all his previ-
 ous life.  Dr. Hun and Dr. McNaughton were served with  subpoenas, re-
 quiring them to attend here. They came, proceeded to the Jail, and exam-
 ined the Prisoner on Wednesday night during the trial.  Early on Thurs-
 day morning they proceeded again to the JaU to resume their examination,
 and were then denied access.   It is  proved that the Attorney General in-
 structed the Sheriff to close the doors against them, and the Attorney Gene-
 ral admits it.  Dr. Hun and Dr. McNaughton are called to  testify,  and
 are ready to testify that the examination they did make, satisfied them that
 the Prisoner is insane, and  that he was insane when  he committed  the ho-
^nicide.  The  Attorney General objects, and the Court overrules the  evi-
 dence, and decides that these eminent physicians shall testify only from mere
 external observation  of the Prisoner, in Court, and shall expressly forget
 and lay aside their examinations of the Prisoner, made in JaU, by conversa-
 tions with him.  Nor was the process by which the Court effected this ex-
 clusion less remarkable than the decision itself.  The Court had obtained a
 verdict on the sixth of July, on the preliminary issue, that the Prisoner was
 sufficiently sane to distinguish  right from wrong.  That verdict has been
 neither pleaded nor proved on this trial, and if it had been, it would have
 been of no legal value.  Yet the Court founds upon it a Judicial Statute of
 Limitations, and denies us all opportunity to prove the Prisoner insane, after
 the sixth of July.  I tremble for the Jury that is to respond to the popular
 clamor under such restraints as these.   I pray God that these Judges may
 never experience the consequences which must follow such an adjudication.
 But, gentlemen, Dr. Hun  and  Dr. McNaughton bear, nevertheless,  the
 strongest testimony that the Prisoner is an  idiot, as appears by observation,
 and that the evidence, as submitted to  them, confirms this con\'iction.
   There is proof, gentlemen, stronger than aU this.   It is silent, yet speak-
 ing.   It is that idiotic smile which plays continually on the face of the  Ma-
 niac.  It took its seat there while he was in the State Prison.   In his soHtary
 cell, under the pressure of his severe tasks and trials  in the work-shop,  and
 during the solemnities of public worship in the chapel, it appealed, although
 in vain, to his task-masters and  his teachers.  It is a smile, never rising  into 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
419
laughter, without motive or cause—the smile of vacuity.  His mother saw it
when he came out of Prison, and it broke her heart.   John DePuy saw it
and knew his brother was demented.   Deborah De  Puy observed it and
knew him for a fool.   David Winner read in it the ruin of his friend, Sal-
ly's son.  It has never forsaken him in his later trials.  He laughed in the face
of Parker, while on confession at Baldwinsville.  He  laughed involuntarily
in the faces of Warden, and-  Curtis, and Worden, and  Austin, and
Bigelow, and Smith, and Brigham, and Spencer. He laughs perpetu-
ally here.  Even  when Van Arsdale showed the  scarred  traces of the
assassin's knife, and when Helen Holmes related the dreadful story of the
Murder of her patrons and friends, he laughed.  He laughs while I am plead-
ing his  griefs.  He  laughs when the Attorney  General's bolts would seem
to rive his heart.  He will laugh when  you declare him guilty.  When the
Judge shall proceed to the last fatal  ceremony, and demand Avhat he has to
say why the Sentence of the Law should not be pronounced  upon him, al-
though there should not  be an unmoistened eye in this vast assembly, and
the stern voice addressing him should tremble with emotion, he wiU even
then  look up in the face  of the Court and  laugh, from the  irresistible emo-
tions of a shattered mind, delighted and lost in the confused memory of ab-
surd  and ridiculous associations.  Follow him to the scaffold.  The execu-
tioner cannot disturb the calmness of the idiot.   He will laugh in the agony
of death.   Do you not knoAV the significance of this strange and unnatural
risibility ?   It is a proof that  God does not forsake even the poor Avretch
whom we pity or despise.  There are, in  every human memory,  a well of
joys and a fountain of sorroAvs.  Disease opens  wide the  one, and seals up
the other forever.
   You have been told, gentlemen, that this  smile is hereditary and accus-
tomed.   Do you think that ever ancestor or parent of the Prisoner, or even
the poor idiot himself,  was in such  straits as these ?  How then  can you
think that this smile was  ever before recognized by these Avilling witnesses ?
That chaotic smile  is the external derangement which signifies that the
strings of the harp are disordered and broken, the superficial mark which
God has set upon the tabernacle,  to signify that its immortal  tenant is dis-
turbed by a Divine  and  mysterious commandment.   If you  cannot see it,
take heed that the obstruction of your vision be not produced by the mote
in your own eye, which you are commanded to remove before you consider
the beam in your brother's eye. If you are bent on rejecting the testimony
of those Avho know, by experience and by science, the deep afflictions of the
Prisoner, beware how you misinterpret the hand-writing of the Almighty.
   I have Avaited until now, gentlemen, to notice some  animadversions of the
Counsel for the People.   They say that drunkenness will explain the  con-
duct of the Prisoner.  It  is true that John De Puy discovered that those
who retailed poisonous liquors were furnishing  the Prisoner Avith  this, the
worst of food for his madness.  But the most laborious investigation has re- 
420
THE TRIAL OF
suited in showing, by the testimony of Adam Gray, that he once saw the
Prisoner intoxicated, and that he, with some other persons, drank spirits in
not immoderate quantity, on the day when Van Nest Avas slain.   There is
no other evidence that the Prisoner was ever intoxicated.  John De Puy
and Adam  Gray testify that except that one time he was ahvays  sober.
David Winner proves he was sober all the time the Avitness lived at Wil-
lard's, and Mary Ann Newark says he was entirely sober Avhen he sal-
lied forth on his fatal enterprise.  The only value of the fact of his drunken-
ness, if it existed, would be to account for his disturbed nights at De Puy's,
at Gray's and at Willard's.   It is clearly proved that his mind Avas not
beclouded, nor his frame excited, by any such cause on any of those occa-
sions ; and Doctor Brigham truly tells you that while the Maniac goes qui-
etly to his bed, and is driven from it by the dreams of a disturbed imagina-
tion, the drunkard completes his revels and his orgies before he sinks to rest,
and  then lies stupid and besotted until nature restores his wasted energies
with return  of day.
  Several of the Prisoner's witnessess have faUen under the displeasure of
the Counsel  for the People.  John De Puy was asked on the trial of the
preliminary  issue, whether he had not said, when  the Prisoner was arrested,
that he was no  more crazy than himself.  He answered, that he had  not
said " in those words," and asked leave to explain by  stating Avhat he had
said.  The Court denied him the right and  obliged him to answer, Yes  or
No,  and of course he ansAvered No.   On  this trial he  makes the explana-
tion, that after the Murder of Van Nest, being informed that the Prisoner
had  threatened his life, he said, " Bill would do well enough if they wouldn't
give him liquor;  he was  bad enough at any time,  and liquor made him
worse."   By  a forced construction,  this declaration,  AA'hich substantially
agrees with what he is proved by other witnesses to have said, is brought in
conflict  with his narrow denial, made on the former trial.  It has been inti-
mated on this trial, that the Counsel for the Prosecution would contend that
John De Puy was an accomplice of the  Prisoner and the instigator  of his
crimes.   This cruel and unfeeling charge has no ground, even  in imagina-
tion, except that twelve years ago  De Puy labored for six weeks on the
farm of the  late Mr. Van Nest, then belonging  to his fathcr-in-laAv, Peter
Wyckoff, that a misunderstanding arose between them, which they adjusted
by arbitration, and that they were friends always afterwards.  The elder Mr.
Wyckoff died six years ago.  It does not appear that the late Mr. Van
Nest was even married at that time.   John De Puy is a  colored man, of
vigorous frame, and strong mind, with good education.  His testimony, con-
clusive in this cause,  was inteUigently given.  He claims your respect as  a
representative of  his people, rising to that  equality  to which it is the ten-
dency of our institutions to bring them.  I have heard the greatest of Ame-
rican Orators.  I have heard Daniel O'Connell and  Sir Robert Peel, but
beard John  De Puy make  a speech excelling them  all in  eloquence: 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
421
" They have made William Freeman what he is, a brute beast; they don't
make any thing  else of  any of our people but brute beasts; but Avhen we
violate their laAvs, then they want to punish us as if we were men."  I
hope the Attorney General  may press his charge; I like to see  persecu-
tion carried to such a length; for the strongest bow, Avhen bent too far, will
break.
  Deborah De Puy is also assailed  as unworthy of credit.  She calls her-
self the wife of  Hiram De Puy, with  whom she has lived ostensibly in that
relation for seven years,, in, I believe, unquestioned fidelity to him and her
children.   But it appears  that she has not been married with the proper le-
gal solemnities.  If she were a white woman, I should regard her testimony
Avith  caution, but the securities of marriage  are denied to  the African race
over  more than half this country.  It is within  our  OAvn memory that the
master's cupidity could divorce husband and wife within  this State, and sell
their children, into perpetual bondage.  Since the Act of Emancipation here,
what has been done by the white man to lift up the  race  from the debase-
ment into Avhich  he had plunged it ?  Let us impart to Negroes the knowledge
and spirit of Christianity, and share with them the privileges, dignity and
hopes of citizens and Christians, before we expect of them purity and self
respect.
 '  But,  gentlemen,  even  in a  slave  State, the  testimony  of this witness
would receive credit in such a cause, for Negroes may be Avitnesses there,
for and against persons of their own caste.  It is only when the life,  liberty
or  property of  the  white man is invaded, that the  Negro is disqualified.
Let us not be too severe.   There was once upon the earth a Divine Teacher
who shall come again to judge the world in righteousness.   They brought to
him a woman taken in adultery, and  said to him that the laAv of Moses di-
rected that such should be stoned to death,  and he answered : " Let him
that is without sin cast the first stone."
   The testimony of Sally Freeman, the mother of the Prisoner, is ques-
tioned.   She utters the  voice of nature.  She is the guardian whom God
assigned to study, to Avatch, to learn, to know what the Prisoner  was, and
is, and to cherish the memory of it forever.   She could not forget it if she
would.   There  is not a blemish  on the person of any one of us, born Avith
us or coming  from  disease or  accident, nor have we committed a right or
wrong  action, that  has not been treasured up in the memory of a mother
Juror!  roll up  the  sleeve from your manly arm,  and you wUl find a scar
there of Avhich you know nothing.   Your mother will give you the detail of
every day's progress of  the preventive disease.  Sally  Freeman has the
mingled blood of the African and Indian races.   She is  nevertheless a wo-
man, and  a mother, and  nature bears witness in every climate and every
country, to the  singleness and  uniformity  of  those' characters.   I  have
known and proved  them in the hovel of the slave, and in the wigwam of the
Chippewa.   But Sally Freeman has been  intemperate.   The white man 
422
THE TRIAL OF
enslaved her ancestors of the one race, exiled and  destroyed those of  the
other,  and debased them all by corrupting their natural and healthful ap-
petites.  She comes honestly by her  only vice.   Yet Avhen she comes here
to testify for a life that is dearer to her than her OAvn, to say she knows  her
own son, the white man says she is a drunkard!  May Heaven forgive the
white man for adding this last, this cruel injury to the wrongs of such a
mother!   Fortunately, gentlemen, her character and  conduct are before
you.  No woman has ever appeared with more decency, modesty, and propri-
ety than she has exhibited here.   No witness has dared to say or think that
Sally Freeman is not a woman of  truth.  Dr. Clary, a witness for the
prosecution, who knows her well, says, that Avith all her infirmities of temper
and of habit, Sally  " was always a truthful woman."  The Roman  Cornelia
could not have claimed more.  Let then the stricken mother testify for  her
son.
               " I ask not, I care not—if guilt's in that heart,
               I know that I love thee, whatever thou art."

   The learned gentlemen who conduct this prosecution have attempted to
show that the Prisoner attended the trial of Henry Wyatt, Avhom I defended
against an indictment for Murder, in this Court, in  February last; that he
listened to me on that  occasion, in regard to the impunity of crime, and that
he went out a ripe and complete scholar.  So far as these reflections affect
me alone,  they are unworthy of an answer.  I pleaded for Wyatt then, a3
it was my right and  my duty to do.  Let the Counsel for the People prove
the Avords I spoke,  before they charge me with  Freeman's crimes.   I am
not unwilling those words should be recalled.  I am not unwUling that any
Avords  I ever spoke in  any responsible relation, should  be remembered.
Since they avUI not  recall those words,  I avUI do so  for them.  They were
Avords like those I speak  now, demanding cautious  and impartial justice;
words appealing to  the reason, to the consciences, to the humanity of  my
felloAv men; words calculated to make mankind know and love each  other
better, and adopt the  benign principles of  Christianity, instead of the long
cherished maxims of retaUation and  revenge.  The  creed of Mahomet was
promulgated at a time when paper was of inestimable value, and the Koran
teaches that every scrap of paper which the believer has saved during his
life, will gather itself under his feet, to protect them from the burning iron
which  he must pass over, while entering into Paradise.   Regardless as I
have been of the unkind construction of my Avords and actions by my co-
temporaries, I can  say in all humility of spirit, that they are freely left to
the ultimate, impartial consideration of mankind.   But, gentlemen, how
gross is the credulity implied by this charge !  This stupid idiot, who cannot
take into his ears, deaf  as death, the Avords which  I am  speaking to you,
though I stand within  three feet of him, and who even now is exchanging
smiles with his and my accusers, regardless of the deep anxiety depicted in 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
423
your countenances, was standing at yonder post, sixty feet distant from me,
when he was here, if he was here at all, on the trial of Henry Wyatt.  The
voice of the  District Attorney reverberates through this dome, while mine
is  lost almost Avithin the circle of the bar.   It does  not appear that it was
not that voice that beguiled the maniac, instead of mine ; and certain it is,
that since the Prisoner does  not comprehend the object of  his attendance
here hoav, he could not have understood any thing that occurred on the trial
of Wyatt.
   Gentlemen,  my  responsibilities  in this  cause are discharged.   In the
earnestness and  seriousness with Avhich I have  pleaded, you will  find the
reason  for the firmness with which I have resisted the popular  passions
around me.  I am in some degree  responsible, like every other citizen, for
the conduct of the community in Avhich I live.   They may  not inflict on a
Maniac the punishment of a Malefactor, without involving me in blame, if I do
not remonstrate.  I cannot afford to be in error, abroad and  in future times.
If I were capable of a sentiment so cruel  and so base, I ought to hope for
the conviction  of the accused ; for then the vindictive passions, now so highly
excited, would subside, the consciences of the wise and the humane would
be aAvakened, and  in a few months, the invectives which have so long pur-
sued me, would be hurled against the Jury and the Court.
   You have now the fate of this  Lunatic in your hands. To him as to me,
so far as we  can judge, it is comparatively indifferent Avhat be the  issue.
The Avisest of modern men has left us a saying,  that " the hour of death is
more fortunate than the hour of birth," a saying Avhich he signalized by be-
stoAving a gratuity twice as great upon the place where he died as upon the
hamlet where he was born.  For ought that we can judge,  the Prisoner is
unconscious of danger and would be insensible to suffering, let it come when
it might.  A verdict can only hasten, by a few months or years, the time
Avhen his bruised, diseased, wandering and  benighted  spirit shall return  to
Him who sent  it forth on its sad and dreary pilgrimage.
   The  circumstances under which this trial closes are peculiar.  I have seen
capital cases  where the  parents, brothers, sisters, friends of the accused sur-
rounded him, eagerly hanging upon the lips of his advocate, and watching
in the countenances of the Court and Jury, every smile and froAvn which
might seem to indicate his  fate.   But there is no such scene here.  The
Prisoner, though in the greenness of youth, is  withered, decayed, senseless,
almost lifeless.   He has no father here.  The descendant of slaves, that father
died a victim to the vices of a superior race.  There is no mother here, for
her child is stained and polluted Avith the blood of mothers and of a sleeping
infant;  and  "he looks  and laughs so that she cannot bear to look  upon
him."   There is no brother, or sister, or friend here.  Popular rage against
the accused has driven them hence, and scattered his  kindred and people.
On the other side I notice the  aged and venerable parents of  Van Nest,
and his surviving children, and all  around are mourning and sympathizing 
424
THE TRIAL OF
friends.  I know not  at whose  instance they have  come.   I dare not say
they ought not to be here.  But I must say to you that Ave  live in  a Chris-
tian and not in a Savage State,  and that the affliction which has fallen upon
these mourners and us, was sent to teach them and  us mercy and not retal-
iation ;  that although  we may send this Maniac to  the scaffold, it will not
recall to life the  manly form of Van Nest,  nor reanimate the exhausted
frame of that  aged matron, nor restore to life, and  grace, and  beauty, the
murdered mother, nor call back the infant boy from the arms of his Savior.
Such a verdict can do no  good  to the living, and carry no joy to the dead.
If your judgment shall be swayed  at all by sympathies so Avrong, although
so natural, you will find  the saddest hour of your  life to be that in which
you will look down upon the grave of your victim, and " mourn Avith com-
punctious sorrow" that you should have done so great injustice to the " poor
handful of earth that will lie mouldering before you."                 ,
   I have been long and tedious.   I remember  that it is the harvest moon,
and that every hour is precious  while you are detained from  your yellow
fields.   But if you shall  have bestowed patient attention  throughout  this
deeply interesting investigation, and shalL in the end have discharged your
duties in the fear of God and in the love of truth justly and independently,
you will have laid up a store of blessed recollections for all your future days,
imperishable and inexhaustible.
   Mr. Van Buren,  (the Attorney General) then addressed  the Jury in
substance as follows:
If the Court Please,—Gentlemen of the  Jury:
   It did not need the very able argument that has  been  submitted to you
by the prisoner's counsel, to remind the prosecution of the  great disadvan-
tage the people  have labored under in conducting this case.  The learned
gentleman who has just addressed you, has not only brought to the task his
usuaUy great ability, but throughout the trial, as well as in his closing argu-
ment, has seemed  to believe, and I  fear has impressed the Jury with the
belief, that his own character and position, rather than those of the prisoner,
are involved in your  decision.   I beg  you to dismiss any such idea.  That
distinguished  citizen  has  spent the larger portion of his  life amongst you ;
he is your neighbor and friend ; and if he were upon trial, it would better
become a stranger like me, and  be more agreeable to my inclinations, to en-
ter a nolle prosequi, than press  for a conviction.
   It is a gratifying feature in our institutions, that an ignorant and degraded
criminal like the prisoner,  who has spent a large portion of his life in prison ;
vicious and intemperate in his  habits; of a race socially  and politically de-
based ;  having confessedly slaughtered a husband, wife, son and mother-in-
law, composing one of the first  families in the State  ; and arrested Avith but
one cent in his  pocket, can enlist in his  defence the most eminent counsel
in the country, bring upon the  witness' stand Professors of the highest  dis-
tinction in their departments of science, members and trustees of churches, 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      425
 and even pious divines.  It is particularly gratifying to those whose official
 duty requires them to participate in this prosecution, because it assures them
 that there is no danger that the slighest injustice can be done to the prisoner
 from an inability to secure friends and testimony, at any distance or at any cost.
 It is also gratifying to those Avho desire to see an impartial administration of
 justice, that the prisoner has been able to select a jury under circumstances
 that so clearly forbid  the idea that his rights are endangered by passion or
 prejudice.  Three of the  jurors have been selected from a panel which were
 present during the whole preliminary proceedings in this case, and  which
 was exhausted without the exercise of a single  peremptory challenge; and
 from the thirty talesmen who  had  been then summoned, the requisite num-
 ber to complete the  panel have  been chosen,  using only nine out of  the
 twenty peremptory challenges Avhich the laAv allows him.  Every thing thus
 indicated that a calm and  dispassionate examination  Avould be given to a
 case which had  once deeply and naturally excited the community; that
 at  all events, however imperfectly the rights of the  people might be pro-
 tected or presented, the strong public sympathy which ahvays turns its back
 upon the  dead and its face towards the bring, and the sturdy independence
 which stands by the Aveak  and helps the helpless, had attracted to the pris-
 oner and enlisted in his cause an  unsurpassed combination of kind feeling,
 rare intellect, extensive learning,  and vast acquirements.
   That the prisoner at the bar slew John  G. Van Nest at the time and in
 the manner charged in the indictment, is not now (said Mr. V. B.)  a fact
 in dispute.  His defence is made to rest on the ground of insanity.  And there
 is to me something so  repulsive  in the idea of trying an insane  man—so
'horrid is  it to contemplate the possibility of holding  a man responsible  for
 the commission of an act which  he could  not understand or avert—that I
 gladly availed myself of the request of Mr.  SeAvard, to visit the prisoner Avith
 him before the preliminary enquiry, that I might at least be satisfied  of the
 propriety of my own conduct. I did so with the hope of feeling authorized
 to  postpone this trial; and in a  short intercourse,I became perfectly con-
 vinced that at that time the prisoner at the bar was sane. I did say,  as has
 so often been repeated, that if I believed  I could  not detect or suspect in-
 sanity in an  individual when apprised of it  beforehand, at  liberty to con-
 verse freely with him, and having my attention drawn to the peculiarity of
 his derangement, I Avould resign the office I  hold.  I repeat  the assertion
 noAv ;  and I will only add, that nothing in the course of this trial has in any
 degree weakened my conviction of the prisoner's sanity.  And  that he Avas
 sane on the 12th of March, Avhen  the murder was committed, is not only es-
 tablished  by the testimony,  but  laying out of vieAv the murder itself, there
 is not a particle of evidence of any act or declaration on his part for several
 weeks before the tragedy, during  its commission, or for several days subse-
 quent, on  which a suspicion of insanity could be raised.   His minute history
 has been  furnished by the  defence from nursing childhood to the sixth of 
THE  TRIAL OF
this  month—the history of a well known man, born and  brought up here,
where he is on trial.  But the  history is silent when it approaches the  date
of this fearful  transaction.  It glides almost Avithout touching, over the days
of preparation and the  sad  night of performance; it carefully avoids the
darkness and day of flight; it does not indulge us Avith the  interview with
the De Puys in Oswego, friends and connections though they be of the pris-
oner;  it skips from  the  perjured John  De Puy in   December, and the
friendly black  Adam Gray in January, over to the theological and scientific
conversations in the jail after the arrest, when the defence of insanity was
interposed or determined on.   What means this great chasm ?  Why is the
testimony so barren while the delirium  must haA'e been most intense ?   Why
is not Mrs. WiUard called, Avith Avhom the prisoner Hved after he quit Adam
Gray's ?   Why has not Mary Ann Newark, Avith whom he lived at the time
of the murder, and for ten days before, been able to state  some careless re-
mark, some odd  gesture, some  unAvillingness or inability  to  sleep,  arising
from insanity, ill health, or intemperance ?   Why has not some Avitness been
called by the defence, who spoke with the prisoner within ten  days of the
crime ?   Where are the Oswego De Puys, to Avhom Freeman fled, with whom
he sought refuge the day after the murder, and  Avho turned  him out of the
house suspecting he had stolen the horse ?  [Testimony of Amos, p. 205.]
This vacuum has been supplied by the prosecution, and a future recurrence
to it  will show that it aU tends with unerring certainty to one point—the
guilt of the prisoner.
  The preliminary proceedings in the case have established nothing except
that  the prisoner should be tried. It is not correct to  call  the interposition
by the prisoner's counsel of the objection of insanity, a plea of inanity*
The  prisoner had not then been arraigned, and the objection  taken was not
to the indictment, but to a trial.   We have, therefore,  consumed  a fortnight
in  determining whether the prisoner shall be tried ; in the course of which
nearly all the testimony we noAv have, has been detaUed to another  jury to
satisfy them that the prisoner was insane,  Avhen they were called on to de-
termine the state of his mind.   They were  not able to come to such a conclu-
sion.  He has since been arraigned, plead not g uilty, the evidence again de-
tailed before you, and the defence insisted on, that he Avas insane on the 12th
of March last, Avhen the murder was  committed.   The extraordinary doc-
trines put forth upon the subject of insanity in the course  of  this trial; the
wonderful effort made to procure the acquittal of this prisoner; the extreme
length to which  the proceedings  have been protracted—all conspire to ex-
cite the public mind, and tb render the result to which you shall come, a
matter of immense moment.  The defence of insanity differs from all  oth-
ers in this—that the declarations and acts of the prisoner constitute this de-
fence.   In every other criminal case  they are not even admissible  in  evi-
dence. And the peculiarity of this case is, that the testimony on which insan-
ity is predicated,  so far as it comes  from scientific  or credible  witnesses, 
                          WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      427

consists of the acts and declarations of the prisoner after the first Monday
of June last, Avhen he had  been arrested for this crime, identified by Van
Arsdale, (who, being alive, must secure his conviction,) and had interposed
the defence of insanity !
  WUliam Freeman  was  born and brought up in Auburn.  For five years
prior to last September he Avas in the Auburn State Prison.   The  medical
gentlemen who are his witnesses testify that he has dementia, which is a form
of insanity gradual in its  approaches.  John De Puy swears he was crazy in
prison.  He resided in Auburn nearly his entire life.   How then does it hap-
pen that every important fact on which the jury are asked to believe that he
was insane on the 12th of March last, should have occurred since the first
Monday of June, and under the  circumstances I have stated ?  I ask you,
without seeking to cast the slightest suspicion on the counsel for the prisoner,
whether these considerations do not require you to scrutinize strictly a de-
fence which can always be manufactured easily,  and Avhich comes to you in
this instance under such extraordinary circumstances ?  An atrocious slaugh-
ter has been perpetrated; the instrument by which it was effected is in your
hands, to be disposed of, and it is unnecessary for me to say to you that your
own safety, public justice, the existence even of law and government, may
be  affected  by your  action.
   Was the Prisoner Insane on the 12th of March last ?
   Insanity, as constituting  legal  incompetency or irresponsibility, must be
within the  comprehension of any ordinary man of fair  capacity.   I deny
and resist the theory of  the Professors, who haA-e made insanity their pecu-
liar study, that an ordinary man can't comprehend it—a theory which sub-
stitutes the testimony of a physician, as to legal responsibility, for the law of
the land—expels the Judge from the bench and the Jury from the box—over-
turns the government, and places  the Property, Liberty, and Life of any
citizen  in the hands of the Trustees and Superintendents of Lunatic Asylums.
   No  legal act  can be done  by a person  of unsound  mind.  Does
an individual execute a  deed ?  his legal capacity is  disputed, and medical
gentlemen deny it.   Does he make a  will ? his dissatisfied connections seek
to set it aside.  Every peculiarity that he ever manifested, eA-ery odd remark,
thoughtless  act, singular  gesture, is appealed  to, to  establish his  incompe-
tency ;  and medical gentlemen not only pronounce their opinion of the state
of  his mind, but they insist that ordinary observers are incapable of forming
an opinion upon it.   An indiA'idual commits a crime.   If he is not of sound
mind, he is irresponsible; and medical men in all these cases claim  to render
the Verdict and pronounce the judgment.  The jury thus see the  infinite
extent to which a surrender of their  individual  judgments might  lead, and
the absolute control of Property, Liberty, and Life, that might thus be trans-
ferred to men of  scientific pursuits.  The  security of all these great interests
rests on the trial  by jury, and our institutions are founded on the capacity
of jurors to determine inteUigently every question presented to them. 
428
THE TRIAL OF
  Criminal irresponsibility is a question of law, not of medicine.  Were it oth-
erwise—did the detection of offenders or the prevention of crime depend upon
medical skill, our police should be composed of Physicians and Nurses.  The
moral insanity which is induced  by a predominance of the  passions,  and
which irresistibly impels to  the commission of crime, such  as  Pyromania,
Cleptomania, Erotomania, Nymphomania, Homicidalmonomania, must be de-
tected by the tongue and  the pulse.  Our families cannot walk the streets
in safety till they have been swept by a squadron of Doctors;  and  if the
punishment of crime is to be determined by medical rules,  the Professors
should sit upon the bench  and  fill the jury box.   This  prosecution is un-
suitably conducted.   The Executive of the  State should  have sent the Sur-
geon  General  instead of the Attorney General to assist at this trial.  But
no, gentlemen ! the law allows no such absurdities.  You receive the testi-
mony of medical men.  You receive their opinions and  hear the  grounds
on Avhich they rest.  The immense latitude which has been allowed them
on this trial, has  given you abundant opportunities of  testing their skUl,
judgment and information; and with the aid of these, and with  a statement
of the laAv in regard  to responsibility as it has stood for ages, with safety to
the people and security to the  rights of  the  criminal,  you  determine for
yourselves the guilt or innocence of this prisoner.  And now, after all the ef-
forts that have been made to establish the  immunity of the prisoner, by call-
ing clergymen to testify that he has no moral sense—that he is not morally
responsible ; medical professors to prove that he ought not to be punished—
that they consider him diseased with insanity ; laAvyers to  swear that he
knows no more than a dumb beast, and cannot distinguish between killing
a horse and a man ; and a prison keeper to prove that he did not punish him
because he did not consider him responsible, let us turn to the law to see
what  state of  facts the  prisoner must prove, before  you are  authorized to
acquit this frightful homicide of being a wilful murderer.  And let me stop a
moment to say that those Avho claim that vast improvements have been made
in the science of insanity;  that the early tests of insanity were barbarous
and inhuman ; that the law noAV falls behind science in determining irrespon-
sibility ;  and that, therefore, Juries should take the law from the lips of med-
ical witnesses on the stand, in preference  to the law-givers of the Consti-
tution, speak, as it seems to me,  without  examination or reflection,  and
without  due knowledge of the enlightened Avisdom, learning and humanity
they condemn, or of the fearful  hazards they propose to encounter.
  Who may, and avIio may not kill, it concerned society to have decided as
far back  as the time of  Cain and Abel; and whilst we concede that vast im-
provement has been made  in  the treatment of the insane, a reference to
the simple and early tests of legal irresponsibility, under Avhich Avell ordered
communities have existed to this time, will show that no other has ever been
furnished by the successive wisdom of ages or the  humanizing  spirit which
has waited on this wisdom and  pervaded criminal  legislation.  Under this 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
429
 test, too, uniformly laid down by English and  American judges and com-
 mentators, prisoners indicted for the highest crimes  have been acquitted.
 Hadfield, who shot at George III in  1800, and Avas indicted for high treason,
 was acquitted.   Oxford, who shot at the Queen in 1840, and was indicted
 for high treason, Avas acquitted.  McNaughton, who killed Mr.  Drummond,
 Secretary to Sir Robert  Peel, in 1843, Avas acquitted.  In each case the
 defence Avas  insanity.  The eloquence, therefore, that inveighs against the
 barbarity of  our laws;  against the severity of Hale and Blackstone ;  the
 oppression of our Courts  and of those of Great Britain; and calls upon us to
 reject the tried  experience and security of law, and cleave to the subtleties
 of  the Asylum,  does not  spring from past evil or danger, and finds no justi-
 fication in the history of English jurisprudence.   So far from it, a student or
 lover  of the principles  of justice, finds in it  every  thing  to  confirm his
 preference of the enlightened liberty of the old common law over the vaga-
 ries of the new schools.
   What, then, is the unsoundness of mind and memory which renders the
 subject of  it incompetent and  irresponsible ?   In a criminal case, it is an
 INCAPACITY TO DISTINGUISH  BETWEEN RIGHT AND AVRONG IN REGARD
 TO TOE PARTICULAR ACT COMMITTED, OR  AN INABILITY FROM DISEASE
 to resist the commission of tiie act.  This  is the earliest and latest
 definition of  insanity, in  the legal understanding of the term, and covers ev-
 ery case where a party is excused in law from the responsibility of his acts.
 This-defence is  to be established beyond reasonable doubt  by satisfactory
 evidence.  The  law presumes a person to be sane  till his insanity is proved.
  Let us advert to the authorities.   Not to Esquirol, Pritchard, Ray, Pinel;
 but to  Coke, Hale, Blackstone,  Kenyon, Denman,  Maule, Tyn-
 dall, Van Nest, Verplanck, and to other luminaries of the law, under
 whose administration and teaching the public peace and  happiness have re-
 posed  securely for centuries.   Lord Coke classifies irresponsible persons as
 follows, and Dr. Hun testifies that while the classification might perhaps be
 improved,  it coA-ers every species  of insanity  known to modern science.
 He says:
  " Non compos  mentis is of four kinds: 1. Idiota, which from his nativity by a
 perpetual infirmity is non compos mentis.  2.  He that  by sickness, grief or
 other accident, wholly loses  his memory and  understanding.  S. A lunatic
 that hath sometimes his understanding and sometimes not, and therefore he
 is called non compos mentis, so  long as he hath not understanding.   4.
 Lastly, he that for a time  depriveth himself,  by his OAvn vicious act, of his
 memory and understanding, as he that is drunken."   [1  Black. Com. 303.]
  Lord Hale says: " But it should  be obserAred  that every person at the
 age of  discretion is presumed sane, unless the contrary is proved; and if a
 lunatic has lucid intervals, the law presumes the offence of such person to
have  been committed in a lucid interval, unless it appears to have been
committed in the time of his distemper."   [1  Hale, 33, 34.] 
430
THE TRIAL OF
   " An Idiot is a fool or madman from his nativity, and one who never has
 lucid intervals: and such a one is described as a person that cannot number
 twenty, tell the days of the  week, does not knoAV his own father or mother,
 his own age &c.;  but these are mentioned as  instances only, for  whether
 idiot or not, is  a question of fact for the jury-"
   Lord Hale says: [1 Hale, 34.]  " One who is surdus et mutus a nativitate,
 is in  presumption of law an idiot, and the rather because he has no possi-
 bility to understand what is forbidden by law to be  done,  or under what
 penalties; but if it appear that  he has the use of understanding,  which
 many of that condition discover by signs, to a great measure, then he may
 be tried and suffer judgment and execution, though great caution should
 be used in such a proceeding."
   Blackstone says:  [4 Black. Com.  24.]  " The second cause of deficiency
 in will, which  excuses from the guilt of crimes, arises, also, from a  defect-
 ive or vitiated understanding, viz: in an idiot or a lunatic ;  for the rule of law
 as to the latter, which may be  easily adapted, also, to the former,  is, that
 'furiosus furore solum punitur.'   In  criminal cases, therefore, idiots and lu-
 natics are not chargeable for  their own  acts, if committed when under
 these incapacities,  no, not  even for treason itself.   [1  Hale  26.]   And
 with a careful regard for the rights of prisoners, he says:  ' Also, if a man
 in his sound memory commits  a capital offence, and,  before arraignment
 for it he  becomes  mad,  he ought not to -be arraigned for it, because  he is
 not able to plead to it with that advice and caution that he ought. And, if,
 after he has pleaded, the  prisoner becomes mad, he shall  not be  tried; for
 how can  he make  his defence ?  If, after he  be tried  and found guilty, he
 loses  his senses before judgment, judgment shall not  be  pronounced; and
 if, after  judgment, he becomes of non-sane  memory, execution shall be
 stayed: for peradventure, says the humanity of the English laAv, had the
 prisoner   been of sound   memory,  he  might  have alleged  some-
 thing in  stay of judgment or execution.  Indeed,  in the bloody reign of
 Henry the VIII, a  statute was made which enacted, that if a person being
 compos mentis, should commit high treason, and, after, faU into madness, he
might be tried in his absence, and  should suffer death as if he were of per-
 fect memory.'  But this savage dan inhuman law was repealed by the Stat-
ute.   [1 & 2.  Ph. & M. ch. 10.]  ' For,' as it is observed by Sir Edward Coke,
' the execution of an offender is for example,  ut pcena ad paucos, metus ad
omnes  perveniat:  but so it  is not when a mad-man is executed, but should
be a miserable spectacle,  both against law, and of extreme inhumanity and
cruelty, and can be of no  example to  others.'"
   In James Hadfield's case, tried  in the year  1800, the counsel for the pris-
oner, (the late Lord Erskine,) in his  very able address to the jury, put the
case as one of a species-of insanity in  the nature of a morbid delusion of the
intellect,  and admitted  it was necessary for them to be satisfied that the act
in question was the  immediate, unqualified offspring of the disease. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                     431
  And Lord Kenyon held:  " That as the prisoner was deranged immediately
before the offence-was committed, it was improbable that he had recovered
his senses in the interim.   And  although, were  they to run into nicety,
proof might be demanded  of his insanity at the precise moment Avhen the
act was committed, yet there being  no reason  for believing  him  to  have
been at that period a rational and accountable being,  he ought to be acquit-
ted."   [1 Russ. on Crimes, 13.]  Under this charge, Hadfield was acquitted.
   In the recent trial, in 1840, of  Oxford for shooting at the Queen,  Lord
Denman,  C. J., told the jury :  " Persons prima facie must be taken to be
of  sound mind  till the contrary is  shown.  But a person may commit a
criminal act and  not  be responsible.  If some controlling disease was in
truth the acting power Avithin him, which he could not resist, then he will
not be responsible.  It  is not more important than difficult to lay down the
rule by Avhich  you are to  be governed.   On the  part of the  defence it is
contended that the prisoner was non compos mentis, that is, (it has been said,)
unable to distinguish  right from wrong,  or, in other words, that from the
effect of  a diseased mind, he did not  know at the time  that the
act  he did  avas  wrong.  Something  has been said about the  power to
contract and to make a will;  but I  think that those  things do not supply
any test  The question is, Avhether  the  prisoner  was laboring under that
species of insanity which  satisfies you that he was  quite unaware of the
nature, character, and  consequences of  the act he was committing,  or, in
other  words, whether he was under  the  influence of  a diseased mind, and
■was really unconscious, at the time he  was committing the act, that it was
a crime."   [King  vs. Oxford, 9 Car. & Payne, 525.]   And  under this
charge Oxford was  acquitted.
   In  Alison's principles of the Criminal  Law of Scotland, [p. 654.] (and
 there is no difference between the law of England and the law of Scotland,
 with reference to insanity,)  it is said :   " That to amount to a complete bar of
 punishment, either at the time of committing the offence or of the trial, the
 insanity must have been of such a kind as to entirely deprive the  prisoner
 of the use of  reason, as applied to the act in question, and the knowledge
 that he was doing wrong in committing it.  If, though somewhat deranged,
 he is able to distinguish right from wrong in his  own case, and to  know
 that he was doing wrong in the act avhich he committed, he is
 liable to the full punishment of his criminal act."
    Justice Van Ness says: " In aU cases Avhere the act of a party is sought
 to be avoided on the ground of his mental imbecility, the proof of the fact
 lies on him who alleges it;  and until the contrary appears, sanity is to be pre-
 sumed.   This is taken for  granted in all the elementary Avriters, and in all
 the adjudged cases, both in laAv and  equity.  The rule has its qualifications,
 one of Avhich is, that after a general  derangement  has  been shown, it is
 then incumbent on the other side to  sHoav that the party Avho did the act Avas
 sane at the very time when the act was performed.  To say that sanity is 
432
THE  TRIAL OF
 not to be presumed until  the contrary is proved, is to say that  insanity
 or fatuity is the natural state of  the  human mind."  \p  John. R. 158,
 Jackson vs. Van Dusen.]   See the authorities  quoted in this case by Van
 Ness, J., in delivering the opinion of the court.
   The acquittal of Daniel McNaughton for the murder of Mr. Drummond,
 on the  ground of insanity in March, 1843, gave rise to  a  discussion in the
 House of Lords, and the folloAving questions of law Avere propounded to the
 Judges  in relation to the law respecting  crimes committed by persons af-
 flicted Avith insane delusions.
   1.  What is the laAv respecting alleged crimes, committed by persons af-
 flicted with insane delusion, in respect of one or more particular subjects or    •
 persons; as,  for instance, Avhere at the time of the commission of the alleged
 crime, the accused knew he was acting contrary to law, but did the act com-
 plained of Avith the vieAV, under the influence of  insane delusion,  of redress-
 ing or revenging some supposed grievance or injury, or  of  producing some
 supposed public benefit ?
   2.  What are the proper questions to be submitted to the  jury when  a
 person alleged to be afflicted with insane delusion, respecting one or more
 particular subjects or persons, is charged with the commission of  & crime,
 (murder, for example,)  and insanity is set up as a defence ?
   3.  In what terms ought  the question to be left to the jury as to the pris-
 oner's state of mind when the act was committed ?
   4.  If a person under  an insane delusion as to existing facts, commits an
 offence in consequence thereof, is he thereby excused ?
   5.  Can a medical man, conversant with the disease of insanity, who never
 saw the prisoner previously to the trial, but who was present during the whole
 trial,  and the examination of all the witnesses, be asked his opinion as to the
 state  of the prisoner's mind at, the time of  the commission of the alleged
 crime, or whether the prisoner was conscious, at the time of doing the act,
 that he Avas acting contrary to law, or whether he was laboring under any,
 and what delusion at the time ?
   Mr. Justice Maule, amongst other things, stated;in reply, that, " to render
 a person irresponsible for crime on account of unsoundness of mind, the un-
 soundness should, according to the law as it has long been understood and
 held,  be such as to render him incapable  of knowing right from
 wrong."
   Lord Chief Justice Tyndall, in delivering the opinion of all the  judges,
with the exception of Mr. Justice Maule, held as follows, and in answer to the
 second and  third  questions, said: " As  these  tAvo  questions appear to be
more  conveniently ansAvered together, we have to submit our opinion to be,
that the jury ought to be told in all cases, that every man is to be presumed
to be  sane, and to  possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for
his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction, and that to es-
tablish a defence on the  ground of  insanity, it must be clearly proved, that. 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
433
at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring  under
such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to knoAV the nature
and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not
know he avas doing avhat was wrong.   The mode of putting the lat-
ter part of the question to the jury on these occasions, has generally been,
whether the accused, at the time of doing the act,  knew the  difference be-
tween right and  wrong ; which mode, though rarely, if ever, leading to any
mistake with the jury, is not, as we conceive, so accurate when put generally
and in the abstract, as when put with reference to the party's knoavledge
OF right and  avrong in respect to the very act avith avhich he
is charged.  If the question were to be  put as to the  knoAvledge of the
accused, solely and exclusively with reference to the law of the land, it might
tend  to confound  the jury, by inducing them  to  believe  that an  actual
knowledge of the law of the land Avas essential in order to lead to a convic-
tion; whereas, the  law is administered upon the principle that every one must
be taken conclusively to know it, without proof that he  does know it.   If  the
accused was conscious that the act was one Avhich he ought not to do, and if
that act Avas at the same time  contrary to the law of the land, he is  punish-
able ; and the usual course, therefore, has been  to leave the question to the
jury, whether the party accused had a sufficient degree of reason to know
that he avas doing an act that avas wrong ; and this course we think
is correct, accompanied with  such observations and explanations as the cir-
cumstances of each particular case may require."
   To the fourth question, they replied, that " the answer must of course de-
pend on the  nature of the delusion; but making the same  assumption we
did before, namely: that he  labors under  such partial  delusion, only, and
is not in other respects insane, we think he must be considered in the same
situation, as to responsibility, as if the facts with respect to which the delu-
sion exists were real.   For example :  if under the influence of his delusion
he supposes another man to be in the act of attempting to take away his
life, and he  kills that man, as he supposes in self-defence, he would be ex-
empt from punishment.  If his delusion was, that the deceased had inflicted
a serious injury to  his  character and fortune, and he killed him in re-
venge  FOR  SUCH SUPPOSED  INJURY, HE WOULD  BE LIABLE TO PUN-
ISHMENT."
   In regard to the testimony of  medical men, they say: " We think the
medical man, under the circumstances supposed,  cannot in strictness  be
asked his opinion in the terms above stated, because each of those ques-
tions involves the determination of the truth of the facts deposed to, which
it is for the jury to decide, and the  questions are not mere  questions upon
a matter of science, in which case such evidence is admissible ;  but where
the facts are  admitted or not disputed, and the question becomes  substan-
tially one of science, only, it  may be convenient to  allow the question to
be  put in that general form,  though the same  cannot be insisted on as a
              28 
434
THE TRIAL OF
matter of right"   [Case  reported 47  Eng. Com.  Law,  129,  Note  to
Reg. vs. Higginson.]                                                 .
  Let us turn now for a moment to the rule laid down by our own courts to  '
test  the  sanity of a  testator.  In  26th Wendell, 265, the validity of Alice
Lispenard's will came before the Court of Errors on appeal.  The Surrogate
of New York, in giving his opinion on the A'alidity of the instrument, thus des-
cribes her: " It is unnecessary to go back to the infancy of Alice, or to con-
sider her condition  before  she attained  her eighth year.  Anterior  to
that year, the difference between her and her companions of a similar age,
was not so great and  had not yet manifested  itself so strongly as it did at a
later period.  It is no uncommon thing to see children whose looks in early
life are heavy and indicative of dullness and stupidity, prove afterwards to
be persons of excellent understandings.
  "Alice was possessed of the five natural senses which  are  generally re-
garded as the inlets of knowledge.   She had  acquired the faculty of speech.
That requires some degree of mind and memory;  and hopes were enter-
tained by her  parents that she was capable of improvement,  and of re-
ceiving at least the  ordinary rudiments of instruction.  A teacher in  the
house was provided,  under whose  charge she was placed.  The attempt of
instructing her was commenced, and was no doubt anxiously pursued for
some time, when,  to the great  grief of her parents, the experiment  failed;
and the extraordinary and mortifying fact was disclosed, that AHce was in-
capable of being taught to read, and much less to write.  The utmost length
to Avhich she  ever progressed, was  to spell words of two syUables ; and it is
very remarkable, that when, more than forty years  afterwards, the attempt
was renewed by Mrs. Stewart, the result was attended with no  better suc-
cess, and the same number of syllables again proved an insuperable barrier—
the ne plus ultra of advancement.   Her parents, perceiving that  all their ef-
forts to impart  instruction were unavailing, and only had  the effect of ren-
dering her unhappy, were finally compeUed to abandon the attempt as alto-
gether hopeless.  From the school in the house, she went with  her sister a
quarter or two to a school in Dutch street, more,  probably, with a view of
accompanying  her sister  and accustoming her to female society, than with
any expectation of being instructed.
  " At this epoch of  her life, her mental defects became apparent and stri-
king ; and she  passed from adolescence to womanhood, possessing  the body
of an adult and the mind of a chUd.  Mrs. Satterthwaite, who had frequent
opportunities of seeing her, and who, being older, was capable of observing
and judging, describes AHce, Avhen between twelve and fifteen years of age, as
having a vacant expression of countenance; a foolish manner of holding her
head ; dribbling at the mouth; a silly laugh when spoken to, and generally
answering in monosyllables; requiring a person to attend her; unable to
take  care of  herself,  and washed and put to bed like a child; incapable of 
WILLIAM FREEMAN
435
 being instructed, and never joining with the rest of her children  in their
 sports and amusements.
   " William Baldwin, who lived with her father ten years, and who during
 this  period saw Alice every  day, confirms this description, and adds, that
 she knew nothing of the value of money; had seen the experiment  tried,
 when she preferred  a sixpence to a dollar, and that, too, when she  was be-
 tween sixteen and eighteen years of age.  She was generally crying and
 was voracious and immoderate in her eating and drinking.
   " Mrs. Elizabeth Stanton,  who was a  companion of the oldest daughter,
 Helen, and who was about twelve years older than Alice, represents her ap-
 pearance as that of  an idiot;  and  that, as she grew up, she was different
 from other chUdren, never joining them in their little plays and diversions ;
 was of a sullen and  quarrelsome disposition; would get angry and cry for
 the slightest cause; and, whether pleased or the contrary, exhibiting pretty
 much the same  expression of countenance."
   Yet the will executed by this person was upheld by the Court of Errors.
 The  accomplished Verplanck, one of the first writers and scholars of our
 country, in delivering his opinion in  favor of sustaining the will, and in de-
 claring the standard of a sound mind which the law had fixed, said:
   " Again, taking mankind such as observation shows us human nature to
 be, can any other than this  be a safe, prudent,  just or politic rule ?  When
 we observe the strange incongruities of human  nature ; the astonishing mix-
 ture of sagacity and weakness in the same mind ; the ' fears of the brave and
 the follies of the wise;' when literary biography shows us the discoverers of
 truth and the teachers of  wisdom, like Newton and Pascal, suffering under
 the variable weather of the mind, the flying  vapors of incipient lunacy;
 when  in  ordinary life it often  happens that the most sagacious and prudent
 in many of the affairs of business, are yet, in some points of domestic con-
 duct or some one  matter of opinion or action, guilty of absurdities such as
 the feeblest minds could not commit; one might almost adopt the startling
 conclusion of Dr. Haslam, who,  after years of professional observation of
 the phenomena of mental disease, when examined in the remarkable case of
 Miss  Bagster, in  answer to the customary question—'Was Miss B., of
 sound mind ?'—replied: ' I never knew any human being who was of sound
 mind.'  So, again, if we look around our own circle of acquaintances, every
 one must have known aged, blind or infirm persons, unfitted, by the state of
 their minds or of their senses,  for the management of any affairs, and from
 their necessary seclusion from the concerns of life, entertaining false notions
 and mixing up  the past with the present.  Yet these, and such as these,
 may, by the aid of their friends and families, upon whom they have a right
 to rely, and with a general understanding of their own intent and the effect
of their acts,  make wills,  conveyances and other dispositions of property,
which could not be set aside without gross and manifest hardship and injus- 
436                         THE TRIAL OF
tice.  To establish any standard of intellect or information beyond the pos-
session of reason in its loAvest degree, as in itself essential to legal capacity,
would create endless uncertainty, difficulty and  litigation; Avould shake the
security of property, and wrest from the aged and infirm that authority over
their earnings or savings, which is often their best security against injury and
neglect.  If you throw aside  the old common law test of capacity, then proofs
of wild speculations, or extravagant and  peculiar opinions, or of the forget-
fulness or the prejudices of old age, might be sufficient to shake the fairest
conveyance or impeach the most equitable will.   The law, therefore, in  fix-
ing the standard of positive legal competency, has taken a low standard of
capacity ; but it is a clear and definite one, and therefore wise and safe.   It
holds (in the language of the latest English commentator)  that' weak minds
differ from strong ones only in the  extent and power of their faculties :  but
unless they betray a total loss of understanding, or idiocy or delusion, they
cannot properly be considered unsound.'  "  [Shelford on Lunacy, p. 39.]
   Such is the language of Senator  Verplanck in this celebrated case ; and
he precedes it by an elaborate revieAv of English and American cases which,
he claims, confirm  his views.  But  it is with responsibUity for criminal acts
that you have to do; and it will not be denied that an individual  Avho may
be incompetent to  perform a legal act, may yet be responsible for the com-
mission of Crime.
   What then is the inquiry that this review of adjudged cases, and reference
to established authorities, calls upon you to make in this case ?  The simple
question  for you to  determine is, had the prisoner, when he killed
John G. Van  Nest, sufficient  capacity to judge whether it was
right or wrong so to do ?   And if  he had, did any disease divest
HIM OF CONTROL  OVER HIS ACTIONS ?
   You are not called upon to determine the extent or nature of his infor-
mation or acquirements.  It is not material what are his views on the sub-
jects of Religion,  Morality or  LaAv.   He may deny the existence of a  Su-
preme Being—reject Revelation and believe that the Son of God Avas  a
Man; he may  think he was wrongfully imprisoned—that he ought to be
paid for the time he has lost and the labor he has performed ; he may make
unsuccessful attempts to obtain pay; failing of this, he may levy War on  So-
ciety and kill the first man he meets;—and yet he is no less amenable
TO PUNISHMENT.
   Ignorance of no kind excuses. Mr. Hopkins errs in supposing that " the ex-
tent of information is the measure of responsibility."  [p. 246.]  A criminal
may never read or hear of a Statute; nevertheless, public safety requires
that he should  be  punished  for a violation of it, if he  knows the act he is
committing  is wrong.  In the vast majority of cases it is the  ignorant and
irreligious that commit crimes.  Dr. Fosgate errs in thinking that " the LaAv
could not impose any rules or regulations upon the human constitution as it
is given  by the Almighty."   [p. 233.]  His theory happens to overturn the 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       437
precise  office of all government, Human and Divine.   To borroAV an iUus-
tration of the Doctor, " a dog in a sound state of mind" ought not so entirely
to overlook the \*ery end for which governments were instituted.
   This prisoner may really believe that Avhen he was struck with a board,
his hearing  was knocked down his throat; he may believe he can read and
count, when he cannot; (this, I presume every one believes  who reads and
counts inaccurately ;) he may think Van Nest said to him " if you eat my
liver, I'll eat yours;" he may think Jesus Christ is a man whom  he  met at
Sunday School; he may haA'e killed the Van Nest family for revenge, plun-
der, amusement, or for no conceivable cause;  he may be deaf, ignorant,
morally insensible, eccentric, willful;—still by the Law he must be punished,
if HE VOLUNTARILY DID WHAT HE  KNEW TO BE WRONG.   It  is not  ac-
complishment, refinement, morality or religion, but accountability that  the
Law regards.   The Supreme Ruler of the Universe holds to the same rule.
Neglected opportunities, willful ignorance, deadened moral  sense,  and in-
veterate depravity, will avail  as little hereafter as here, in  saving  sinners
from responsibility.   The only inquiry will be—had they capacity to
KNOAV THE RIGHT, AND PHYSICAL ABILITY TO PURSUE IT.
   Let us  apply this test to the Prisoner's case.
   Sanity is the natural state of Man.  The Law presumes a party to  be
sane; and Ave having proved the commission of the acts charged in the in-
dictments, the Prisoner must be com-icted unless he has satisfied you beyond
aU reasonable doubt, that when they were committed he was irresponsible.
   We are asked what motive the Prisoner had in committing these murders.
We  answer, frankly, that we  cannot  say.  If you were bound to find his
motive, on oath, although the testimony Avould incline you to the belief that
his purpose was revenge, you would not in a case of life and death be willing
so to find.  The testimony shows that he was five years imprisoned on  a
conviction for  Larceny, as  he  claimed wrongfully; that he refused to Avork
on that ground ; that on coming out of prison last September, he inquired
for Jack  Willard,  Avho Avas a witness against him on his trial,  [p. 237]; and
that he went  seA'eral times to a Justice of the Peace to get warrants  for
those who swore against him.   Shortly before the murder he made several
efforts to  get redress for having been sent to prison.  He went two days
before to Esquire Bostwick.   [p. 291.]   The Saturday or Monday before, he
went to Esquire Paine,  [p. 25 7.]   To him he complained of his inability to
cet work.  He had been on the previous Monday to the house of Van Nest,
who refused to employ him.  [p. 199.]  He was well acquainted with the
premises,  having previously lived on them.  [p. 203.]  The  horse, for the
stealing of Avhich  he had been convicted, was stolen of Martha Godfrey.
He visited her  just before the murder and inquired in regard to it—said he
had  been wrongfully imprisoned for stealing it, and Avanted a settlement.
There is  no  doubt that he supposed  that Van Nest Avas concerned in  his
conviction.  Nathaniel  Hersey, a Negro companion of  Prisoner, swears 
438
THE  TRIAL OF
 that the  Prisoner told  him about a week before the murder,  that he had
 found the persons who swore him into prison, and that he was going to kUl
 them—that their name avas Van Nest.  [p. 195.]  Hersey told this
 the  same  night to Mr.  Stephen  Titus, [p. 196];  also to John De Puy.
 [p. 241.]   The day the Prisoner was brought to the Jail, he  told Ethan A.
 Warden  that he killed the Van Nests  because  they swore  him
 into  prison,  [p.  211.]   He told Aretus A. Sabin the same thing, the
 same day.  [p. 332.]  And after the murder he rode into the widow God-
 frey's  yard, as he has frequently  confessed;  but  there being lights there
 and being wounded, he made off.  [pp.  235, 213.]  He was drunk that
 day and had drank a pint of liquor the afternoon of the murder,  [p. 267.]
   Is it difficult to believe, when we knoAV he was thus maddened by liquor,
 fiUed Avith the belief that Van Nest had " swore him into prison," and bent
 on redress, that he gave true answers to  Dr. Bigelow  and Esq. BostAvick
 immediately  on his arrest ?  They asked Avhy he kUled that family.  To
 the former he said:  " Well,  to see if I could'nt get revenge, or get some
 pay for being in State's  Prison about a horse;  and I did'nt do it."  And to
 the latter—" I couldn't get any satisfaction, and I meant to be revenged."
 Shakspeare, who knew  the human heart as well as if he'd made it,  paints
 a money-lending JeAV, who,  indignant at the  insults and oppressions prac-
 ticed on his caste, prefers the  taking of human  life  to the  re-payment of
 three thousand ducats.  Shylock, when asked if he will  take the pound of
 flesh, and  what that's good for, says: " To bait fish withal: if it will feed
 nothing else, it will feed my revenge.   He hath disgraced me. * * * * And
 what's his reason ?  I am a Jew.  Hath not a Jew eyes ?  Hath not a Jew
 hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions ?   Fed with the same
 food—hurt with the same weapons—subject to the same diseases—healed by
 the same means—warmed and cooled by the  same winter and summer as a
 Christian  is ?   If you prick us, do we not bleed ?   If you tickle us,  do we
 not laugh ?  If you poison us, do we not die V   And,  if you wrong  us,
 shall we not revenge ?  If we are like you in  the rest,  we will resemble you
 in that If a Jew wrong a Christian what is his humUity ? Revenge.  If a
 Christian  Avrong a JeAv, what should his sufferance be by Christian example ?
Why, Revenge."  And again,

              " You'll ask me, why I rather choose to have
              A weight of carrion flesh, than to receive
              Three thousand ducats :  I'll not answer that:
              But say it is my humor ; Is it answcr'd f
              What if my house he troubled with a rat,
              And I be pleased to give ten thousand ducats
              To have it ban'd? AVhat, are you answer'd yet 1
              Some men there are, love not a gaping pig;
              Some, that are mad if they behold a cat;
                       Now for your answer ;
              As there is no firm reason to be render'd
              Why he cannot abide a gaping pig; 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                        439
               Why he a harmless, necessary cat;

               So can I give no reason, nor I will not;
               More than a lodg'd hate, and a certain loathing
               I bear Antonio, that I follow thus
               A losing suit against him.  Are you answer'd 1"

   This Prisoner  had a reason for slaughtering this  family.   His threat,
 preparation, lying  in  wait, selection of them, avoidance of others,—all in-
 dicate a fell purpose  to  destroy Van Nest.   I  believe his motive was re-
 venge.  It may have been plunder.   He may have had confederates.  This
 family was known to be  rich—their residence retired.  The blow given him
 by Mrs.  Wyckoff caused his flight; and he had  neither time nor strength to
 rob.  It is  of  no  earthly consequence,  except  to satisfy an idle  curiosity,
 what his motive was.  No adequate  motive, of course, existed.  The  Rev.
 Dr.  Austin  thinks Freeman  not  sound, because he can " assign no motive
 adequate to a sound mind for the commission  of this crime."  Was there
 ever a Murderer that could ?
   Henry Green was convicted in July of last year, of murder in Rens-
 selaer county.   He was  a young man of good family and of property ; and
 had married a lovely girl to whom he professed  the most ardent attachment.
 He  poisoned her with arsenic in pills which he  had procured for her to re-
 lieve a slight indisposition.   He put  arsenic in  her tea, coffee, toast, water,
 broth, soup, and every thing she  drank for forty-eight hours, till she  died.
 This occurred  within a week after the  marriage.  Not the slightest differ-
 ence ever occurred between  them.  He was proved to have burst into  tears
 when she began to manifest the effects of the poison—called  on the neigh-
 bors and said  he Avas afraid she was  going to die, and went after a Physi-
 cian.  He  attended her sick bed until almost the moment  of her death,
 when he fainted and was removed.   Her suffering Avas  so intense that she
 was  with difficulty prevented from tearing open her  throat and stomach;
 and  yet this creature calmly  and steadily mixed, in her medicine, her drink,
 her food, the arsenic Avhich was burning her life out!  We proved no mal-
 ice—we  could hardly conjecture  any;  yet  he  was convicted.   He subse-
 quently confessed that he committed the crime with the intention of marry-
 ing another woman of small property  and no attractions.  He was executed.
 Now, when such demons exist, how idle is it for a man of ordinary honesty
 or humanity to liunt after the motive  of a criminal ?
   This Prisoner is and always has been, driven by the slightest causes into
 bursts of ungovernable passion.  As  a boy he amused himself with stoning
 other,  boys.   [p.  333.]   When  larger he  threw a flat-iron at Jefferson
 Wellington,  [p. 332.]  In Jail before  he Avent to State Prison, he fought
 and  flogged  another prisoner,  [p. 330.]  In  State 'Prison  he attacked  a
 convict for moving his boots after they had been greased, and lamed him for
a week, [p.  282] ; fought another  about some yarn, [p. 283] ; assaulted the 
440
THE TRIAL OF
Keeper Tyler—struck him with his fist, then made at him with a knife, [p.
263,] and was  with difficulty subdued.  Just before the murder he .threat-
ened the life of JohnDe Puy, who forbade people giving him rum, [pp. 195,
241] ;  and in March last, the day after the  Murder, he had a severe fight
with Amos, Avho arrested him, and said,  as Amos sAvears, "if he had a knife
he  would gut me."  [p.  205.]   Such a temper as this, influenced  by such
trivial  causes, animating  its desperate and reckless possessor, requires but
little inducement to the commission of any crime.
  The motive of a  criminal is important when there is no direct evidence
that he has committed the crime.   Circumstantial evidence is vastly strength-
ened by proof of a strong motive actuating the accused, and impelling him
to the act with  which he is sought to be  charged.  But where, as here, the
testimony is direct and conclusive that the bloody deed was performed by
the  Prisoner, his motive  ceases to be material.  It  is not given to man to
search the heart  Let that investigation be transferred to a Tribunal before
which this Prisoner must shortly appear.  The illegal act being proved, the
Law declares the motive. That motive is malice—a aa'icked, depraved
heart.
  But  Doctor Brigham testifies that the Prisoner is insane ;  and  Doctors
McCall, Coventry, Van Epps and Fosgate agree with him.  They also give
it as their opinion that the Prisoner must have been insane on the twelfth of
March; and that is the time, of course, to which you will direct your atten-
tion.  The humanity of our Statute allows no insane man to  be tried.  A
preHminary inquiry has satisfied this Court that the Prisoner is not insane ;
and he has been put upon trial.  Should he hereafter  become  insane, the
same Statute  provides that he shall not  be sentenced or executed while in
that condition.   [2 R. S.  697.]  But the present inquiry is,  was he in-
sane ON THE TAVELFTH OF MARCH ?
  If the Prisoner was insane on the twelfth  day of March, he must be ac-
quitted ; and the testimony of Doctor Brigham being most important, I shall
call your attention to it particularly.  Before doing  so, however, allow me
to say, that I feel, in common with the Avhole public, the obligations we are
under to Dr.  Brigham, for his unwearied efforts and extensive researches in
the humane and benevolent mission  of alleviating the unfortunate condition
of those whom  God has bereft of reason.  The great good he has thus ac-
complished reflects  credit on him, on the Institution over which he presides.
and on the  State, and elevates  the social condition of the age.  I admire
his  intelligence  in his profession, and his kindness of heart; and I feel happy
to think that the acquaintance I have enjoyed with him for years might al-
most give me the right to claim him as a personal friend.  But you and I see
perfectly the  difficulty Avith him as  a Avitness on  the stand.  He is as pro-
foundly ignorant of Law as he is familiar with Medicine.  He  is utterly un-
accustomed to the prejudice, perversion and perjury of witnesses ; and com-
ing from the Asylum Avith  a conviction that Freeman must be insane because 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
441
he does not assign, and the Doctors cannot guess, an adequate motive for the
crime, his  only inquiry is, to which class of insane persons he shall assign
the Prisoner;  and without stopping  to reflect whether the Prisoner or his
witnesses .may not lie, he notes doAvn, as the trial proceeds, here a fact deno-
ting Dementia, and  there another indicating Homicidal Monomania;  now
something  that looks like General Mania, and there a suspicion of Clepto-
mania; occasional symptoms of Macho Mania, and  again strong manifesta-
tions  of the Lying Mania.  On such testimony he builds his theory.   He
will not sit still to hear a witness cross-examined.  If the Avitness  John De
Puy (the brother-in-law of Prisoner, Avhom I moved to have committed for
glaring perjury on the stand, a motion yet undisposed of,) SAvears  to Free-
man's being up at night, dancing Avhen he should have been asleep, Doctor
Brigham makes a memorandum—" Restless nights—Insanity ;" and I can't
get him to sit still till the cross examination shoAvs that the true entry should
be " N'.gro Frolic—Rum."   He will not believe our witnesses because they
do  not see Avhat he has pre-determined exists.   He believes the Prisoner's
mother quicker than a disinterested witness.   When asked if  he relies on an
unchaste black, he replies with charming ingenuousness, " I do believe Debo-
rah."  You can furnish him no proofs of sanity, for there is  nothing he has
not seen or heard of insane people doing.  He is filled with vagaries of the
insane—ignorant almost of the  habits of the  sane.  With the nature of
blacks he  is  peculiarly unfamiliar.   He does not know Avhether they ever
tan.  He cannot tell whether illness makes  them pale.  He thinks  Free-
man ought to  have fled faster ;  yet he cannot tell  the distance a horse will
ordinarily travel  in  a day.   He  considers the conduct of Freeman in the
presence of the Magistrates  Paine and Bostwick, evidence of insanity; yet
he  will not admit that the Magistrates themselves, who differ with him, are
better judges than he, of  what they saw and  he did not.  He thinks Free-
man's asking for a summons  was evidence of insanity;  yet Avhen I ask him
what process he ought to have demanded, he answers—" I do not  know.  I
do not knoAV a summons from a subpoena.  I am summoned here to testify !"
   His (Doctor Brighatn's) memory, too, is treacherous.  He commenced his
testimony by saying that he had  been asked by me what there was in the
expression of an insane man Avhich he could detect, and yet could not des-
cribe.   He said, by Avay of illustration, that he had seen in court a man that
he kneAV to be insane ; and yet he could not tell how he kneAV it, or describe
it.   Mr. Seward asked him to  point out the  man, and he did  so.  We
called the  man inside the bar;  suffered him to talk before you;   and you
saw that he Avas a maniac, with a Avild, rolling eye and senseless discourse,
that a child would discover to be insane.   And the  constable (Cannon)
swears that he first pointed out this man to  Dr. Brigham, as insane.   This
Doctor Brigham denies.
  Let us now look at the grounds of his belief that the prisoner was insane
on the tAvelfth of March.   He  never saAv him  till in  June last,  after the 
442
THE TRIAL OF
 defence of insanity had been interposed. His belief, therefore, is founded on
 the evidence in the case, and his own  examination since the first of June.
 His own examination he places little stress on, except as satisfying him that
 Prisoner is not feigning insanity.   We could have saved him  the necessity
 of this.  We admit that the Prisoner does not feign insanity.   He occasion-
 ally  tells  abominable falsehoods—such as  his assertion  to Amos, the day
 after the murder, when trying to sell the horse he stole and ran aAvay with.
 Amos  asked where he got the horse, which you recollect was Burrington's.
 He replied, " he had a horse given him and had  traded round till he got
 this  one."  [p. 204.]  Equally false were  his statements to the Rev. Mr.
 Austin, that he never heard of Wyatt—never knew he had committed mur-
 der—never heard of his trial—did not know what his  defence was—what
 the. result was—was not present, &c. [p. 247.]
  Wyatt was tried in March for murder.   The defence was insanity.   The
 Jury disagreed; and the Prisoner was  present, an  apparent Ustener, during
 much of the trial,  [pp. 324,  327, 334.]  It is impossible, recollecting as he
does, and repeating  the minutest circumstances of his entire  life,. that he
 can have forgotten this;  and yet the Rev. Mr. Austin, to whom he denied
 aU knowledge of  Wyatt, swears,  " I haA'e no  idea  that he did lie.  His evi-
 dent candor and frankness conA'inced me that he was not lying." [p.  255.]
 His denials, too,  of knowing Van Nest, are false.  He visited Van Nest's
house the Monday but one before the murder, and asked Van Nest to hire
 him.  He entered the back door.   He had acquired a familiarity with the
premises by living on them some years  before, [p.  198.]   These, therefore,
 are gross falsehoods, but they do not indicate that he feigns insanity.
  Doctor Brigham then proceeds to give his views  of the testimony given in
 the case;  and here let  me say that if you differ with him as to Avhat has
 been proved, his opinion falls to the ground.   It is based on Avhat  he con-
siders the evidence in the case.   If the base  faUs, the superstructure must
 fall;  and this is  precisely the point in Avhich, as I have already said, the
 difficulty lies with Doctor  Brigham's testimony.  Let us  begin  by  looking
 at his ideas of responsibility.   He says, if I should take  this knife and kill
 one  of you,  and sit down, he would swear I was insane.  So if I  should
 shoot into  the Jury box and kill a half dozen  Jurors, if that was all that
 appeared, he would swear I was insane, [pp.  302,  303.]
  If  a witness SAvear  against me in a civil suit for a large amount, and I
should kill him, Dr. Brigham swears he would think me sane; but  if for a
small amount, he should think me insane,   [p. 306.]
  Noav, gentlemen, upon such a state  of facts as  either of these, the LaAv
says  I am a Murderer; and  you will readily see that the safety of  Society
consists in upholding this LaAv.  To make the  crime itself and alone proof of
insanity, is to extend entire immunity to men of standing who choose  to turn
criminals.  He applies the same rule to theft, malicious and wanton injuries,
and other crimes,  [p. 303.]  Doctor  Brigham does not seem to haA-e the 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
443
 remotest idea of the frightful jeopardy in which his notions and his evidence
 place the Property and the Life of the  Citizen.   And when I look at his
 artless countenance, and hear the mild, amiable and gentle tones of his voice,
 Avhile he is innocently dealing with doctrines that may convulse  Society to
 its centre, he reminds me more of a child playing Avith  Lightning, than a
 Scholar and Philanthropist bringing the lights of Science to aid the investi-
 gation and establishment of truth.
   But what are the facts  that Dr. Brigham considers proved ?   He thinks
 insanity existed in the Prisoner's  ancestors.   In this he errs.   The Prison-
 er's father drank himself to death.  His mother is part Indian, and is, and
 always  was intemperate,   [pp. 291, 322.]   True, the black man, David
 Winner, testifies that his aunt,  Jane Brown, and his sister are crazy   [pp.
 258, 259.]   The  Prisoner's brother-in-law,  De  Puy, confirms  this as to
 Jane BroAvn.   [p. 238.]   But  Doctor BigeloAV tells you he never  heard
 that Jane BroAvn was crazy till the commencement of  this trial; he  never
 saw any thing to indicate insanity in her except ordinary intoxication, [p.
 350] ;  and Prisoner's  mother SAvears—" I  have three children ; had five; but
 none of them are crazy  but this  one."  [p. 286.]  The Prisoner's uncle,
 Sidney Freeman, is insane.  You will thus see that intemperance  is infi-
 nitely more the disease of his ancestors than insanity.
   Doctor Brigham's next  important fact  is an assumed change in the
 prisoner's temper and character.   He truly says: " So common is
 this change of character in insanity, that  many regard it as necessary to the
 definition of the term.  A prolonged change of character, without any evi-
 dent external cause, is given in many Avorks on insanity as a characteristic ;
 and the •cases are almost innumerable where such changes have come within
 my OAvn observation."  [p. 295.]   To the truth of this  I heartily  subscribe.
 It conforms to the general observation of mankind.  It is as good a definition
 of insanity as need be given.
   Has  any change taken place in the prisoner without exter-
 nal CAUSE ?
   We  have his  history from childhood.  He was born and brought up  in
 Auburn.  He was 21  years old last September. He has groAvn to be a man
 in size.  He Avas a mischievous boy;  and, utterly uncared for and unre-
 strained, he naturally ends  by being a criminal man.   He ran away from
 Warden, [p. 264]; 'he ran aAvayfrom Lynch, [p. 321] ; he never lived any
 considerable time in one  place,   [pp. 324,  325.]   He  Avas  ahvays violent,
 and A'icious in his temper.  I have  already referred you to his  continual
 fighting from childhood.  (Refers to testimony of Munroe.)  He was always
 profane.   Before he went to State Prison, Vanderheyden  pursued him, and
 overtook him on a canal boat; told him he had two Avarrants for him;  and
 the Prisoner replied :  " It is a d----d lie—you  have no Avarrant for me."
 [p.  331.]  In State Prison, Van Keuren  threatened to report him.  He re-
plied :" report and be-d----d."  [p. 326.]  When Amos arrested him after 
444                       THE TRIAL OF
 the murder, he was equally profane, threatening to rip him open if he had a
 knife.  In this, then, there is no change.
   He Avas  ahvays  extremely covetous and close in making bargains.   He
 insisted that Lynch should pay him five shillings a day for work, instead of
 four.   [p. 322.]   He saAved wood for Conklin, and insisted upon three shil-
 lings instead of two.  He claimed more from Murfey than he was Avillingto
 Pav> [p-  237]; and tried to get a summons from the Justices against  him.
 [p. 291.]  lie offered Morris tAvo shillings for a knife, the  price  of Avhich
 was four; then offered him four for a knife and handle,  [p. 170.]  Hyatt
 sold him  a knife for one shilling, the price of Avhich was two.  He  beat Hy-
 att doAvn on the price of a rivet from six pence to three pence,  [p. 188.]
 In this, then, there is no change.
  In his physical appearance there is no change except growth,
increased deafness and, possibly, the difference  in  sprightli-
 ness and frankness that you would expect to find betaa'een an
 unconcerned child,  and a discharged  state  prison  cona'ict.
 Lynch, [p.  323,] his  uncle Aaron Demun, [p. 324,] Wood, [p. 326,]  An-
 drus,  [p. 327,]  Simpson, [p. 328,]  Markham, [p. 329,] Austin,  [p. 330,]
 Sabin, [p. 332,] Munroe, [p. 333,] all of whom have known  the  Prisoner
nearly his entire life, and have had the best opportunities of judging, swear
there is no other change than I have described.  His relative, Robert Free-
man, called  by the defence, testifies  to the same thing, [p.  282] ; and the
colored woman, Mary Ann Newark,  with  whom  Prisoner boarded  at the
time of the Murder, substantially confirms him.   [pp. 281, 282.]    The
smile on which Dr. Brigham lays such weight, the Prisoner always had; so
had his father, and his  grand father, as these witnesses show.  It dbes not
prove insanity, but it does prove how true it is that a man may

                    " Smile and smile and be a Villain."

  How are you to find the fact of a change, in the face of all this evidence ?
Will you believe John De Puy ?  Even Dr. Brigham puts diminished trust
in him.   Ile is contradicted in every important fact he SAvears to.   He  says
Freeman could once read.  Freeman's mother says he never could.   Hotch-
kiss says  the same thing,  [p. 285.]   He SAvears he never saw the Prisoner
drink spirits.  The evidence is abundant that he again  and again forbade
people giving him liquor.  He swears that he noticed  nothing the day he
 was removed from prison, and acted like a fool; describes his buying a cap,
and mistaking quarter dollars for halves;  sitting on a pile of boards, and
 people asking De Puy " what d----d fool that was who was sitting there ?''
yet the Chaplain of the prison proves to you that the day he left the prison,
he appeared to feel well; made some music and fun; said when asked  to sign
the usual receipt for three dollars given prisoners on their discharge, that he
had been imprisoned unjustly and was'nt going to settle so; when told un-
less he signed  it he could'nt have the money, said he could'nt write;  was 
                          WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      445

told to make his mark, which he  did, and received  the money,   [p. 338.]
Do not forget that the idea of being entitled  to pay in the  prison is a com-
mon one among the convicts, as you have heard.
   What does honest Aaron Demun, the Prisoner's uncle, say of his appear-
ance on the day spoken of by De Puy ?   He saw the Prisoner the day he
came out of prison on the "opposite side of the street;" Prisoner said, " Un-
cle Aaron, how d' ye do ?"   Demun  asked how he did.   Prisoner replied
" Pretty hearty."  Did not seem deaf.  [pp.  324,  325.]   Is it not obvious,
then, that De Puy perjures himself?  He swears to Prisoner's running back
and forth in the streets of Auburn, in the day time, Avithout reason.  Not a
citizen of Auburn confirms this !  He contradicts himself.  He swears that
Prisoner, after coming out  of prison, only answered questions, and never
commenced conversation; yet he details an  animated description, an hour
long, given by Prisoner of a fight with Hoskins,  and another of half an hour
with Tyler,  [pp.  231,  241.]   He states that  Prisoner had a knapsack on
his back in prison and Avas crazy there.   No one of the Keepers confirms
this, or eA-er saw it   He swears that Prisoner is now crazy, and has been
for years.  He  denies that he said, since Prisoner Avas arrested, that he was
not crazy—only ugly when drunk.   Yet  Stephen S.  Austin, a perfectly  re-
spectable man, SAvears, that after the story got  round that Freeman was crazy,
he asked De Puy about it, and  he replied " No ! he  is no more crazy than
you or I, except Avhen he is drunk.   Then he's an ugly little devil, and I
Avas always afraid of him."  [p.  330.]  Munroe swears De Puy told him
Prisoner was not crazy,   [p. 333.]   He told others the same thing.  Under
these circumstances I felt it my duty to ask the  Court to  commit him for
gross and wilful perjury upon the stand, and  I  call upon  you totally to dis-
regard his worthless testimony.
  Where, then, will you look  for evidence  of change ?   To  Deborah De
Puy ?   She gives no facts,  and she either has  no memory or no character.
[p. 287.]  If she swears she has a husband and cannot remember where she
was married, when  she was married, whether she had a large wedding,  or
who married her,  what reliance  can you place upon her description of a
change in  Freeman ?  Or,  will you hear Sally Freeman ?  The Prisoner
did not live with her for five years before he went to prison.  She did not
see him the whole five years he was in prison ;  has seen him  half a dozen
times since; did not  see him  for two months  before the murder;  visited
him in Jail and asked him what made him commit the murders ;  he made
no reply.' She  gh'es no facts, and testifies with all the inducements to swerve
from truth, perhaps I might say the obligation, that hangs over a mother tes-
tifying for  a son's life.   Or, can you gather  the change from Ethan A.
Warden's testimony ?  The Prisoner lived with Warden  as a  lad; played
with his  children;  ran away when he was sent of errands.  Mr. Warden
swears he was  not discharged, but was sent of an errand, and never came
back.  He has been, then, on Mr.  Warden's errand ever  since! 
446                         THE TRIAL °*
   Mr. Warden has been  extremely active in preparing this defence;  m
 procuring witnesses;  assisting counsel;  qualifying himself to  testify, and
 testifying.   It is infinitely to be regretted that his curiosity as to the state
 of Freeman's mind, and the extent of his mental arid moral culture, should
 not have been awakened  eariier.   If Mr. Warden had examined the boy
 who lived with  him on religious subjects, and had given him a fair educa-
 tion, he might, at least, have been able to tell us what Freeman knew then
 that he has forgotten now,  even if he might not, perchance, have arrested
 the  catastrophe  we  are investigating.   Where have Mr. Warden's kind
 feelings for this boy slumbered during  the last fourteen years ?  Has he
 employed Freeman when he was hunting around Auburn for work ?  Has
 he inquired after his welfare ?  Has he ever spoken to him in the streets?
 Once, indeed, he  saw Freeman in  State Prison.   His counsel say he was
 imprisoned wrongfuUy.  Mr. Warden found in prison  the boy who had
 lived with him—the playmate of his  children.   Did he inquire how he came
 there ? whether he was guilty ? how he behaved ? when he was to come out ?
 what could be done for him ?  No: he observed a change, and truly there
 was one.  It Avas a great change from the fat of Mr.  Warden's Kitchen, to
 the leanness of a State Prison ;  from the frolic of childhood, to the respon-
 sibility of manhood; from sporting  with Mr. Warden's children, to hard
 labor and a convict's cell!  Mr. Warden observed this change, and although
 he made no inquiry as to the cause,  or effort to remedy it, he swears " he
 thought to himself whafs come over Bill ?"  Why, Mr. Warden might have
 remembered aU the causes for change  I have described, and  he ought to
 have recollected  that the law had come  over  Bill; that  he was a felon in
 prison at hard labor, not  a truant boy frolicking with Mr. Warden's chU-
 dren, and having the run of his  Kitchen.   And if Mr. Warden had sympa-
 thy to spare, then, and when Freeman  was discharged from prison,  were
 the occasions to procure  him employment, restore him to usefulness and
 happiness.   But he  has waited tUl  this man, driven to desperation, has
 committed a crime, the thought of which almost freezes one's heart, and  he
 stands (if .1 may so speak,) at the very  foot of the Scaffold!   Thus, Mr.
 Warden's horror of Capital Punishment, and peculiar views in other respects,
impel him to exertions to rescue this man from the law, the hundreth part
 of which, employed  a few months ago,  would have  made the Prisoner a
useful citizen, and  saved  an estimable  family from  butchery.   But Mr.
Warden's testimony shows  no change except what is natural under the
 circumstances; and the testimony against any change  is overwhelming.
   Has the Prisoner changed his habits ?  This  is one of the strongest
 tests in the books of Homicidal Monomania.  It is the test Dr. Brigham ap-
 plies to me.   Let us try the Prisoner by  it.  Vanderhcyden swears that he
 has had process several times for the Prisoner, for petit larceny, before he
 was sent to the  State Prison, and Avhen he must have been about fifteen or
 sixteen years of age.  [p.  331.]  He broke open a pedler's cart, and was 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
447
arrested for it.   He  then stole hens, and was arrested.   He was found  at
John  De Puy's under the bed.  He escaped from the  constable after he
was arrested;  Avas pursued and found on a canal  boat with a bottle in his
pocket, as I have already stated.   He was arrested then for stealing  Mrs.
Godfrey's horse, and discharged for want  of proof.   He was again arrested;
committed to Jail; broke the lock of the Jail;  let himself out and  another
prisoner;   was  pursued, overtaken, brought  back, tried, convicted, and
served five years in the State Prison at Auburn,  [pp. 326, 330.]   It  is
suggested that he  was innocent of the last offence.  The evidence in this
case leads to no such conclusion.  Vanderheyden  has that impression; but
it is incredible that this man could be tried here in Auburn, where he Avas
born  and  brought up; sent to the State Prison in this place Avhere he, even
now,  has  such Avarm friends, and stay there five years, an innocent  man.
He stands before  you as a man legally  convicted  of that offence.  Judge
Richardson, before whom he was tried, is a Avitness in this case, called by the
defence, and proves his conviction.   No question was asked him as to pre-
vious innocence, [p. 231] ; nor did the defence venture to ask such a ques-
tion of either of the witnesses we have called; i. e. Myers, the District At-
torney, who tried him ;  Markham, one of the Jurors; or Andrus, the Coun-
sel Avho defended him.   [pp. 293, 327, 330.]  The point is not essential or
 material  to this case ; but I have no doubt he was guilty of the offence for
which he was sent to prison.  He assisted another black, known as Jack Fur-
man, or Willard, in  stealing  Mrs. Godfrey's  horse.  He stole  Mrs. Wyck-
off's horse the night of the murder; this being worthless, he stole Burring-
ton's, and tried to sell it to Amos, Corning and others,   [p. 204.]   There is
no change here, then.   His habits are unchanged.  He lied in early life;  he
 lies now.   He SAVore before ;  he swears  now.   He fought before ; he  fights
 now.  He stole before ; he steals now.   He attempted  to kiU Tyler in  the
 prison ;  he kills the Van Nests now.  There is  no change in  him, except
 that  his depravity hardens with years.   What other indications does  Dr.
 Brigham find  in the case?   Sleepless nights; but there is no proof of this.
 Of De Puy I  have already spoken.  From De Puy's the Prisoner went to
 Adam Gray's.  Adam  Gray's testimony indicates that the excitement
 of Prisoner was caused by liquor, although  he never  saw him drunk  but
 once.  [p.  288.]  From Gray's he went in January last to live in a part of
 this village mostly settled by colored people, and  called  " NeAv Guinea," and
 there resided several weeks  with Laura Willard, the wife of the man who
 had  been concerned with him in stealing  Mrs.  Godfrey's horse.  Why is she
 not brought upon the stand ?   Willard  is now in  State Prison.  You, who
 saw the colored man, David Winner, on the stand, who says, " he can't read
 and can't count over one hundred without missing some—drinks spirits when
 he wants it, and don't when he don't," knoAV what value to attach to his  tes-
 timony.  Where is Laura Willard ?  and  why did the  Prisoner go  to live
 with the wife of one who had been his previous associate in crime ? one,  too, 
448
THE  TRIAL OF
who, it is contended,  swore  him into prison ?   Mary Ann  Newark,  Avith
whom Prisoner lived  at the time of murder, knew nothing of his being up
nights,   [p. 281.]   There  is, then,  no proof of sleepless nights Avithin a
month of the  time  of the murder.   Taylor swears  that  he  slept well the
night after;  and the Jailer SAvears that  his rest has never been broken, so
far as he knoAvs, for the four months  he has been in Jail, except one night
when he forgot to  give him his bedding.  Then he rattled  his chains and
knocked against the wall till it came.   [p.  335.]
   Doctor Brio-ham thinks  there Avould be a calm  after the homicide.   He
thinks he noAV has dementia;  but there would hardly be  an  uninterrupted
tranquillity in an insane man's rest for fh-e months, beginning a month be-
fore the murder, and continuing all through the tragedy and the trial!   You
will not find, therefore, in the evidence, the sleepless nights  on Avhich Dr.
Brio-ham relies.  He thinks the testimony shows the Prisoner's pulse irreg-
ular, but it does not.   Dr. Bigelow swears that at the commencement of a
long conversation his pulse was at seventy-seven ; afterwards, while standing,
eighty-one; Avhen about leaving him,  eighty-six. [pp. 213, 214.] Dr. Spen-
cer swears " the Prisoner has slept Avell, eat well, and is in good physical health
generally." [p. 353.] There is no derangment of the pulse proved; so far from
it, the Prisoner has a perfectly healthy pulse, except when terrified by threats
or fear of punishment. Not one of the  Physicians who examined him at-
tached importance to his pulse, as indicating insanity ; so far from  it, the tes-
timony of all of them  shows  that the  Prisoner's physical health is perfect.
   Doctor Brigham  is  strongly impressed  by his  inability to satisfy himself
of the motive for this murder.  On this I have already  commented.   He
thinks the testimony  shoAvs  that  the Prisoner  never asks questions.
Why, the testimony shoAvs that he continually does!   He  asked De Puy for
Jack Willard ;  he asked BostAvick for a Avarrant, and again for a summons;
he asked Paine for a warrant; he asked Austin if he had wood to saw; he
asked his uncle Demun how he liked  his place, and whether he was at work
steady ;  inquired of Simpson, Hyatt and Morris for knives.  If this is proof
of sanity, at or about the time  of the commission of the offence he asked
questions enough.  Since he has been in Jail, he has been continually occu-
pied in answering questions.
   Dr. Brigham thinks the external appearance of the Prisoner,  here
in Court, indicates insanity.  I appeal to you if this is so.   You have seen in-
sane persons.   You saw the man whom  Doctor  Brigham pointed out  in
Court.  I avUI read to  you from Esquirol the physical symptoms of dementia,
which Doctor Brigham says is the insanity of this Prisoner.  I cite Esquirol
because  Dr. Brigham says he is high authority.   Guy, Ray, Pritchard and
other writers, agree Avith  him.  Esquirol says:  " The face is  pale, the  eves
dull, and moistened with  tears, the  look uncertain, and  the physiognomy
without expression."  [p.  419.]  Of their habits, he says : " Almost all have
some sort of ridiculous habit or passion.  Some are constantly walking about 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
449
as if seeking something they do not find.  The gait of others is sIoav, and
they walk Avith difficulty.  Others, still, pass days, months and years, loca-
ted in  the same place, drawn up in bed or extended upon the ground.   One,
in an interminable babble, speaks in a loud voice, constantly repeating the
same Avords; another, Avith a sort  of continued murmur, utters, in a very
low tone,  certain  imperfectly articulated sounds—commencing a phrase
without being able to finish it.   The latter does not speak, Avhile the former
beats with his hands both night and day; his neighbor at the same time, bal-
ancing his body in the  same  direction, Avith a degree of monotony very fa-
tiguing,  even to  an observer.   One murmurs, rejoices, weeps and laughs
at the  same time; another sings, whistles and dances during the  Avhole day.
Many  clothe themselves in a ridiculous manner," &c.   [p. 418.]  In speak-
ing of their intellects, he says their sensations are feeble; cannot recall im-
pressions recently made ; cannot fix their attention; are consequently in-
coherent and disconnected in conversation and narration,   [p. 417.]
   Noav, has Freeman one of these symptoms, intellectual or physical ?   Has
he not sat  here  for  four weeks Avithout a single  grotesque or unnatural
movement ?  The smile  so often adverted to, he ahvays had ; so had his father
and grandfather.  You  have had opportunities for observing it for two en-
tire Aveeks, and will determine whether  it indicates any thing—and what
Aside  from  this, is there a single feature or movement  about him indicating
imbecility or insanity ?   Did you  ever see a sharper, brighter eye, or one
more fixed and resolute ?  Did  you eAer notice an  unnatural movement in
him?  EA-er obserA-e him for an instant  appear to be talking to himself?
Ever detect the slightest movement of, his lips, or the least wandering in his
eye?  I  have not.  Does he eA'er laugh ?   I have not heard him.  Is not his
memory  remarkably retentive ?  Does* he not detail to Lynch the minutest
circumstances of  his early as  well as his later life ?  [p. 322.]  Does he not
narrate to Wood all the  circumstances of his imprisonment, escape, flight and
capture ?  [p. 326.]  Does he not remember perfectly where he Avorked in
prison, Avhat at, and under whom ?   What did he  ever know that he has
forofotten ?  Is not his attention perfect ?  Does he ever wander from one
subject to another, or betray the least incoherence ?  I can find no evidence
of it.  If I  Avere asked  to name the disease he certainly has not,  I should
name dementia.
  I have thus gone through, in detail  with all the circumstances of  any mo-
ment on Avhich Dr. Brigham founds his belief of the  Prisoner's insanity. He
has also favored us with an elaborate explanation of the facts on which we
rely to establish his sanity—such as preparation, design, concealment,  mem-
ory, flight;  these can as well be considered by you  as by him.
  It is  doubtless true, that there is no one thing a sane man  docs, that Dr.
Brigham has not heard of some  insane man doing;  but  it will be for you to
inquire, presently, whether all these evidences of sanity can possibly  com-
bine in the case of the same insane man.  Meantime, I ask you whether the
               29 
450                         THE TRIAL OF
  testimony does not overwhelmingly contradict all the facts on Avhich Doctor
  Brigham's theory of insanity rests ?  Were the Prisoner's ancestors insane ?
  Has his character, habits or  appearance changed without external cause ?
  Had he sleepless nights at the time of the murder, or at any time, from dis-
  ease ?   Is it proved that he could have had no motive for the murders ?   Is
  his pulse irregular ?   Does he ask no questions ?  Does his external appear-
  ence indicate dementia ?  I submit to you that the reverse of all this is true ;
  and.if so, the theory constructed on these false facts must fall.
    Doctors McCall and Coventry reside in the same toAvn Avith Dr. Brigham.
  The latter is a Trustee of the same Asylum, and both claim to derive most
  of their experience from observation in that institution.   They naturally
  agree with Dr. Brigham;  Dr.  McCall is, in addition, a Phrenologist, and
  says he  can judge by  Freeman's external appearance that he is insane, and
  what the character of his insanity is.  He thinks Prisoner has  cleptomania,
  which is an irresistible propensity to steal,  [p. 310.]  He thinks the small-
 ness of  his head  denotes insanity; yet it is  as large as Dr. Brigham's or
 mine.  He thinks  he  leans too  much forward; yet  that is the way a deaf
 man tries  to hear.  He thinks the holding of his arms aAvkward; yet he
 seems to forget that Prisoner  has been wounded in  both arms.   In oue re-
 spect, Doctors Brigham and McCall differ ; both agree that insanity is a dis-
 ease.  Dr. Brigham thinks it  in some forms contagious ;  Dr. McCall thinks
 it not strictly contagious, but at times epidemic. He  says  it  appears epi-
 demic on the coming of warm weather,  [p. 310.]  Dr.  B.  is sorry to hear
 of cases  of homicidal monomania, for fear it will induce others to imitate it.
 In that way he thinks it may  be called contagious !  [p. 305.]  Contagious
 by imitation !  This is indeed a peculiar disease ! I can imagine crime be-
 ing contagious by imitation, but that  disease should be  thus contagious,
 seems to me singular.  I do not think it is true of any other disease but in-
 sanity.   At aU events, I cannot realize  that I should ever begin to shake,
 from seeing another man with the fever and ague !  There is a  breadth and
 brilliancy in these theories that reach far beyond the institution from which
 they emanate; and the Professors may well think that
                   "No pent up Utica contracts our powers,
                   The wide—the boundless continent is ours."
   Dr. McCall thinks that the  Prisoner's insane delusion was that he was
 AvrongfuUy imprisoned  and was  entitled to pay.  He thinks  the insane im-
pulse under which the  Prisoner committed the murders, was in some degree
manifested  in prison, in the attack upon  the convict and the officer,   [p.
 308.]  Now, this delusion is certainly epidemic in the prison, as the  testimony
shows; and if the violence and the homicide Avhich it provokes, in the prison
and out,  should become contagious, this community would be afflicted with
a more fatal pestilence  than Asiatic Cholera or the Plague.  It seems to me,
under these circumstances, that public safety calls for a severe treatment of
the early cases.  [Mr.  V. B. then commented in detail on the testimony of 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
451
  Doctors Van Epps, Briggs, Fosgate, Hermance, Hun and McNaughton, and
  on the testimony of Curtis, Green, Smith, W. T. Worden and others.]
    The Reverend John M. Austin has satisfied himself t!yu the Prisoner's
  mind  " is in a shattered or unsound state, though he can give no technical
  name  to the  difficulty."  [p. 251.]  Mr. Austin is  the  Pastor of the Uni-
  versalist Church  in this vUlage.  He is opposed, as he  swears, to hano-ing
  any one, and cannot think it right to take the life of another,   [p. 252.]
  He has written for religious and political papers in regard to this case;  em-
  ployed.Acounsel; taken a trustee of his Church (Mr. Curtis) to the Jail, pre-
  paratory to his being a witness ; gone  there with other witnesses; talked of
  the case a hundred times, [p. 254] ; and gives us his own views on the stand.
  He swears  he is " quite confident that a sane man tAventy-three  years old,
  who cannot read, but thinks he can—Avho cannot count more than twenty-
  seven  or eight, but thinks he can, cannot  be found in  this county."   He
  therefore thinks Prisoner  insane.  What  does Dr.  Bigelow testify  to?
  He says, " I have known men in  prison over twenty-three years old,  who
  could not multiply two by four, and  who could not read.   I have seen both
  white and colored men in that condition.  A few days since, I examined a
  prisoner by the name of James Madison.  He is a negro, twenty-four years
  of age.  I asked him to let me hear him count; he said, ' twice ten is twenty,
  three times ten is fifteen.'  I asked him how much two times four was;  he
  said ' it Avould be nine.'   I asked him how many days there were in a week •
  he answered, 'six.'  I asked hiin Iioav many  shillings  there were in a dollar ;
 he said, ' I could'nt tell that'  I asked  him how many days there were  in a
 month  and  how many cents there  were in a shilling,  and he made the same
 answer.  I asked how many hours there were  in a  day; he said  ' I don't
 knoAV, sir; I could'nt tell.'  He counted up to thirty regularly, and then said,
 'forty,  fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety, sixty, forty, forty-one, forty-two,
 forty-three, forty-five, forty-seven, forty-eight, forty-nine.'  I then said,' then
 what ?'  He replied, ' I don't know; I can't make it out'   I asked how many
 quarts  there were in a  gallon; he said, ' I can't tell.'  I  asked how  many
 pecks there were in a  bushel; he  said, ' I guess it is three pecks, three or
 four,  let me see; I believe it is two pecks in a half a bushel; I guess it is
 four pecks in a bushel.'  I asked how much six and seven  were;  he said,  ' it
 would be thirteen.'  I then asked him  to  count again.   He began with
 ' ninety,'  and  continued, ' thirty, twenty-three,  twenty-four, twenty-five,
 twenty-six, tAventy-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty;
 that's as far as I went the first time;  I can't  go no further.   Stop, I can go
 one more—sixty, sixty-one, sixty-two, sixty-five, sixty-seren ;  there, I Avont
 count any more.  That's as far as I went the first time, and  I made a balk.'
 The other was a Avhite man, by the  name of Jacob  Miller.  His age was
 twenty-nine.  Seeing him in the prison, I called him up to me and asked him
if he could read; he said he could.  I asked  him to call over the letters of
the alphabet.  He called them correctly.  I  then pointed to this sentence, 
452
THE TRIAL OF
 ' The  old Romans used to write in the Latin language.'   He then began to
 read by saying—' T-h-e o-l-d R-o-m-a-n-s old man ,u-s-e-d seat t-o w-r-i-t-c
 church in t-h-e L^-a-ti-n tin 1-a-n-g-u-a-g-e Jesus.'   I asked  him if he could
 count  bills ;  he said,  ' I can't count one bill  from another.'  He said, ' nine
 and nine Avere nineteen, and that six and five Avere fifteen, and that seven"
 and eight Avere eighteen.'   He said, ' three times four were thirteen,' and
 counted to forty-five,  and from  fifty to seventy-nine, correctly ; but he could
 not count correctly to one hundred.   He  didn't knoAV hoAv many pints there
 were in a quart, nor hoAv many pecks there  Avere in a bushel."
   Now, Mr.  Austin must see how  very easy it is for  him to be mistaken.
 James  Madison certainly thinks he can count.  He counts  thirty, which is
 two or three more than Freeman.  From that he counts by tens to ninety,
 then sixty, forty, forty-one, forty-two,  forty-three,  forty-five,  forty-seven,
 forty-eight, forty-nine.  Beyond this he says he couldn't make it out.  On
 a second trial, he starts at ninety, which seems to be his maximum, and con-
 tinues  thus:  " thirty,  twenty-three, twenty-four, tAvcnty-five,  twenty-six,
 twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine,  thirty, forty, fifty, sixty;" and he
 adds, " that's as far  as I went the first time;  I can't go no further."  But on
 due reflection, he continues :  " Stop, I can go one more—sixty, sixty-one,
 sixty-two, sixty-five, sixty-seven ; there, I wont count any more.  That's as
far as  I went the first time, and I made a  balk.'"  Again, Jacob Miller says
 " he can read ; he repeats  all the letters  of the alphabet correctly, and he
 reads, in entire sincerity, the following sentence.  " The old Romans used to
 write in the Latin language."  He renders it thus—" Old man seat church
 in tin Jesus !"  He  counts to forty-five, and  by his addition makes nine and
 nine nineteen, six and five  fifteen, and seven  and eight eighteen !   James
 Madison is  twenty-three, and Jacob  Miller twenty-nine.   A little attention
 to their exhibitions would show Dr. Austin the  difference between igno-
 rance arid insanity.
  But  there  are other peculiarities in Mr.  Austin's testimony.  Freeman
 told him that " if they would let him go this time, he would try to do bet-
 ter." [p. 250.]  This is the  very essence of legal sanity—the very test of re-
 sponsibility that the law imposes—A consciousness that he  had vol-
 untarily done avrong ; and  yet to Mr. Austin it  showed " an entire Avant
 of rational appreciation of the nature and  enormity  of his deeds, and an en-
 tire ignorance of the consequences of his  act!"—in other Avords, it shoAved
 insanity.  Did Mr. Austin think him insane in  Jail ?  He swears he prayed
 with him,  [p. 248] ; and I can  hardly beHeve that  he Avould pray with an
 insane  man.  Pray for him he might and ought, but I hardly think he Avould
 pray with him.   His examinations of the Prisoner have been most singular.
 In regard to the fundamental principles of Religion he never questioned him.
 These, he says, he supposed he knew, [p. 255,] and yet these Avould seem to
 be the  precise subjects of christian inquiry, and instruction in these, all im-
 portant to the Prisoner's salvation.  Neither Mr. Austin nor any other wit- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
453
ness ever attempted to set Freeman  right as to a single notion  he enter-
tained, which might influence his future conduct.  So  far from  it, efforts
were continually made jto lead  him from one folly or absurdity to another.
When Hopkins understood  him to say he had seen Jesus Christ in Sunday
^School, [p. 243,] instead of  correcting or reproving this unhappy creature
on the brink of destruction,  Hopkins asked him whether Jesus Christ took a
class, and whether he preached or talked! [p. 243.]   Dr. Austin gave him a
Testament, and he is the first man Avho is proved to have witnessed the Pri-
soner's peculiar manner of reading.  Has he tried to correct him?  Has any
body attempted to teach him to read ?   Witness upon witness has been taken
to the Jail to see the Prisoner run his  fingers along the sacred pages and re-
peat  the  Avords "O Lord—Jesus Christ—Mercy—Moses," [pp. 244, 260,]
which Avere not on the pages, and yet Dr.  Austin, instead of stopping this
mummery, furnished the Testament,  first Avitnessed the performance, and
has again and again superintended it since! If the Rev. Mr. Austin knew
the natural disposition of the negro as well as I do, and his clerical duty as
Avell as I  hope he does, he Avould have taken  Freemari a jeAvsharp, instead
of a Testament, to play on !
   Under  Mr. Austin's tuition, his weak and credulous  trustee, (Mr. Curtis,)
came to the conclusion that Freeman  " knows no more of the moral charac-
ter of an  act than a dog or a cat; " that he is " part fool, bordering on idiocy
—idiotic  and crazy."  Some of the time he thought "  he was foolish ; some-
times that he was crazy; sometimes a little of both." [p. 261.]   "Part fool,
bordering on  idiocy—crazy and an idiot;" and he sums up his complicated
derangement  by swearing that  he is  both crazy and  insane!"  [p. 262.]
True, once he suspected  Prisoner Avas deceh'ing him, but on appealing to
Mr. Austin, Avho was present, explaining the  symptoms, the suspicion van-
ished, [p. 282] ;  yet he had the strongest evidence that Prisoner was de-
ceiving him, for Avhen he asked  Prisoner what he killed the family for, Pri-
soner said : " You know I had my Avork to do."  Curtis told him- that was
nonsense,  and repeated the  question loud and  distinct.   Freeman  then an-
swered : "7 don t know"  [p. 261.]  Why  was Mr. Curtis selected to Avit-
ness this exhibition and testify to it?  He certainly Avas not the most intelli-
gent member of Dr. Austin's congregation.  He is undoubtedly honest, hoAY-
ever, and thus describes  Prisoner Avho Hved Avith him  in 1810, before he
went to prison :  " His disposition Avas not good ;  he was stubborn and stu-
pid.  He  was of  no use to me.   If I sent him aAvay five rods, he  would be
just as likely to bring the wrong  thing as the right one.  He was a dull, mo-
rose and stubborn boy ;  and if he had any capacity I could not discover it."
[p. 259.]  Certainly, this does not prove the change on which Dr.  Brigham
relies.  But you have the facts Avhich  Dr. Austin and  Mr. Curtis testify to,
and you will say how far they sustain their theories, and how much  they may
be relied  on.
  There is one extraordinary fact in this  case that will not escape you— 
454                         THE TRIAL  OF
there is but one white witness who ever suspected Freeman of insanity be-
fore the murder !  In this community, where  he Avas born and brought up,
and where such a thorough search has been made for testimony, there is but
a single witness pn whom you AviU place any sort of reliance, that swears he
suspected Prisoner of insanity before the murder.  And this witness is Levi
Hermance, who conversed with the Prisoner in the month of December,
twice, for five minutes each time ! [p. 274.]  The effect of this testimony I
must leave to you without comment.  True, neither Mrs. Godfrey, Esquires
Paine  and Bostwick, Messrs. Warden, Smith and Briggs, nor any  of  the
other witnesses for the Prisoner, detected any  insanity.  But there is an ex-
tent  and variety about the acquirements of Mr. Hermance, before  which
their gifts
                        " Pale their ineffectual fires."

I bow  with reverence, lay my hand  upon my mouth and my mouth in the
dust when I find myself confronted by one who swears to us that he has prac-
ticed Allopathy and  Homoeopathy, but is esteemed a Thomsonian practition-
er ; has  worked on  a farm ; been an agent in a Avoolen factory ;  taught
school; sold goods at auction ; is an attorney of the  Common  Pleas, and a
turnkey  in the State Prison!  [p.  275.]  Whatever conclusion you may
come to in regard to the Prisoner, you wUl readUy see that this witness has
no monomania.
  Let  us now turn to the medical witnesses  for the  prosecution.  Doctors
Darroav, [p. 325,] Hyde, Gilmore, Clary, [p.  339,] Dimon, [p. 340,]
Willard, [p. 344,] Bigelow, [p. 349,] Spencer, [p. 353,]  swear that they
have examined the prisoner repeatedly, to ascertain Avhether he was insane ;
and they unanimously conclude that he is sane.  [Mr.  Van  Buren here re-
viewed carefully the testimony of each of these witnesses.  But it is  impos-
sible, without extending this sketch beyond the patience of the reader, to
report  his remarks.   Their testimony is pretty fully detailed at the  pages
referred  to, and he  invites  attention to it, and particularly to the several
cross-examinations, as an exhibition of rare professional attainments, and a
combination, no less rare, of profound medical  knowledge and sound common
sense.]
  In view of this mass of testimony, coming  from those to whom you daily
confide your own health and life, and those of your families, if this  Avere a
mere question of  medicine, Avould you not be forced to conclude that this
Prisoner  is sane?  But there is one physician Avhose name  occurs often in
the  testimony, who  invited Dr. Bigelow and  others to visit the Prisoner;  »
who frequently visited him himself, and who is proved  to  be an eminent
physician and surgeon, [pp. 275, 352, 349.]   Where is he ?   Where is Dr.
Pitney ? Mr. Seward sent him to the Jail to examine the Prisoner, [p. 352] ;
why is  he not called upon the stand by the defence ?  Or when called by us,
[p. 185,] why was he not cross-examined  as to Prisoner's  sanity ?   Why 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
455
 send to Utica and Albany for physicians, who never before saw the Prison-
 er, and neglect to call an eminent surgeon here, who examined him repeat-
 edly at the request of Prisoner's Counsel, and kneAV him before ?  Why re-
 sort to the foreign scientific market, when the domestic furnishes an  abun-
 dant supply ?  Wc may be  told that  Dr. Pitney is  the father-in-law of one
 of Prisoner's Counsel, and that motives of delicacy have prevented his being-
 called.  But two of the Prisoner's Counsel themselves have made affidavits
 in this case. [pp. 145-6-7.]   Their clerk has been sworn, [p. 262.]   War-
 ren T. Worden, Avho assists the defence as witness, trior and  counsel, has
 not only testified as to the  past, but  prophesied as to the future.  In his
 judgment, the Prisoner " would laugh  upon the gallows as readily and  freely ,
 as he did  in his cell; he would probably know as  much as a  dumb  beast,
 that was taken to the slaughter house,  as to what was to be done Avithhim!"
 [p. 227.]  In the cell, you remember Dr. Briggs testifies that the Prisoner
 laughed when the Phrenologist felt Warren T. Worden's  bumps,  and  so did
 Dr. Briggs and Worden. [p. 278.]  It is not  this  delicacy, therefore, that
 keeps Dr. Pitney from the stand.   When a client's life is at stake, such deli-
 cacy must give way.   Again, I ask, where is Dr. Pitney  ?  The absence of
 one statue at a Roman funeral caused more remark  than the presence of all
 others ; so you, in missing Dr. Pitney from this galaxy of  medical science,
 will be forced to conclude that he has satisfied himself that Freeman is sane.
   If Prisoner was insane on  the twelfth of  March, what spe-
 cies of insanity had  he ?   I have endeavored  to show that  he has not
 dementia now.   He is not an idiot.  Idiocy is not  insanity.  Dr. Brigham
 does npt  so consider it.   Esquirol does not so consider  it [Esq. p. 447.]
 Coke does not so consider.  Insanity is a derangement of the faculties—Idiocy
 is a defect of them.   Idiocy is connate—Insanity acquired.  Insanity is  a
 change—Idiocy is the absence of change.  Idiocy is written upon the exter-
 nal structure of the man—Insanity affects only his expression.  The idiot is
 free from disease—the insane man  is not.  The evidence in this case rebuts
 all idea of idiocy.  Dr. Brigham even  finds no indication of it.  He says the
 Prisoner  had, on the twelfth  of March, homicidal  monomania,  [p.  310.]
 This  Dr. Brigham terms a disease—a disease which is sometimes preceded '
 by no svmptoms. [p. 310.]  It is a sudden  impulse to kill, and  the  unac-
 countable killing is the first symptom of the disease.   This he illustrates by
 my rising and stabbing one of the Jurors.  In me, this would be (he thinks)
 homicidal monomania.  Now, Mr. Christian, [addressing one of the Jurors,]
 ignorant as you and  I may be of medicine, the symptoms  of this disease Ave
 can appreciate—it is a knife thrust in the heart !   It concerns us to
understand fully this disease, and Dr. Brigham will  therefore excuse us for
 looking to other authorities for the  definition of it.
   This prisoner is proved incontestibly to have been, for the past two years,
 in perfect physical health,  except that  he had an  ear-ache  in January, 1844
or 1845,  and  was costive  in  June or July folloAving,  for which Dr. BigeloAV 
456
THE TRIAL OF
prescribed,  [p. 212.]   With this exception, he has eat well, slept Avell.   His
bowels are regular;  so is his pulse, ordinarily; and his  countenance indi-
cates perfect health,  although his color is not as dark  as when habitually
exposed to the  sun and air.   He carefully prepared weapons for this mur-
der.  He concealed them.   The night previous he was at a ball.  He per-
formed his usual labor at home the fatal evening.  He went to the house of
Van Nest in the night, and lay in wait.  He entered ;  slaughtered the family ;
stole two horses ; fled ; fought Avhen arrested ;  denied all knowledge of the
murder; and his past life, for the last six years, has been a scene of  intem-
perance, profanity and crime.   Yet Dr. Brigham thinks this a case of hom-
icidal monomania!  Noav, I do not stop to inquire whether it Avould be ever
safe to alloAV the crime alone to be received as  proof  of insanity.  It is true
that several eminent medical  men say that insanity may exist Avithout any
derangement of the intellect.  The theory was first broached by Pinel, who
terms  this species of  insanity Manie  sans  delire, or, as some  authors
translate it, the  Reasoning Mania.  It is accompanied with little or no appa-
rent intellectual derangement,  and consists of a derangement of the affections
and passions by disease, which subverts the will.   Esquirol, who at first
rejected the theory, subsequently adopted it;  and other medical writers of
high authority noAv agree Avith Esquirol.  By Pritchard it is termed moral
insanity;  by Ray partial moral mania;  and Doct. Dimon,  one of the most
intelligent medical men SAvorn  by us, testifies, that he believes such a disease
may exist, [p. 342.]   Let us then refer to eminent medical Avriters to see
what this  disease is.
  Esquirol, in his treatise on Insanity, at page 362, says : " We have classed
among maniacs, persons Avho appear to enjoy  the use of their reason, and
Avhose  affective functions alone seem to be in the wrong.  These maniacs
perceive,  compare and judge correctly;  but they  are drawn aside from the
slightest cause,  and even Avithout an object, to the commission of acts of vio- *
lence and fury.  They are irresistibly impelled, they assure us, to lacerate
and injure themselves and destroy their fellow  beings.   These Avretched
persons have a consciousness  of  their condition; deplore  their  situation;
warn their friends to protect themselves against their fury, or place them
where  they can do no harm.   Pinel, more than  any other physician, has
called the attention of observers to this fearful malady, Avhich in hospitals
they call reasoning insanity, and to Avhich our illustrious master has given-
the appellation of mania  without delirium.   Fodere  admits  this Aariety,
which  he calls maniacal fury.  But  does  a form of mania really exist, in
which  those who are  affected by it  preserve the  integrity of their reason,
Avhilst  they abandon themselves to the commission of  acts the most repre-
hensible ?  Is that a pathological condition in  which man is irresistibly led
on  to the  commission of an act Avhich his conscience  condemns ?   I think  it
is."  Again, on page 366, he says:  "Homicidal monomania spares no age,
since children  from eight  to ten  years  old are not exempt from it.   It  is 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
457
 ordinarily periodical, and the paroxysm or attack is preceded by symptoms
 which indicate a general excitement.   This  class of patients experience
 colic pains and a sensation of  heat in the bowels and  chest, attended Avith
 pain in the head.  They suffer from insomnia;  the face  becomes red or
 very pale, the  skin SAvarthy, the*"pulse hard and full, and the body affected
 Avith convulsive tremors.  The patient usually makes an assault, Avhen  no
 external occurrence gives rise  to the excess to Avhich he yields himself.  The
 act accomplished, it seems that  the attack is over, [p. 36 7,] ;  and some homi-
 cidal monomaniacs seem to be relieved of a state of agitation and  anguish,
 which was exceedingly painful to them.   They are composed, and free from
 regret, remorse or fear.  They contemplate their victim Avith  indifference,
 and some even experience and manifest a kind of satisfaction.   The greater
 part, far from flying, remain near the dead body, or concur  Avith the magis-
 trate by denouncing the act which they have just committed. A small num-
 ber, however,  retire,  conceal  the  instrument  and  hide the traces of the
 murder.  But  very soon they betray themselves,  or, if not seized by the
 police, hasten  to reveal  the act; to relate its most minute details, as well as
 the motives of  their flight."
   Ray, in his  treatise on the Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity, [p. 224,]
 speaking of cases of moral mania, says: " In nearly all, the  criminal act has
 been preceded either by some well-marked disturbance of the health, ori-
 ginating in the head, digestive  system, or uterus,  or by an irritable, gloomy,
 dejected or melancholy state ;  in short, by many of the symptoms of the in-
 cubation  of mania.   The absence  of particulars, in some  of the cases we
 find  recorded, leaves  us in doubt  how general this change really is; but a
 careful examination Avould  no  doubt often, if not always, show  its existence
 where apparently it has  neA'er  taken place."  On page 226, the same author
 says :  " The criminal lays plans for the execution of his designs ; time, place
 and Aveapons are all suited to  his purpose ; and Avhen  successful, he either
 flies from the scene of his enormities, or makes every effort to avoid disco-
 very.   The homicidal monomaniac, on the contrary, for the most part, con-
 sults none of the usual conveniences of crime.  He falls upon the object of
 his fury, oftentimes, Avithout the most proper means  for accomplishing his
 purpose, and perhaps in  the presence of a multitude, as if expressly to court
 observation ; and then  voluntarily surrenders himself to the constituted au-
 thorities.   When, as is sometimes the case, he  does prepare the means, and
 calmly and deliberately executes his project, his  subsequent conduct is still
 the same as in the former instance.
  " The criminal often has accomplices, and generally vicious associates ; the
 homicidal monomaniac has neither.   The acts of homicidal insanity, are ge-
nerally, perhaps always, preceded by some striking peculiarities in the conduct
or character of the individual, strongly contrasting Avith his natural manifes-
tations ; Avhile those of the criminal, are  in correspondence  Avith  the tenor
of his past history or character.  In homicidal  insanity, a man  murders his 
458
THE TRIAL OF
 wife, children or others to whom he is tenderly attached; this, the criminal
 neA'er does, unless to gratify some evil passion, or gain some selfish end, too
 obvious to be overlooked on the slightest investigation."
   Again, in distinguishing between  this disease and the sanguinary  atroci-
 ties  of  the sane, he says, [p. 256] : " That beings in  human shape have
 lived who delighted in  the shedding of  blood, and found  a pastime  in  be-
 holding the dying agonies of their victims, is a melancholy fact, too Avell es-
 tablished by the Neros  and Caligulas of history.  For such, we have  no dis-
 position to urge the plea of insanity, for though we  are Avilling  to believe
 them to have been unhappily constitutcd,we have no evidence that they labored
under cerebral disease,  and they certainly exhibited none of its phenomena.
 Motives the very slightest, no doubt, generally existed for even their most hor-
 rid atrocities ; and even when they were entirely wanting, there  Avas still a
 conformity of their bloody deeds Avith the whole tenor of their natural cha-
 racters.   They followed the bent of their dispositions, as manifested from
 childhood, glorying in their pre-eminent wickedness, and rendered familiar
 by habit Avith crime ;  and though conscience might have slumbered,  or op-
 posed but a feeble resistance to the force of their passions, yet it was not prevent-
 ed by diseased action, so as to be blind to moral distinctions. In homicidal insa-
 nity, on the contrary, every thing is different.  The criminal act for which its
 subject is called to an account, is the result of a strong, and perhaps sudden
 impulse,  opposed to his natural habits, and  generally preceded or followed
 by some derangement of the healthy actions of the brain or other organs. The
 Advocate General himself represented Papavoine ' as having been noted for
 his unsocial disposition ; for avoiding his  felloAv laborers ; for Avalking in re-
 tired, solitary places, appearing  to be much  absorbed in the vapors of a
 black melancholy.' .
   " This is not a picture of those human  fierids to whom he would assimilate
 PapaA'oine, but it is a faithful one, of a mind over which the clouds of insa-
 nity are  beginning to gather.  Where  is the similarity betAveen this man,
 who, with a character for probity, and in a fit of melancholy,  is  irresistibly
 hurried to the commission of a horrible deed, and those wretches,  Avho, hard-
 ened by  a life of crime, commit their enormities with a perfect deliberation
 and consciousness of their nature ?"
   Pritchard, in  his Treatise on Insanity,  page 277, refers to a case cited by
 Pinel, of instinctive fury, in which the patient experienced at first a  sensa- »
 tion  of burning heat in  the boAvels, with  an intense thirst and obstinate con-
 stipation.  This sense of heat spread, by degrees, over the breast, neck and
 face, with a bright color ; sometimes it became more intense, and produced
 violent and frequent pulsations inthe arteries of those parts, as if they were go-
 ing to burst; at last, the  nervous affection reached the brain, and then the pa-
 tient was seized with a most sanguinary propensity ; and if he could lay hold
 of any sharp instrument, he Avas ready to sacrifice the first person that came
 in his way."  Further on, he quotes De La Place, as saying:  " When  the af- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
459
   fection has continued  for some time, and  the individuals possessed with the
   desire of committing  murder have  been observed, Ave have seen that this
   state is like the delirium of lunatics—preceded and  accompanied by head-
   ache and pains in the stomach and bowels.  These symptoms have preceded
   the impulse • to murder, and  have become more  severe Avhen this dreadful
   propensity is exasperated. "
     Taylor, in his admirable treatise on Medical Jurisprudence, revieAvs  the
   whole theory of Moral Insanity, and  points out forcibly the dangers to which
   it exposes the administration of justice.   [See Griffith's ed. pp. 514 to 519.]
   He refutes, with singular ability, the fallacious idea that  a  failure to disco-
   ver a criminal's motive is to be taken as a proof of his insanity, [p. 515.] The
   cases of Moral Insanity referred to by  all these  Avriters, are usually instan-
   ces of homicide, perpetrated by patients on  those Avho are  near and dear
   to them ; such as a father or mother on his or her child; a  husband on his
   wife, &c.
     Now, is there the faintest resemblance  in this case to those described by
   these distinguished medical writers ?  In them Ave find sudden, irresistible
^   fury; here, deliberation,  self-control, preparation, concealment.  In them,
   confession ; here, denial and flight.   In them, a  change in the habits of the
   individual, and conduct in opposition to all human motives;  here, conform-
   ity to the Avhole course of Prisoner's life, and several assignable motives.
   In them, disease; here, perfect and uninterrupted health.
     But it is urged that if the Prisoner had not Moral Insanity, he labored
   under an insane delusion, which led to the commission of the horrid deed
   for which he is called to account, and which renders him irresponsible.
     What is an Insane Delusion ?
     Doctor Brigham, says : " An  insane delusion is the mistaking  fancies for
  realities, Avhere the patient cannot be reasoned out of them."  [p. 306.]   Dr.
   Dimon, however, gives a  much  better  definition.  He says : " An insane
   delusion, is the thorough belief of the reality of  something  in opposition to
   the evidence of the  senses." [p. 314.]  An  instance or two will illustrate
   this.   Hadfield had  an insane delusion  that he heard the voice of God com-
   manding him to take the King's life. Sidney Freeman, the Prisoner's uncle, had
   an insane delusion that Jesus Christ was in his throat, choking him. [p. 350.]
   The  rule of Hiav Avhich acquits a party of responsibility Avhere  he is incapable
 - of distinguishing between right and Avrong,  would, no doubt, exonerate
  him who Avas compelled to the commision of  an  act  by an insane delusion.
   Such a delusion would lead  him-to the belief that he Avas doing right, and
   thus  destroy his reason ; and it is an inevitable characteristic of this insanity,
  that  the subject of it should avow and  glory in the  act to Avhich'it impels
  him,  and that he cannot be reasoned out of the belief that he did right.  Noav,
  gentlemen, I should affront your intelligence, if  I entered  upon  an argu-
  ment to sIioav that no such delusion  exists here.   The Prisoner thought he
  was entitled to pay for the time  he lost in prison ; other prisoners think the 
400
THE TRIAL OF
same thing.  He thought he was wrongfully imprisoned;  all prisoners say
this.  A misapprehension of legal  rights is  not  an insane delusion ; if so,
many laAvyers and clients are insane.  Discontent Avith imprisonment is not
insanity ; else, all prisoners  are  insane.  The Prisoner's Counsel  contend
that Prisoner kneAV Van  Nest had no connection  with his imprisonment; if
this is so, there is no connection between the delusion ami the crime.  The
Prisoner never supposed  he Avas doing right.  He fled, fought Avhen arrest-
ed, denied all knowledge of  the crime, and now tells Dr. Austin, " if  they
will let me go this time I'll try to do better  ! "  [p.  250.]  There is, therefore,
no pretence for saying that this Prisoner has now, or ever had, an insane de-
lusion.
  I have thus called your attention to the various kinds of insanity, and en-
deavored to show you that this Prisoner has  none of  them, because this is
the question Avhich  he submits to you, and on Avhich the laws of the  land
make it your duty to pass.
  I hope I have  satisfied  you that this Prisoner is clearly responsible for his
acts.  He is not  an idiot  This is not pretended.  He has  not dementia.
His attention, coherence, memory of events, ancient and recent, keen  and
steady glance, healthy appearance—all triumphantly repel  the idea of de-
mentia.  He had no disease when these murders were committed, nor has he
now.  He has never had an  insane delusion.  If there Avas nothing but the
atrocity of this  case, and the unwearied-pains that have been taken to ac-
quit this prisoner, calling for this careful examination of the laAv and  facts
in this case, I  should  cheerfully have gone through with  it.  But even
higher objects than this  demanded this labor.   Doctrines have been ad-
vanced by counsel and Avitnesses  in the course of this trial, dangerous to the
peace of society and fatal to good  government.   The laAvs and institutions
under Avhich we  live have been  assailed.  The maxims of laAv which  have
emanated from the Avisest and most humane jurists that ever lived—max-
ims on Avhich the security of liberty, property, and life haA'e reposed for ages;
Avhich the  successive wisdom of centuries has confirmed, and under which
the safety of Prisoners, as Avell as of society, has been  protected—are noAv
openly derided  and defied.  This generation is claimed to be wiser in the
elementary principles of law than all that have preceded it.  The represen-
tatives of medical science on the Avitness'  stand,  over-ride  and swear down,
not only the laAvs of the land, but the most profound and accomplished treatises
on medical science itself.  They seek not only to expel the Judge from the
bench and the Jury from the box, but Avould banish common sense and the
highest scientific attainments alike from this Court   And what great good
is thus to be accomplished ?  Let the experience  of the past answer.
   Last Avinter a  convict in the State Prison,  named  Henry Wyatt, assaulted
another convict with one  blade of a large pair of shears; he plunged  it in his
bowels; the unhappy convict SAVOoned and  died.   In March last, Wyatt  was
tried for this murder;  the defence was moral insanity ; the Jury disagreed. 
                          WILLIAM FREEMAN.                       461

Wyatt has been tried again at this term, and convicted; but on his first trial
in March, this Prisoner was present and seemed to be an attentive listener.
He is undoubtedly hard of hearing, but Mr.  Andrus SAvears he thinks Pris-
oner heard his testimony during this trial, and gives his reasons,   [p. 328.]
Munroe thinks he can hear his testimony, [p. 334] ; and Dr. Bigelow thinks
he knows Avhat is going on in Court  [p. 351.]   He  went, during the trial,
to Mrs.  Godfrey's, to demand a settlement for  his Avrongful imprisonment
Mrs.  Godfrey testifies to this.  [p.  235.]  He was then boarding Avith the
wife of his associate  in the theft.  David Winner so states,  [p. 259.]  A
few days after, he changed his residence to Mary Ann  Newark's, and com-
mitted these foul murders.   Now, is there  not reason  to fear that this de-
praved criminal may have caught from the  theories broached  on Wyatt's
trial,  and from the result, an impression that he could commit this crime
with impunity ?   Far be it from me to suggest that the distinguished Coun-
sel or witnesses on  that occasion  ever imagined or contemplated such a
frightful  consequence.  But is it beyond the range of  possibilities ?  And,
whether  true or not, is it not the imperatiA'e duty of those charged in any
way Avith the faithful execution of the laws, to remember that the audience
who throng a Criminal Court Room, are not exclusively composed of the
upright,  the intelligent or the humane, and when theories are advanced in
such a presence, which strike at the root of Law and Order, and furnish a
perfect license for Crime, by rendering its detection impossible, to sift them
thoroughly, and if as unsound as they are dangerous,  to condemn them pub-
licly and boldly ?  It needed not the fearful conjectures  as to the origin of
this crime, to induce courts, juries and public  prosecutors, by every just
means, to extinguish sparks which  threaten such Avide-spvead conflagration.
  I have canvassed  freely the testimony of men eminent for their learning
and integrity.   I have even ventured Avithin the Avails of their peculiar
mysteries, and chaUenged their skill in their own departments and profes-
sions.  You must also do this.   For Avhile  the law  allows their testimony
to be given, (and never was greater lattitude given to it than on this trial,)
the same law makes it your duty,  at  last, to pronounce, on the Avhole evi-
dence, the  guilt or innocence of the Prisoner.  And before  I commit the
case to you,  let me ask your attention  to the simple, uncontradicted  facts
which have been proved to you. It is on these  that your verdict must rest,
and by  these it must be justified.  They lie within a narrow space, and
there is no conflict of evidence in  regard to them.   Dismiss, I beg of you,
while I do so, all theories and ideas of insanity,  and regard this Prisoner as
a man whose acts immediately prior to the 12th  of March, on  that day, and
the next, you are required to render a verdict on.   Apj ly to them the rule
of law I  have state;!.  It is one perfectly simple  in  itself, abundantly sus-
tained by authority,  and  covering  every conceivable case of criminal  irre-
sponsibility:—Did the Prisoner knoav  that  he was doing wrong, 
462
THE  TRIAL OF
  AND  WAS HE IN A STATE OF HEALTH THAT  GAVE HIM CONTROL OVER
  HIS ACTIONS ?
    John G. Van  Nest was killed on Thursday night, the 12th of March
  last.  On Sunday, a fortnight before, prisoner, drove out to Harry Lamp-
  kin's public house, with three other colored persons, whom he treated and
  drank with.  [p. 338.]   On the Thursday before  the  12th, this  prisoner,
  then living a*bout half a mile from here, at the NeAV Guinea settlement, Avith
  the colored woman, Mary Ann Newark, went to the shop of  Joseph Mor-
 ris, a blacksmith, who had never seen him before, and asked to have a knife
  made.   He desired it of good cast steel.   Failing to make Morris under-
 stand the precise description, he went to a carpenter's shop,  and  in about
 fifteen minutes made a pattern of  wood, which he left with Morris.   This
 is it.  [Holding up pattern of knife in Avood.]   Morris charged him four
 shillings for it—be  offered two shillings.  He then offered four shillings for
 the blade,- if  Morris would grind it and put a handle to it.  Morris said to
 him :  " What do you want to do Avith the  knife ?"  Prisoner did not an-
 swer.   Morris then said : " You want to kill somebody, don't you ?"  Pris-
 oner said: " It is none of your business, so long as you get your pay for it."
 Morris was told he  Avas deaf, and spoke louder to him than ordinarily.  He
 bought no knife of Morris, [pp. 190, 101.]   On  the Monday before the
 murder, at nine a.  m. he went to George W. Hyatt, another blacksmith, who
 had never seen him before, to buy a knife.   He had been in before  Hyatt
 saw him.   He selected a knife of Avhich the price was two shillings  or three
 shillings.   He asked Hyatt if he could not  afford it for one shilling and six
 pence.   Hyatt eventually sold it to him for one and six pence.   He handed
 Hyatt  two shillings  and received six pence back.  He then asked to have a
 handle  put on, and a ferule to keep  the handle from splitting, which was
 done.  He wanted  it ground, which Avas done  by Hyatt and himself on a
 grind stone.  He went off with the knife and returned at twelve o'clock, with
 a Jack Knife, the blade of which was out.  He asked the price of putting in
 a rivet.  Hyatt answered six  pence.   He wished it done for  three  cents.
 Hyatt agreed to make the rivet for  three pence, if Freeman would  put it
 in.   This Avas  assented to.  Hyatt made the rivet, and prisoner riveted it in
 the handle. He handed Hyatt six pence and received three cents in  change.
 Hyatt  discovered that he Avas hard of hearing;  but it is a remarkable fact
 when this Avitness, avIio had sold him the bloody instrument of assassination,
 called on him three weeks afterwards in Jail, and asked prisoner twice, in  a
 very loud voice, at a distance of three or four feet, if he kneAV him, prisoner
leaned  forward and Avould  make  no reply, except that he was  deaf and
couldn't hear ! [p. 190.]  Mr. Andrus he heard well, and conversed Avith at
the  same distance !  [p.  328.]  A day or two before  the murder, prisoner
went to Robert Simpson, a turner and chair maker, and asked him to <mnd
the  knife he bought  of  Hyatt.  Simpson had no time to do it, but arranged 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
463
 the grindstone for him,  and he ground it for himself.  He afterAvards rub-
 bed it upon an  oil stone, paid three cents to Simpson, and went off.  Wa
 offered  to  shoAV that at this time other colored men were  at Avork in this
 neighborhood, killing hogs, but the testimony was objected to and excluded.
    On the morning of the murder, or the day before, prisoner again came in
 Simpson's  shop  Avith a hickory club;  asked permission to use a brace and
 bit Avhich  was granted; put  the club in the vice and Avent »to boring in
 the end of it; seemed  to be fitting something in,  which Simpson could not
 see ; Avent off; was gone twenty-five or thirty minutes ; returned, and asked
 for a larger bit,  Avhich was loaned to  him and used in the same Avay.   He
 confesses to Dr.  Bigelow that he fitted a blade in the end of that  club, at the
 house where he  staid.   Doubtless this was done  between the two visits to
 Simpson ;  and in doing so he found that the first hole bored Avas too small.
 He also confesses that he took  the knives up to the house where he boarded,
 and hid one under his pillow and the other under  his bed. [p. 211.]   They
 were so carefully concealed that Mary Ann NeAvark, with whom he boarded,
 never saAv him have a knife or stick, and never  saw any about his room.
 [p. 282.]   About the same time  he was, on several occasions, drinking at
 Gale's  grocery,  and the very  night before the murder he Avas  at a ball at
 Laura Willard's. [p. 239.]
    We now come to the day of this deplorable tragedy.  Simpson is uncer-
 tain whether the preparation at his shop was the day or the day before the
 murder.  The tAvo main witnessess Avho speak of the Prisioner on that day,
 before  the murder, with certainty,  are both colored;  one called by  us—
 Aaron Demun, the Prisoner's uncle, and as honest  a man as any in Auburn ;
 the other called  by defendant-^also perfectly honest—Mary Ann NeAvark,
 with whom  Prisoner boarded.   One Avitness—a grocer—testifies that Pri-
 soner purchased  of him three cents worth of soap, handed him six pence, and
 received three cents change.   Aaron Demun testifies that on the same day,
 Prisoner came to him and  asked for tallow to grease his boots, which was
 given him;  said  he was going to hire out by the  month Avith  some farmer.
, (He had been previously to Van Nest to hire out.)  His uncle advised him
 to do so.  Prisoner said : " Uncle Aaron, you've a  good  place here; are you
 to Avork here steady ?"  Demun said, Yes.   Demun  told  him  that  if he
 did'nt ^et  more  than seA'en or  eight dollars a month, he had better take it;
 and  says :  " he talked as rational with me the day of the murder as he  ever
 did." [p. 324.]   Mary Ann  NeAvark says he staid  at her house till the bells
 were rung  for meeting,  at six o'clock  in the evening.  He put snow in the
 tub for her; asked if she had any other chores to do; she did  not notice
 him go off; she thinks he was sober, [p. 281.]  You will remember that he
 boarded at  her house; or rather, as he described it to his uncle,  and as she
 swears, [p.  282,] he didn't exactly board.  " I bring my provisions," said he,
 "  and she cooks for me." [p.  324.]   She says she lent him the cooking
 utensils, and he cooked for himself.  He admits to Ethan A.  Warden that 
464
THE TRIAL OF
 on that afternoon he drank a  pint of liquor,  [p. 26 7];  and he admits to
 Dr. Bigelow that he went up stairs;  threAV his knives out of the window;
 hid them under the  Avood-pile till he was ready to start;  then stood around
 and thought of it awhile ;  then concluded to go, any Iioav ; got his knives,
 secreted them in his breast and under  his coat, and started,  [pp. 211, 214.]
   Van Nest lived about four miles from here, on the Owasco Lake, in a se-
 cluded dwelling.  Next this side of him, lived  his father and mother.   Mrs.
 Van Nest swears that she saw a black  man tAvice in  her  yard that evening,
 between eight  and nine o'clock.  This was no doubt the Prisoner.  About
 the same hour  Cox met  him  this side of Van Nest's,   [p. 293.]   At nine
 o'clock he was  around the house of John G. Van Nest.  He Avent past it
 on the road.  Patten met him.  There was then a light in Van Nest's house.
 Williamson Avas spending the evening  there, and Van Arsdale, the laboring
 man, had not yet gone to bed.   [p. 194.]  He  admits that he did not enter,
 because it Avas  too early, and he waited  till he saw Williamson leaA'e.  [p.
 345.]  He must also have seen Van Arsdale, from the back  Avindow,  when
 he retired.  He then entered the house by the back door, as he had done
 on the Monday but one previous.  It is doubtful Avhether he stabbed Airs.
 Van Nest (who was in the yard) first, or Van Nest.   He asserts that he
 killed  Van Nest first.  Helen Holmes and Van Arsdale both  think they
 heard Mrs. Van Nest shriek before they heard any other outcry,  [pp. 198,
 200.]   Van Arsdale heard Van Nest say :—" What do you want here  in the
 house ?"  [p. 200] ; and in an instant, almost, he heard him fall upon the floor.
 The door at the foot of the staircase was then opened by  Prisoner, who in-
 quired if there  was a man up stairs.  Van Arsdale said, Yes ; and Prisoner
rushed up with this knife, and aimed a  Woav at him, Avhich was so nearly fa-
 tal.  Van Arsdale knocked him with the  candlestick,  pushed  him  down
 stairs, and beat him out of the house with a broom-stick.   The child, George
 W. Van Nest, slept in the room where  Van Nest was killed.  The Prisoner
stabbed him entirely through, and with such force as to pierce the bed.  He
must have done this before he attacked  Van Arsdale.   Outside of the house
he had a scuffle with Mrs. Wyckoff,  the mother-in-law  of Van Nest, who
attacked him with a carving knife.  He stabbed her in the abdomen and
cut one of her fingers;  she disabled him  by a cut on the wrist.  He return-
ed to the sitting room; kicked open the door ; saw Helen Holmes and per-
haps Van Arsdale stUl living.
  After lurking about the  house a little time, looking in at the AvindoAVs, he
stole a  horse and fled.  The horse took the road to McFarland's instead of
to Auburn.  At the  distance of about a mile  from Van Nest's  house, as
Williamson testifies,  Prisoner turned  him,  after going  about a rod, and
brought him on the Auburn road.  When he arrived within  a mile of Au-
burn, the horse  fell with him and hurt  his leg ; he stabbed and left him, and
stole Burrington's horse.   With this he fled, as he tells  Bostwick, the most
he cared for being to get out of the county, [p.  293.]  He fled in the direc- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
465
tion of Canada, to the  De Puys, who Avere connections of his by marriage.
They turned him out of the house, suspecting that he stole the horse.
  At two o'clock on Friday afternoon, (the murder having been committed
at half past nine o'clock  Thursday evening,) Ave find him forty miles from
Van Nest's.  He offers the horse for sale to  Amos, Corning and others, for
eighty dollars, its precise value.  When charged with stealing the horse, he
denies it, and says he  had a horse given him, and traded round till he got
this one.  He reminded  Amos of his having seen him at  a huskino- bee,
and offered to satisfy him, by the De Puys, that it Avas all right.  He beg-
ged to be alloAved to go on ; refused to let go of  the halter; fought; tripped
up Amos, Avho endeavored to detain him, and finally regretted that he had
not a knife to gut him !   [Testimony of Amos, pp. 203 to 207.]
   To Taylor, Avho arrested him for the murder, he denied all knowledge of
it, but then admitted stealing the horse,   [p. 207.]  He Avas then taken into
a room  by Messrs. Parker and Herrick—the  former being a friend and ac-
quaintance  of Van Nest.  They affected to knoAV all about the murder,
and urged -him to confess.  He denied  all knoAvledge of Van Nest.  AVhen
asked hoAv  his hand was cut, he for a long time declined  answering, and at
last said he had a knife  and Avas Avhittling with it, and cut himself.  When
asked Avhere he came from last,he said, "from Phoenix;" where before that,
he said, " Syracuse ;"  Avhere before that, he said " Nine Mile Creek ;" Avhere
before that, he said he " believed they called it Elbridge;"  Avhere before
that, he declined answering ;  and when asked if it Avas Sennett, he said : " I
SHAN'T ANSAVER ANY  MORE ; IF THEY CAN PROVE ANY THING AGAINST
me let them prove it !"  The answers already given by him had cor-
rectly described his route from Burrington's to Gregg's, where he Avas arrest-
ed ;  it was only when he got back to the scene of the murder, that he re-
fused to answer.   [Testimony of Parker, pp. 209 to 211.]
   He pretended to be deaf!   Taylor once, by inquiring  why he murdered
that little child, got an  ansAver that he did not knoAV it was a child.  At
other times, he said to E. A. Warden that he murdered the child to make them
feel more ; and to Lynch, that he murdered it for fear it would make a noise.
[p. 323.]   Pressed by Vanderheyden, on  one occasion, as to the cause of
the murder, he said:   " I don't Avant you- to say any thing about it;"  and
being urged, he says:  " You  knoav there is no law for me."  [p. 331.]
   He was taken from  Gregg's to Van Nest's house, and identified by Van
Arsdale, who was still living.   This he understands  thoroughly; and  from
that day to this, he has  known perfectly that no admission of the murder
itself could  prejudice  his case.   He stated to Dr. Bigelow that he had seen
Van Arsdale since the murder, alive,  [p. 215.]
   Noav, is not this a picture of as cool,  deliberate, atrocious  murder as was
ever presented in a Court of Justice ?   Was  ever preparation more careful ?
Buying kniA'es of those who did not knoAV him ; hiding them ; falsely stating
to Aaron  Demun where he was  going;  lving in Avait; stealing; flying;
               30 
466
THE Tl'.IAL OF
lying.  Was  ever self-control more absolute?   He  did  not molest Cox or
Patten, Avhom he met the same  evening; he knew Van Arsdale Avas up
stairs, and inquired for him before mounting the steps ; he fled Avhen struck,
and Avas beat out of the house Avith a broom-stick; he knew Avhithcr he Avas
flying;  he checked  the  horse, Avhen  taking the  Avrong road.   He knew
he did wrong ;  else,  Avhy fly ?  why steal ?  why refuse to give himself up V
Avhy lie ?
  No comment can  add  to the force of a simple narration of the uncontra-
dicted  facts in this case.  They show,  beyond the  possibility of  doubt, that
Freeman k-neav he avas doing  wrong, and had full contkol over
mis actions.
  Gentlemen of the Jury: I have thus gone through Avith the evidence  in
this case ;  and I cannot but believe that it has left  upon  your minds the
same conviction of the Prisoner's guilt that it has upon mine.  It is a fear-
ful task, in a capital case, to urge the conviction of a Prisoner; but I never
remember a case in Avhich I could ask it Avith more  undoubting confidence
than in this.   There are upon this Jury three gentlemen Avho were chal-
lenged by me, and who, before they entered the box, admitted that they be-
longed to a class termed abolitionists,  [pp. 165,  166.]  I have not supposed
that this rendered them  incompetent  to sit in this  case; but I desired to
know Avhether they entertained any peculiar views in regard to the general
neglect of the colored race, Avhich would  induce them to hold society, and
not the individual,  responsible for the 'crimes Avhich this race  commits.
Finding that they Avere disposed  to try  this case precisely like  that  of  a
white man, I have Avithdrawn the challenge, and am noAv gratified to believe
that these gentlemen will protect  the Prisoner from all injustice;  at the
same time they will  remember that the cause they advocate can receive no
greater injury, and themselves no deeper disgrace, than Avould  Aoav from
their refusal to convict a murderer whom they know to be  guilty.
  John G. Van  Nest, gentlemen, Avas, as  I learn, in every respect  one of
the most estimable men in this community.  He resided with his wife's mo-
ther, Mrs. Wyckoff, and, as his  aged father testifies,  was all that father's de-
pendence  in his oil  age.  He,  hi-i Avife, his mother-in-law, and one of his
children, have been slain by this monster in human  shape.   I know there is
always a disposition to forget the dead over Avhom  the grave has closed, and
to sympathise with  the living  criminal, no matter  how  debase.! and de-
graded.  But I cannot believe that when such a man as John G. Van Nest
is cut o.Tin the prime of life, with every thiiii alvuit him to make the world
attractive, and sent, without an instant of  preparation, to  stand before his
Maker, that a  jury of his neighbors and friends Avill set at large the instru-
ment of his destruction.   It is to me, as  you  must know, a matter of no
concern, personally.   The Van Nests  were unknown  to me; and although
the heart of this family tree  has been cut out, leaving behind  nothing but
the dependent branches and decaying mo:-*, [ have lost neither a*quain- 
WILLIAM  FREEMAN.                          467
 tances  nor  friends.   This miserable  Prisoner can  excite  no  antipathy;
 he  is unworthy of  the hostility of any human  being.   The danger  to the
 peace of this community only affects me, as a lover of good order. ° If crimes
 of this  magnitude are  to go unpunished, and thus to invite imitation, it is
 your  hearth-stones, not mine, that  may be drenched in blood.   But  I  do
 confess to a feeling of pride at the administration of justice in our State.
 Elsewhere,  the. murderer may go  at large as a  Somnambulist, an  Insane
 Man, or  a  Justifiable  Homicide.   But in  New York, thus far,  the  steady
 good  sense  and  integrity of our Juries, and  the enlightened Avisdom of our
 Judges, have saved our Jurisprudence from ridicule, and firmly upheld Law
 and Order.   Thus  may it ever be; and  I feel entire  confidence, notwith-
 standing the extraordinary appeals that have  been made to you in this case,
 that your verdict will  be in keeping with the high character our tribunals
 have thus acquired, and will prove  that the  Jurors of Cayuga  fully equal
 their fellow  citizens of other counties, in intelligence  to perceive, and inde-
 pendence to declare the guilt of a  criminal.

   Note.—Mr. Van E;;;iss haying bean applied to by  one of the Counsel for the Prisoner, as
 well as by the Printers who are publishing a report of the trial of AVilliam Freeman, and the gen-
 leman who assumes the responsibility of it, to furnish a sketch  of his remarks on that occasion,
 desires to  say in explanation, that he has had no participation in suggesting or preparing this publi-
 cation ; that he has only si en the portion of it beginning at page 145 and ending at page 368 ; and
 in that are contained several passages that do not conform  to his recollci-timi of the actual occur-
 rences on the trial.  He  learns, however, that the publication is so far advanced that no altera-
 tion can be made j still he cannot omit to correct an error which  occurs at pages 290, 314 and 315,
 and which was embodied in the Bill of Exceptions after wards made in the cause.  Mr.  Van Buren
 i< there made to insist that the verdict of the Jury which tried the preliminary issue of sanity, as
 it waa called, determined conclusively the Prisoner's sanity at the time of his trial for murder, and
 could not  b^ contradicted by evidence.  This, he says, is an entire misapprehension; and that a
 brief statement of facts will show what questions arose in this connection.  Our Statute provides
 (as the common  law did) that no insane man shall be tried, [2 R. S. 697, sec. 2J; but it does not
 provide how his insanity sh ill be tested.  The  Prisoner wa3 brought up for arraignment the first
 Monday of June, 1848, before Mr. A"an Buren reached Auburn.  His Counsel, AV. II. Seward, said
 in his behalf, that he was insane, and filed a written statement  to that effect, which he denomi-
 nated " a plea of Present Insanity," and which he claimed to have tried by a jury.  To this the
 Court acceded.   The Prisoner was then remanded. IIi:\iit AVyatt was then put on trial for
 another murder ; defended by Mr. Seward and others, on  the ground of insauity ; convicted  on
 the 23J of June,  after a trial of some three weeks ; and subsequently executed.  Freema n was then
 placed at the bar ; a jury empanelled to determine whether he was then sane or insane ;  and after
 an examination of witnesses and addresses of Counsel, which occupied the Court till the 6th day of
 July; the Jury made a written statement to the Court, in these words : :- We find the Prisoner at
 the bar sufficiently sane in mind and memory to distinguish between right and wrong." They
 were  then discharged and the Prisoner arraigned and  tried. This  preliminary proceeding was
 objoced to by Air. Van Buren, and was regarded by him, in substance, as a motion to postpone the
 trial on the ground of the Prisoner's insanity.   It was merely intended to satisfy the Court as to
 the propriety of  proceeding with the trial, and settled nothing except that the trial should be pro-
 ceede  1 with.  Every fact important to the Prisoner's defence, and proper to be given in evidence,
 was just as admissible afterwards as before ; and as to the sanity  of the Prisoner at the time of the
 trial, a reference to pages  294, 307 and 311, shows that Doctors Brigham, McCall and Coventry,
as well as others, testified in regard to it. The ground taken by Mr. Van Buren at the trial, was, that
in judging of the  insanity of the Prisoner on the 12th of March, when the murder was committed, the
witnesses might be allowed to testify to any acts or declarations of the Prisoner himself, from the date 
468
THE TRIAL OF
of his birth till after the defence of insanity had been interposed ; that some time must be fixed
when examinations of the Prisoner should cease, or it was obvious that the visits to his cell would
continue as many nights as there should be succeeding days to testify to the results of the nightly
visits. For this object he requested the Court to fix the 6th of July as a suitable time at which to
stop the manufacture of this species of testimony ; and with the same view he requested the Sheriff
to prevent access to the Prisoner's cell, as testified to, except under the permission of the Court.
The objections to the testimony of Doctors Hv.n and McNaughton, as a reference to the authori-
ties cited will show, proceeded on the ground that physicians  who had not heard the whole trial,
and who were precluded, by the rule adopted by the Court, from giving the facts on which  their
opinions were based, should not be allowed to give their opinions.  AVith this brief explanation,
and the apology that it is utterly impossible, with a press of other engagements, to give more than
a sketch of an address to a Jury delivered nearly two years since, occupying eight or ten hours in
the delivery, and substantially without notes, Mr. A'an Buren commits his remarks to the pub-
lisher and the public.  In commenting on the  testimony he has, in some instances,  referred to
the page where the testimony is  given ; in others, he has been governed by  his own recollection
of the case and notes of the testimony taken by  himself.                         J. V. B.
                  JUDGE  WHITING'S  CHARGE.

Gentlemen of the Jury :
  The prisoner, William  Freeman,  stands indicted before  you, for  the
murder of John G. Van Nest, on the 12th day of March, 1846.
  The  questions  for you to determine, are, first,  Is John  G. Van Nest
dead;  second,  The cause  of his death;  and third,  Was it the act of  the
prisoner.
  The death and the cause of the death of Van Nest, are testified to by Doc-
tor  Pitney.  In his  opinion, the wound must have caused  almost instantane-
ous death;  and the facts SAvorn to by other Avitnesses, show that he fell dead
at the place Avhere he received the Avound.
  Was this Avound inflicted by the prisoner ?   You are to judge of the evi-
dence bearing on this point, and it will probably satisfy  you that  he gave
the fatal stab.
  The  next question is, if you find that the wound was  inflicted by  the
prisoner, is this murder ?   [The Judge then  gave to  the jury the definition
of murder as contained in the statute, and called their attention to the evi-
dence, as bearing upon the premeditated design of the prisoner ; the malice,
personal or general, by which  he  may have been moved;  the deliberation
Avith  which  the act was committed; the means, used, and the  instruments
prepared to effect his purpose;  his concealment of the instruments at  the
house Avhere he boarded;  the time and the occasion  of his committing  the
act; his flight, and larcenies of the horses, and his donial of his guilt when
overtaken;  and if,  from a  consideration of  this evidence, the jury should
find that the killing of  Van Nest was murder, then the jury were  to con-
sider the defence  set up by the prisoner, to Avit: that he was insane at the
time of committing the act, and is  not responsible for it.] 
                         WILLIAM FREEMAN.                        469

  It is true, that if the prisoner Avas insane at the time of committing the
murder, he is  innocent of crime, and must be acquitted.  To present  this  '
question to the jury in its proper light,  they will consider that  sanity con-
sists in having a knowledge of right and wrong, as to the particular act
charged to have been done by an individual, and in possessing memory, in-
telligence, reason and will.
  Knowledge  of right and wrong as to the particular act charged.  This is
the true rule of responsibility.   Not that the accused shall have knoAvledo-e
on  all subjects,  or  on any particular subject save that charged against him.
The knowledge  of men is in a great measure proportioned  to their opportu-
nity of acquiring it; and as that is unequal, there can be no standard safelv
assumed,  by Avhich to test  responsibility, other than that  of knowledge of
right and Avrong upon the specific act charged as a crime.
   Intelligence to know that the act he is  about to commit is wrong.
  Memory to remember that if he  commits the act he will be subject to
punishment.
  Reason and will to enable him to compare and  choose between the  sup-
posed advantage or gratification to be obtained by the criminal act, and the
immunity from punishment Avhich he will secure  by abstaining from it.
  These considerations are consistent Avith the legal  definition of the crime
of murder; that is, that it must be committed  Avith a deliberate design to
effect the death of the person  killed.   Crime is the result of  will, and is
always charged  to have been wilfully committed.
  The laAv presumes every man sane until the contrary be proved, to the
satisfaction of the jury.  Insanity  is, therefore, a fact to be proved like any
other fact, set up or plead by Avay of defence.
  To establish the plea of insanity, it must be clearly proved that the party
is laboring under such  a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not
to know the nature of the act  he Avas doing, or, if he did know it, that he
did not knoAV he Avas doing Avhat  was Avrong.  He must be laboring under
that kind of mental aberration  which satisfies the jury that the prisoner was
quite unaware of the nature, character and consequences of the act he Avas
committing.   If some  disease Avas the acting poAver Avithin him, which he
could not resist, or if he had not sufficient use of his reason to control the
passions which prompted the murder, he is  not  responsible; and the jury
must be  satisfied that it was an absolute dispossession of the free  and natural
agency of his mind.
   So, if his moral and intellectual poAvers were so deficient that he had not
sufficient memory, avUI, conscience, or controlling power, or if, through the
overwhelming violence  of mental disease, his intellectual power was for the
time  obliterated, he is not a responsible  moral agent, and  is not punishable
for criminal acts.
  Within this rule, is the  prisoner clearly proved, to the satisfaction  of the
jury,  to have been insane on the 12th of March, at the time of the murder V 
470
THE  TRIAL OF
And to decide this, the jury are to look at the conduct of the prisoner be-
fore, at the time, and after the commission of the act, and give effect to the
proof as bearing upon  the state of his mind on the day of the murder.
  If sane, he is guUty.  If insane, he is  not guilty.  There is no  middle
ground.
  Then, was the prisoner unaAvare, first, of the nature of the act he commit-
ted ; second, of the character of that act; and third,  of the consequences of
it.
  If the jury find that he was unaware, from insanity, of the nature of the
act he committed, the prisoner should be acquitted.  If disease Avas the act-
ing poAver Avithin him,  which he could not resist, he should be acquitted.  If
he had not sufficient use of his reason, from insanity, to control the passions
which prompted the murder, he is not responsible.  If the jury are satisfied
that there Avas a dispossession, by disease, of  the free and natural agency of
his mind, he is not responsible.
  The classification of insanity by learned men, has no influence in deter-
mining the  question whether the prisoner was sane or insane; for if  insane,
he must be acquitted, Avithout regard to the particular form of the  disease.
  Ignorance is not insanity.  The law does not require any degree of know-
ledge to render a person responsible, beyond that of  knoAvlcdge of right and
wrong, under the rules already explained.
  The evidence of the prisoner's insanity is derived from  three sources:
first,  from comparison;  second,  from  facts; and third,  from opinions of
medical Avitnesses.
  1. From comparison with himself. It Avould  be idle to decide upon the
soundness of his mind, by expecting or looking for knoAvledge and  intelli-
gence in him, about matters of which he had never learned  any thing.   He
must  be taken in his own grade of life and intelligence, to determine whether
in that, he has reason,  judgment, memory and consistency of conduct.
  And of his comparison Avith other men.   Those  with whom he is  com-
pared should be of his own grade,  ignorant and  uneducated, but Avho yet
have  a knowledge of right and Avrong, and whose lives and conduct are un-
der the control of conscience and reason, though in a Ioav degree.
   2.  From facts in the case, Avhich  relate principally to his appearance and
conduct not being feigned ; to the change in him since his boyhood; to his
reading and counting ; to his hearing; to the breaking the knife in prison ;
to his sleeplessness ; to his buying the steak ; to the  family insanity ; to his
stupidity;  to his ignorance of and indifference to his fate, and the proceed-
ings of his trial; to his habits of silence ; to the  expression of and smile  on
his countenance; to his want of early education ;  to his conviction and im-
prisonment in  State Prison at an earl}' age; to his treatment in prison ; to
his assertions of his innocence and  wrongful imprisonment; to his claim of
pay, and its refusal; to his opinion that he Avas entitled to pay for his time;
the murders because of refusal  to pay him ;  to his larceny of the horses and 
                           WILLIAM FItEEMAN.                      471

,his escape; riding  into Mrs. Godfrey's yard;  his denial of the larceny to
 Amos and others;  his denial of the murders ;  his being confronted with the
 dead, and with his  accusers ; his committal to jail; his confessions there, and
 the manner of them ; his simplicity;  his  memory of events;  his mode of
 talking, and of relating his story.
   The jury should also inquire Avhether the prisoner Avas laboring under a
 delusion ;  and the  Judge presented to them the case of Kleim, tried at the
 Oyer and Terminer in New York, and who exhibited evidence of delusion,
 and an apprehension of danger, indicating an  unsound mind ; and after ex-
 plaining  to the jury the state  of mind in relation to that form of insan-
 ity, submitted to the jury Avhether the acts of the prisoner at the bar  were
 the effects of delusion, or of an unsound and erroneous judgment, as  to his
 rights, and the way of redressing his supposed wrongs; and that, in the lat-
 ter point of vieAv, the jury should consider the proof in regard to his uniform
 assertion that his conviction and imprisonment had been Avrongful and un-
 just, because he was innocent of the crime of stealing the horse;  his opinion
 that he ought to be paid for his time in  prison;  his demand of that pay of
 Mrs. Godfrey, the  owner of the stolen horse; her refusal of payment; his
 calls on the magistrates for process to compel  payment, and their refusal of
 it; his declarations that the people had taken  his time and labor, and would
 not pay him; that  they ought to  pay him; that there was no law for  him;
 then his preparation of the fatal knife, and other weapons; his conduct on
 the night of the murder; his concealment  of the prepared Aveapons under
 the wood;  his ansAver to Dr. Bigelow's question—Avhat he did in the house
 when he went in after hiding the Aveapons—" Nothing, but I stood round
 there, and thought about it.   I did not know what to do; but I thought I'd
 go, any hoAv."
   3.  Opinions of medical Avitnesses.
   The opinions of  medical men, on a question  of this description, are compe-
 tent evidence, and, in many  cases,  are entitled  to great consideration and
 respect.  This is not  peculiar to medical testimony, but is a general  rule,
 applicable to all  cases where the question is one depending on skill and sci-
 ence in any peculiar department.
   In o-eneral, it is  the opinion of the jury Avhich is to govern, and this  opin-
 ion is to be formed upon the proof of facts laid before them.   But  some
 questions lie beyond the scope of the observation and experience of men in
 o-eneral, but are quite Avithin the observation and experience of those Avhosc
 peculiar pursuits and professions have brought that class of facts frequently
 under their consideration.
   Upon this ground, the opinions of witnesses Avho have been  conversant
 with insanity in its various forms, and who have had the care and superin-
 tendence of insane  persons, are received as competent evidence, even though
 they have not  had  opportunity  to examine the particular patient, and ob- 
472
THE  TP.IAL OF
 serve the symptoms and indications of disease at the time of its supposed ex->
istence.  It is designed to aid the judgment of the jury, in regard to tho in-
fluence and effect of certain facts, Avhich lie out of the observation and expe-
rience of persons in general.  And  such  opinions, when they  come  from
persons of great experience, and in whose correctness and sobriety of judg-
ment just confidence can be had, are of great Aveight, and deserve the  res-
pectful consideration of a jury.  But the opinion of a medical man of small
experience, or of one who has crude  or visionary notions, or who has some
favorite theory to support, is entitled to very little consideration.   The value
of such testimony will depend mainly upon the experience,  fidelity and im-
partiality of the Avitness who gives it.
   They (medical witnesses) are not to judge of the credit of the Avitnesses,
or of the truth of the facts testified to by others.   It is for the jury to decide
Avhether such' facts are satisfactorily proved ; and if they are  proved to the
satisfaction of the jury, then they (i. e. medical Avitnesses) should be asked
Avhether, in their opinion, the party Avas insane, and Avhat  Avas the nature
and character of that insanity.
   The opinions of persons  not  educated to the profession, but Avho  have
been so situated as to have given particular attention to the  disease,  and to
patients suffering under it, are also competent evidence, but not to the same
extent as those of medic 1 men of the same experience.
   This evidence, from these sources, applies on the  one hand to  the state of
the prisoner's memory;  to his knowledge and intelligence ; to his conduct in
life; to the  state of his conscience;  to his power of comparison or reason  ;
to his judgment and to his motives of revenge;  and, on the other hand, to
the delusion under  Avhich  he may have labored; to the disease of his mind,
and the character of that disease; to his personal  appearance ;  to the ex-
pression of his countenance, and to his indifference  to his fate.
   The evidence bearing on the issue of insanity, is derived from sixty-five
Avitnesses, seventeen of Avhom, including nine physicians, testify that, in their
opinion, the prisoner was insane Avhen the murder Avas committed; and the
residue of them, including eight physicians, testify that, in their opinion, the
prisoner Avas sane.  The number of Avitnesses Avho have given  opinions is
referred to,  not for  the purpose of governing or influencing the minds of the
jury, but  for the purpose of cautioning them that  it is not the number of
witnesses that should  control or decide this question, so momentous to the
prisoner, but it is the intelligence, the skill, the  integrity, and the opportu-
nity of acquiring correct  and reliable information  upon the subject of his
opinion, that gives Aveight and value to the  testimony of a Avitness.  And if
the jury should judge of the evidence by any other rule  than this,  they
Avould  do great injustice to the prisoner as Avell as to themselves.
   And if the  jury, weighing the evidence  in  this light, under the solemn
responsibiHty resting upon them, both to the people and to the prisoner at 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
473
the bar, find the prisoner was insane on the 12th day of March last, they
will render a verdict of not guilty, by reason of insanity.  And if they find
that he was sane, and that  he killed John G. Van Nest, by  the means laid
in the indictment, then they will find him guilty.

   After the delivery of the foregoing charge, the Jury retired in charge of
sworn constables, for consultation, and upon being returned into court on
the 23d day of July,  1846, say they find the prisoner at the bar geilty of
THE CRIME WHEREAVITH HE STANDS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.
   His Honor, the Circuit Judge, then announced that the Court would pro-
nounce sentence upon the prisoner the next morning at half  past six o'clock,
to Avhich time the  Court would stand adjourned.

                                 July, 24th, 1846, 6£ o'clock, a. m. ^
   The Court convened pursuant to adjournment.   The prisoner Avas brought
up by the  sheriff, assisted by his deputies, to receive the  sentence of the
Court for the  murder.
   After the usual proclamation, His Honor, the Circuit  Judge, proceeded
to inform (or to tiy to inform) the prisoner that he had been found  guilty
of  murder by the Jury before Avhom he had  been tried,  and  to inquire
of him Avhether he had any thing to say Avhy the sentence of the Court should
not be pronounced against him ; to all Avhich he  made no reply.   His Honor
then proceeded to announce the sentence of the Court in the folioAving words :


                  SENTENCE OF THE  PPJSONER.
   When the prisoner at the bar Avas brought up to be arraigned, Mr. Sew-
ard in his behalf put in a  plea alleging that he was then insane.  To  this
plea the District  Attorney took issue.  By laAv an insane  man  cannot be
tried ; and hence it became the duty of the Court to determine the truth of
that plea before  putting the prisoner  on trial upon the  indictment.  The
jury found  that the prisoner Avas sane.  He was then arraigned upon  the
indictment, and the plea ': not guilty" put in ; and the trial proceeded, the re-
sult of Avhich has  been a conviction of the prisoner upon the indictment for
the murder of John G. Van Nest.
  The prisoner is a negro of the age of twenty-three.   At the  age of six-
teen  he Avas engaged  in petty thefts, and in 1840, Avas convicted  of steal-
ing a horse of Mrs. Godfrey, for which he Avas imprisoned five  years in the
State  Prison.   This term of imprisonment expired in September,  1845,
when he was found to be deaf, and impressed with an idea that he had been
wrongfully convicted, and  was entitled to compensation for his time and
labor; and upon his discharge, he called on Mrs. Godfrey, to settle ; and on .
her refusal to pay him,  he applied to two magistrates for process against her, 
474
THE TRIAL OF
and the other persons who had been instrumental in his conviction.  These
applications being refused, he appears to have reasoned himself into a belief
that the laws of the country afforded him no  protection against oppression
and injustice.
  He then prepared a butcher knife, and a club with a knife inserted in the
end, and on the night of the 12th of March last, soon  after nine o'clock,
approached the house of the deceased; there lay in wait till he saw a man,
who had passed the evening  Avith the family,  leave for his home; and then
meeting Mrs.  Van Nest, avIio had retired to the yard, stabbed her, so  that
she died in a few moments ; then entered the house and  stabbed Van Nest
to the heart, of Avhich he instantly died; thrust the  knife through the body
of a child, two years old, while asleep in the  bed;  attacked and  Avounded
Van Arsdale,  Avho  had retired  to the chamber;  and at the door and  gate
attacked and  wounded Mrs. Wyckoff, the mother of Mrs. Van Nest, of
which  she died on the fourteenth day of the month ;—thus destroying the
lives of four persons, Avith savage ferocity and cruelty,  and endangering that
of the fifth.
  He then stole a horse  from the stable, which  fell with him after being
rode about tAvo miles.   He then  proceeded a  short distance, when he stole
another horse, and escaped to the town of Schroeppel, in Oswego county,
where he Avas  arrested.
  In the defence of this wretched man, some of the best talent of the coun-
try has been faithfully exerted, and  the  attendance of medical men from
Albany and Utica, procured  to testify as to his insanity.   A large number
of respectable  men, some of whom had known him  from childhood, both in
and out of the prison, have testified that they never had discovered or sus-
pected any thing like insanity in his conduct before the murder.  And after
hearing all the proof adduced to sustain his defence of insanity, at the time
of the murder, an intelligent and conscientious  jury have decided that he
Avas not insane, but a responsible man.
  In this  opinion the Court unanimously concur; so that the  prisoner  has
been  found to have been  sane when put  upon  his trial, and also at the
time of committing the  murder.   No serious question as to his guilt, in com-
mitting the murder, has been raised.  His Avhole defence has rested upon his
alleged insanity.  And  after twenty-four men  have  said  upon oath he is
sane,  it is to  be hoped that those who  have heretofore doubted it,  Avill
yield to an opinion thus carefully formed  and solemnly expressed.
  This degraded and ignorant felon, Avho has consummated his Avickedness
by these atrocious murders, has had the benefit of tAvo A'erdicts.  Let it not
be said that the administration of justice is partial or predjudiced by reason
of his color, his social degradation,  or his monstrous crimes.  SIoav  and
tedious as these  proceedings have been, the Court are certain that in  the
minds of all reflecting men, a confidence will  arise in the power of the laAvs 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
475
to protect the rights of our fellow citizens, and that the  result will reflect
honor upon the institutions and Lots of the country.
  A family of high respectability;  of great moral worth; having numerous
connections and relations ;  independent in circumstances, and in the full tide
of life, have  been cut off' in a moment, at their own  fireside, where they
reposed in security and peace, by this degraded and malicious man.   That
the  public mind was excited and the  public indignation freely expressed,
Avas natural; and most creditable it is to the. love of order which prevails in
the community, that no violence was perpetrated upon his guilty head   All
can now see that if  the guilty are  left to the laws, there is power in their
provisions, and fidelity in their execution, to protect all and any interest of
society.
  The lessons to be drawn  from this  tragic event are many.  The most
impressive one is, that there is a duty upon society to see to the moral culti-
vation of the colored youth, now being educated for  good or evil  in the
midst of us.  This is so obvious that it needs no comment.
  While Ave  give full  effect to the plea of insanity as an excuse for  crime,
we learn,  with great  satisfaction, that there is, in the common  sense of the
community, intelligence enough to discriminate betAveen acts originating in
moral depravity and ignorance, and those Avhich proceed from the impulse
of disease.   The rule by which a man must be  judged, is whether he had
knowledge of right and wrong in regard to the act for Avhich he is on trial.
If he had, he is responsible, and is neither an idiot nor  an insane man  By
that rule the  prisoner has been tried and convicted.  And whatever theories
learned men may create, there is  no other which can be safely introduced
into a court of justice.
  We trust that the prisoner, during the term of  life which remains to him,
will receive the care and instruction of good men, to enlighten his darkened
mind to a true sense of his  condition, and to prepare him for the change that
awaits him.  For this purpose the sheriff will no doubt admit the visits of
all such as are disposed to see him.
  The judgment of the law is, that the prisoner at the bar j_ William Free-
man, be taken from this place to the place from whence he came, there to
remain  until  Friday, the eighteenth day of  September  next, and that on
that day, between the hours of one and four in the afternoon, he be  taken
from thence  to the  place of  execution appointed  by laAv, and  there be
HUNG BY THE NECK UNTIL HE SHALL BE DEAD.

  Before  the above sentence had been executed by the sheriff", the prison-
er's  counsel  obtained  an  allowance of  a Writ of Error,  by which the
indictment and  proceedings  were removed  to the  Supreme Court, for re-
view upon a Bill of Exceptions.   The  case Avas  argued at  a Term of that
Court held by Justices Bronson, Beardsley and Jewett, at the city of Ro-
chester, in November, 1846. 
476                        THE TRIAL OF
  The folloAving are the Points made upon the argument of the Bill of Ex-
ceptions by the counsel for the prisoner and the people, respectively.


          POINTS MADE FOR PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

  I.  The proceedings on the trial  of the preliminary issue are properly
brought before the Court by this Bill of Exceptions.  [11 AVend. 561 ;  15
do. 583; 3 Hill, 432 ;  1  Root,  551  ; Minor, 147 ;  6 Coke,  551 ; Co. Litt.
289 ;  Graham, 931 to  944.]
  II.  The prisoner Avas entitled  to peremptory challenges on the trial of the
preliminary issue, and therefore the decision of the Court, denying such
challenge of Ezra Stone, one of the  jury SAvorn, Avas erroneous.  [3 Ed. R.
S. 507 ; l'Russ. on C. 13 ; Bac. Abr. 264 ; Hale P. C. 267 :  2 Hawk. P. C.
411, and authorities cited; Coke Litt. 157 ; 1 Black. 46 ; Com. Dig. 323 ;
2 Strange, 824.]
  III.  The oath administered to the triors of the challenge  of Abraham
Gutchess was erroneous and improper.  [Bac. Abr. vol. 3 ; Coke Litt. 15S :
Trials per Pais, 199 ;  3 Bl. 362.]
  IA~.  The Court erred in receiving the verdict of the triors in the. case of
Ezra Stone. [1 Lord Raymond, 133, 324 ; 5 Bac. Abr. 2S3, 286 ; 2 Binney,
514 ; 5 Burrows, 2669 ;*1 Salk. 53 ;  2  Strange, 1083 ; Trials per Pais, 314;
12 ATescy, 445; 4 Russ. 182.]
  V. The Court erred in overruling the following question put by the pri-
soner's counsel to Simon Huavcs, a juror on  the preliminary issue,  on the
challenge for principal cause, viz: "Have  you formed and expressed  an
opinion that the prisoner is guilty of the murders charged against him?"
[6 Eng. Com. Law R. 491 ; LaAv Rep. 1846 ;  4  B. and  A.  471 ; 13  State
Trials, 221, 334;  Trials per  Pais, 200;  1  Inst. 158; 2  Hawk. P.  C. 589;
Burr's Trial, 3 70 ;  5 Rand. 659 ;  2 Tidd, 7 79 ; 7 Crunch, 295 ;  14 AVend.
131 ; 1 Denio, 282.]
  A'l.  The charge of  the Court to the triors on the qualification of Simon
Hawes, that a fixed and deliberate opinion that the prisoner was guilty of
the crime charged did not disqualify him from sitting as a juror, on the pre-
liminary issue, was erroneous.
  VII. The Court erred in refusing to instruct  the triors of the qualifica-
tions of Henry Acker, that the oath they had taken meant absolute indiffer-
ence betAveen the parlies, and not merely indifference as to the preliminary
issue then on trial;  and that if  they should find flic juror not indiflerent as
to the question of murder, then he Avas not indiflerent as to that issue.   [3
Bac. Abr. 259 ;  7 Cow. 122 ; 15 John. 177.]
   VIII. The  Court unlawfully instructed,  on  Sunday, the jury Avho had
charge of the preliminary issue.  [1 R. S. 275 ; 12 John. 178 :  15  do. 119,
277  ; 20 do. 110; 3 Burrows, 1597 ; 9 Coke, 66 ;  Cro. Jac.  80, 496 ;  Ii.iie,
P. C. 45.] 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      477
  IX. The Court erred in charging the jury on the preliminary issue. 1st,
As to Avhat is evidence of sanity ;  2d, As to what constitutes sanity. [Ray,
27 ;  Coll. on Lunacy, 475 to 636 ; Trial of Abner Rogers, 276 ; 2 Green.
301 ;  1 Nottand McCord, 191; 4 HaAvk. 292 ; 19  State Trials, 947.]
  X.  The  verdict on the preliminary issue Avas  bad.  1st, It  Avas not ex-
press  and  certain ;  2d, It  was argumentative ;  3d, It did not cover the
whole issue.  [2 R. S. 697 ;  12 Vesey, 445 ; 7 Paige, 238.]
  XI. The Court erred in overruling the plea that John O'Hara, a brother-
in-law of Van Nest, was a Grand Juror.   [Burr's Trial; 3 AVend. 324.]
  XII. The Court erred in overruling the demurrer to  the plea to the chal-
lenge to the array, on the ground  of the discharge of Richard Searing.   [1
R. L. 335 ; Notes of Revisers 3 R. S. 848 ; 13 AVend. 354 ; Trials per Pais,
167 ;  3 AVend. 434; 1 Littell, 202 ; Burr's Trial, 366, 422.]
  XIII.  An erroneous decision of the Court overruling a challenge for prin-
cipal cause, is an error available to the defendant, although the juror was
afterwards excluded by a peremptory challenge.  [2 Virginia Cases, 29 7;  1
Denio, 281.]
  XIV.  The Court erred in disalloAving the challenge for principal cause to
James Amerman.   [7 CoAven R. 121 ; 4 AVend.  229.]
  XAr. The Judge erred in his instructions to the triors on the challenge to
Argalos Taylor.
  XVI.  The Court erred in overruling the objection to draAving from the
jury box when there were less than twenty-four ballots in the box.  [3 Hill,
432 ;  R.  S. and Notes.]
  XVII.  The Court erred in overruling the challenge for principal cause
to Benjamin Beach, and in their charge to the triors  in the case of Benja-
min Beach.
   XA'III. The Court erred in overruling the following question, put to the
juror, Henry Chadderton, viz: " Have  you any opinion upon any subject
which would Aveigh against evidence ?"
   XIX.  The Court erred in overruling the challenge for principal cause to
Henry Chadderton.
  XX.   The Court erred in overruling the challenge for principal cause to
Isaac S.  Johnson.
   XXI.  The Court erred in their instructions to the triors on the challenge
to Isaac S. Johnson, that an opinion on the prisoner's  sanity Avas not a dis-
qualification.
   XXII. The Court erred  in disalloAving the challenge for prinicipal cause
to John  Jones, in their instructions to the triors  in the case of John Jones,
and in refusing to charge in that case as  requested by the prisoner's counsel.
   XXIII.  The Court erred in permitting to be put to James E. Tyler the
following question, viz : " When you questioned  him  in the  jail, were his
answers  pertinent and appropriate?"
   XXIV. The Court erred  in permitting  to be put to the witness,  James 
478
THE  TRIAL C
E. Tvler, the following question viz:  "Have you seen a number of inline
men in the prison, and did you have any difficulty in detecting insanity V"
  XXV.  The Court  erred  in overruling the  following questions  to  the
witness, Ethan A. Warden viz: l>i, " Did vou say to yourself, then,  ' What
has come over Bill?'"  2d, "Did you mention that to your family at the
time V"  3d, u Did you then  think there was a change  in his appearance ?"
[1 Phil. Fv. Cow. and Dill's Notes, 259, 260.
  XXVI. The Court erred in overruling the following questions to Theron
Green, a witness for the defendant:   1st, " Why did you not report him?
AVas it because you thought him irresponsible?" 2d,  " AA'hy did you  not
flog him ?"
  XXVII. The Court erred in excluding testimony by  Doctor A'an Epps,
Doctor Hun and Doctor McNaughton, of facts showing the prisoner's insan-
ity tinee the sixth day of July.
         POINTS MADE FOR DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.
   I. The Preliminary proceeding to test the prisoner's sanity  cannot be
 reviewed on a Bill ot  Exceptions.  [1 Hale, 33-5-6 ; Trials pr. Pais, 14; O.
 B. 1783, No. 4 ;  3 Bac. Abr. 81 ; Foster, 46 ;  Kel. 13 ;  1  Lev. CI ;  1  Sid.
 72 ; 1  Hawk. P. C ch. 1 § 4, n. 5.]
   II.  The several rulings and decisions of the Court in  the preliminary
 trial were correct, and the verdict of the jury is one of sanity, in the very
 language of" the law.   [1 Russ. on Cr., p.  8  to 12; the  answers of the fif-
 teen judges  to  questions  suggested  by the  trial of McNaughton—Guy,
 331.]
   III.  No juror  was allowed to sit on the trial of the cau-e to Avhom prisoner
 obje.-ted, except Beach.   The charge in Beach's case is correct,  and there
 i.^ no distinct or  specific exception to any part of it.
   IV.  The testimony of Van Epps,  Hun  and McNaughton, Avliich  was
 offered and  rejected,  was irrelevant;  at •most,  it was discretionary Avith the
 Court to receive it.  T.iat (lis -ration wa; wisely exer ised, and is not sub-
ject to eveptiou.   Tjsfim >ay >n a more,  d t cv'rois character cannot avcII
 be imagined, and  the re -eption of it would render a defence  interminable.
 [Rex. vs. Lord Ferrers, 19  St. Trials (Howell) 947  ; Collison, 477 ; do. 673  ;
 do. 636; do. 480;  Arch. Cr.  PI. 14;  Di -kinson vs. Barber, 9 Mass. 225;
 Guy. 332.]
   William H  Srwakd and David Wish;'.  : for prisoner.
   John  ArAN Bitrkx and  L"ai,\v  Shekavood for the people.

   The  arguments of con isebbec>re the Saoreme, C >urt cannot be reported.
 The .piestions di-rus-cd and decided are fully indi  a;e  l in the points herein 
                          WILLIAM FREEMAN.                      479

before stated, and in the opinion of that tribunal delivered on granting the
motion for a new trial.                                           °
          OPINION OF SUPREME  COUIIT-Bkakdsley, J.

  * The prisoner was tried at a Court of Oyer and Terminer, held for the
 county of Cayuga, and found guilty of the crime of murder; and upon which
 verd.et sentence of death was pronounced.  In the course of the trials, pre-
 liminary  and final, a multitude  of exceptions  were taken  by the prisoner's
 counsel,  which, with the record of the conviction and sentence, have been
 brought into this Court by writ of error.  These exceptions, or such of them
 as the counsel for the prisoner supposed to be  available, were argued at the
 last-term of this Court,  and having  since been examined and  considered,
 with care and deliberation,  I am now prepared to dispose of them, by ren-
 dering judgment on the  case before us.
   AVhen  the prisoner Avas brought before the  court of Oyer and Terminer,
 to be. arraigned on the indictment, a plea that he  was then insane was inter-
 posed by counsel on his behalf, which being denied by the public prosecutor,
 a jury was  eaipannelled, to try  the  issue so joined.  On the  trial of this
 issue, various obje tons  were made and exceptions taken, by the prisoner's
 counsel;  air] the  first question  to be decided is,  Avhether these exceptions
 can  be re-examined on a writ of error.   The  statute  declares that " no in-
 sane person can be tried, sentenced to any punishment, or punished for any
 crime or oll'-n e, while  he  continues  in that state."  [2 R. S. 697. § 2.]
 Tais, although new, as a Legislative enactment  in this State, [3 Id. 832,] was
 not introductory of a neAV rule,-for it is in strict  conformity  w'ith the com-
 mon  law  on this subject.  "If a „...,„,» says Sir Win. Blackstone,  « in his
 sound memory, commits  a capital offence, and  before arraignment for it he
 R omes mad, he  ought  not  to be arraigned for it,—because he is not able
 to plead to it with that advice and caution that he ought.   And if, after he
 has pleaded, the prisoner becomes mad, he shall not be tried:  for how can
 he make his defence ?  If, after he be tried and found guilty, he loses-his
 senses before judgment,  judgment  shall not be pronounced ;  and if, after
judgment, he becomes of non-sane memory, execution shall be stayed:  for
 peradvenhiro. says the humanity of the English law, had the prisoner been
 of sound mind, he might  have alleged something in stay of judgment or ex-
 ecution.   Indeed," it is added, "in the bloody  reign of Henry the Eighth, a
 statute.Avas  made, which enacted that if  a person,  being compos men1 is
 should commit high treason,  and after fall  into madness,  he might be tried
in his absence,  and should suffer death, as if  he  were of  perfect memory.
But  ihis savage ami inhuman law was repealed  by the  statute of 1 and 2 Ph.
and M., C. 10.   For as is observed by Sir Edward Coke, ' the execution of 
480
THE TRIAL OF
an offender is for example, ut poena ad paucos,  metus ad omnes pervcniat.'
But so  it is not,  when a madman is executed;  but should  be a miserable
spectacle, both against law, and of extreme inhumanity and cruelty, and can
be no example  to others."  [4 Bl.  Comm. 24.]   The true reason Avhy an
insane person should not be tried is, that he is disabled by an act of God to
make a just defence^  if he have one.   As is said in  4 Harg. State Trials,
205.  " There may be circumstances  lying in his private knoAvlcdge which
would prove his innocency, of which he can take no advantage, because not
knoAvn to the persons Avho shall take upon them his defence."   The  most
distinguished Avriters on  criminal  jurisprudence concur in these  humane
views;  and all agree, that no person in a state of insanity should ever be
put upon  his trial for an alleged crime, or be made to suffer the judgment
of the law.  A madman cannot make  a rational defence;  and as to punish-
ment, furiosus solo furore punitur.   [Hale P. C. 34, 35 ; 4 Bl. Comm. 395-6 ;
I Ch. C. L. Ed. 1841, p.  761 ;  1 Russ. on Crimes,  Ed. 1845, p. 14 ;  Shelf.
on Lunacy, 467-8: Stock, on Non  Com. 35-6.J
  The statute is explicit, that " no insane person can be tried ;" but it does
not state in Avhat manner the fact of insanity shall  be ascertained.  That is
left as at common law;  and although  in the discretion of the court, other
modes  than that  of a trial by jury may be  resorted to, still, in important
cases, that is regarded as the most discreet and proper course to be adopted.
[See the authorities last referred to; also, 1 Hawk P. C, by Carwood, page
3 and note: Steph. C. L. 3, 4, 280,  334.]
  At Common  Law the only regular mode of redress for errors occurring
on criminal trials, was by motion for a new trial in  the court where the trial
Avas had,  unless the error Avas in some matter Avhich formed a part of the
record, when it might be reviewed after judgment by writ of error.   Bills
of exceptions, by Avhich questions of law, made and decided on such trials,
may be brought up and  revieAved  in  higher courts, were unknown to the
Common Law,  although now  alloAved  by a statute of this State.  But the
statute is limited to exceptions taken on the trial of the main issue, and does
not reach such as  are made on the trial of a preliminary or collateral ques-
tion.  The Avords  are, " on the trial of any indictment, exceptions to any
decision of the court may be made by the defendant in the same cases and
manner provided by law in civil cases." [2 R. S. 736, §21 :  see also 3 Id.,
849.]   A trial of the question of present insanity is not a trial of the indict-
ment, but is preliminary to. such trial.   The object in a case situated as this
was, is simply to determine Avhether the person charged Avith an offence and
alleged to be insane, shall be  required to plead  and. proceed  to the trial of
the main issue of guilty or not guilty.   The statute does not authorise ex-
ceptions to be taken on such  preliminary trial;  and if errors occur, they
must be corrected, if at all, as at Common Law, by the court which committed
them.   For this  reason  none of the   exceptions  taken  by the prisoner's
counsel, on the trial of the preliminary issue  in this case, can be regarded 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
481
as regularly before us;  nor could they, if held to be well taken,  constitute
a ground for reA'ersing the judgment of  the court below.  This part of the
case might here be dismissed; but I choose not to do so, lest an implication
should arise that, in the opinion of this court, the preHminary trial was con-
ducted throughout with regularity,  and according to law. '
   On the preliminary trial the counsel for the prisoner clailhed the right to
challenge jurors peremptorily, as it is conceded  to exist on the trial of the
main issue.   This the court refused to allow—and it seems to me correctly.
Peremptory challenges  are allowed in favorem vitoe, and at Common Law
are restricted to the main issue, in which the life of the party is in jeopardy,
and cannot be made on the trial of any collateral issues whatever.  [2 Hale,
P. C. 267, chap. 35;  Bac. Abr. Juries, E. 9;  Foster, C. L., 42; 4 Bl. Com.
353, 396 ; Co. Litt. 156 b.; The King v. Radcliffe, 1 W. Bl. Rep. 3-6.] To
the like effect is the statute which secures to  " every person arraigned and
put on his trial for any offence punishable with death, or with imprisonment
in a State Prison ten years or any longer time," the right " peremptorily to
challenge twenty of the persons drawn as jurors for such trial."   [2 R. S.
734, §9.]   This  preliminary trial was not a " trial  for any offence"  what-
ever—and there was  no error in refusing to allow peremptory challenges to
be made.  Challenges for cause are allowable on the trial of preliminary as
weU as final  issues.  This was  conceded; and several  of this description
were interposed on behalf of the prisoner.  I pass by these without particu-
lar examination, as this class of challenges wUl again be presented for con-
sideration before the case is closed, when such suggestions will be made as
are deemed pertinent to this as well as other parts of this case.
   An objection was made to the oath as  administered to some of the triors
of challenges to jurors drawn for this preliminary trial.  The oath was thus:
" You  do solemnly swear  that you  will  well  and truly try, and well and
truly find whether the juror is indifferent between the people of the State
of New York, and the  prisoner at the bar, upon the issue joined."    This
form of oath was not  administered in every instance, the qualification at its
close made by the words " upon the issue joined" being  sometimes omitted,
as it should have been throughout.   The oath, as given in books of approved
credit and authority,  contains no such limitation—but requires the triors to
find whether the juror is  or is not  indifferent between  the  parties to the
controversy.   [Tr. pr. Pais, 205 ; 1  Ch.  C. L.  549 ^Bac. Abr. Juries E. 12,
note; 1 Cow.  441, note; 1 Salk. 152.]  And jurors should be so.  It  is not
enough that they are  indifferent upon the particular issue to be tried.   An
actual and thorough impartiality in regard to the parties is required,  for no
one who labors under prejudice,  malice  or ill-will towards another, can be
in a fit frame of mind to act impartially where his rights are in question.  In
Brittain v.  Allen [2 Dev. 120] the defendant chaUenged a juror for cause,
to wit: hostility between the juror  and  party challenging.  The  challenge
was overruled, and  the juror was sworn.   On a motion for a new trial,  Hen-
               31 
482
THE  TRIAL OF
derson, Ch. J. said:  " It seems that the judge disregarded aU kinds of hos-
tility but that which related to the particular suit then to be tried.  I think
that the law is othenvise.  The juror should be perfectly impartial and in-
different.  Causes apparently very sHght are good causes of challenge;  and
that which is good cause for quashing the array, is good cause of challenge
to the poUs.  I mention this, as most,  at least many, of the cases are chal-
lenges to  the array.   If the sheriff be liable to the distress of either party,
or if he be his servant or counseUor, or if he has been god-father to a child
of either of the parties or either of them to his, or if an action which implies
maUce, as assault and battery, slander,  or the like, is  depending between
them—these all are causes of principal challenges.  [Bac. Abr. Juries F. 1.]
From these cases, particularly the one  which states a suit pending which
impHes malice, it appears that  general hostUity—by  which I mean  that
which is not confined to the particular suit—is ground of chaUenge.  From
these causes the law of itself impHes a want of indifference, which the defen-
dant offered  to show.  I  think he ought to have been permitted to do so,
and if he  succeeded,  that the juror should not have been sworn.   For this
cause, and for this only, there  should  be a new trial."   So in the case at
bar, the oath only required the triors to find indifference between the  par-
ties, " upon the issue" then to be decided.   In other respects, if the clause
is susceptible of any meaning, the juror, although a sworn enemy of the
prisoner,  might stUl be found by the triors to be a competent and proper
person to  pass upon the question then to be decided.  This would be intol-
erable ;  and  an  oath which requires or will admit of  such a construction,
cannot be correct.  There is no precedent for one in this form, as wiU be
seen from looking at the authorities already referred to.  At the very best,
the clause objected to is unmeaning, or ambiguous.  But an oath should be
plain, expHcit, and free from aU ambiguity.  If this clause does not necessa-
rily affix  an improper limitation to the obligation which  the law seeks to
cast upon the trior by the oath administered to him, it is very Hable so to be
construed and understood as to have that effect.
   In charging the jury on the preliminary issue, which we have  seen was on
the fact of present insanity, the court said: " The main question with the jury
was to decide whether the prisoner knew right from wrong.  If he did, then
he was to be considered sane."   The statute before cited is emphatic,  that
•' no insane person can be tried."  In  its terms the prohibition is broad
enough to reach every possible state of insanity, so that if  the words are to
he taken  HteraUy, no person, while laboring under insanity in any form,
however partial and  limited it may be, can be put upon his trial.   But this
the Legislature  could not have intended, for, although a person totally be-
reft of reason cannot be a fit subject for trial or punishment, it by no means
foUows that one whose insanity is limited to some particular object or con-
ceit, his mind in other respects being free from disease, can justly claim the
like exemption.   This clause of the statute should receive a reasonable in- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
483
terpretation, avoiding on the one hand what would tend to give impunity to
crime, and on the other seeking to attain the humane object of the Legisla-
ture in its enactment.  The Common Law, equally with this statute, forbids
the trial of any person  in a state of insanity.  This is clearly shown by au-
thorities which have  been referred to, and which also show the reason for
the rule, to wit:  the incapacity of one who is insane to make a rational de-
fence.  The statute is in affirmance of this Common Law principle, and the
reason on which the rule  rests, furnishes a key to the intention of the Le-
gislature.  If, therefore, a person arraigned for a crime, is capable of under-
standing the nature and object of the proceedings going on against him__if
he rightly comprehends his own condition in reference to such proceedings,
and can conduct his  defence in a rational manner—he is, for the purpose of
beipg tried, to be deemed  sane, although on some other subjects his  mind
may be deranged, or unsound.  This is, as it seems to me, the true meaning
of the statute, and such is the construction put, by the English courts, on a
similar clause in an  act of Parliament.   By the 39 and 40 Geo. 3, ch. 94
sec. 2, it is enacted that " if any person indicted for any offence, shall be in-
sane, and shaU upon arraignment be found so to be by a jury lawfully em-
panneUed for that purpose, so that such person cannot be tried upon  such
indictment"—" it shall be  lawful for the court before whom any such person
shall be brought to be arraigned"—" to direct such finding to be recorded,
and thereupon to order such person to be kept in strict custody till his Ma-
jesty's pleasure shall be known."   [1  Russ. on Cr.  15.]  The question upon
this statute is the same  as upon ours; that is—Is the alleged offender insane ?
Russel says, (p. 15) : " R" a prisoner have not at the time of his trial, from the
defect of his faculties, sufficient intelligence to understand the nature of the
proceedings against him, the jury ought to find that he is not sane—and up-
on such finding he may be ordered to be kept in custody, under this  act."
For this he refers to the case of Rex v. Dyson, (7 C. and P. 305—same case
1 Lewin C. C. 64,) before, Mr. Justice J. Parke, in 1831.  In that case the
prisoner was indicted for murder, and on being  arraigned,  stood mute.  A
jury was then empanneUed to try  Avhether she did so by malice or by the
visitation of God—and they found  she did so by the visitation of God.   The
judges thereupon examined on oath a witness who was acquainted with the
prisoner, and who swore that she could be made to understand some things
by signs, and could give her answers by signs.  The witness was then sworn
to interpret and make known  to  the prisoner  the indictment and charge
against her;  and to the court, her plea and answer thereto.   The witness
explained to her by  signs  what she was charged with, and she made signs
which imported a denial of the charge : whereupon the judge directed a plea
of not guilty to be recorded.  The witness, by direction of the  court, then
stated  to her that she was  to be tried by a jury, and that she  might object
to such as she pleased.   But he testified  that it was impossible to make  her
comprehend a matter of that nature, although she might understand  sub- 
484
THE TRIAL OF
jects of daily occurrence which she had been in the habit of seeing.  A jury
was thereupon " empanelled and sworn to try whether she was sane or not"
—and proof was given of " her incapacity at that time to understand the
mode of her trial, or to  conduct her defence."   The judge  " told the jury
that if the prisoner had not then, from the defect of her faculties, intelligence
enough to understand the nature of the proceedings against her, they ought
to find her not sane."  The jury so found—and the  prisoner was detained in
close custody as the statute directs.   A similar case occurred in 1836, which
was  disposed of in the same way.  Alderson, B. said to the jury—" the ques-
tion is, whether the prisoner has sufficient understanding to comprehend the
nature of this trial, so as to make a proper defence to the charge." [Rex v.
Pritchard,  7  C. and P. 303.]   Both these prisoners had been at all  times
deaf  and dumb.  In presumption of law such persons are always idiots %r
madmen, although  it may be shown that they have the use  of understand-
ing,  and  are capable  of committing crimes, for Avhich, in that  event, they
should to be punished.  [Russ. on C. 6 ;  Shelf, on Lunacy 3.]
  In the case of Queen v Goode, [7 A. &E. 536,] which occurred in  1837,
the prisoner was brought into the court of Queen's Bench, and arraigned on
an indictment for  a misdemeanor.   As he showed clear symptoms of insa-
nity, a jury was immediately empaneUed to try whether he was  then insane
or not; and upon evidence given, as well as  upon his appearance in court,
the jury found that he was insane.  The prisoner was thereupon detained
in custody  under the statute.
  In Ley's case, [1 Lewin, C. C. 239,]  on the trial of a similar question,
Hullock, B. said  to the jury : " If there be a doubt as to the prisoner's sanity
—and the surgeon says it is doubtful—you cannot say that he is in a fit state
to be put upon his trial."
  The course of Common Law Avas much  the  same.  In Firth's case, [22
How. State Tr. 307—318,] which preceded the act of 1839  and  1840, Geo.
3, to which reference  has  been made, the  prisoner  was  arraigned for high
treason, and a jury sworn to inquire Avhether he was of sound mind and un-
derstanding or not.  Lord Kenyon, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, pre-
sided at the trial, assisted by one of the barons of the Court  of Exchequer,
and one of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas.   It was observed by
the court to the jury, that the inquiry was not whether the prisoner was in-
sane when the alleged crime was committed, nor was it necessary to inquire
at all what  effect his present state of mind might have, when that question
came to be discussed.  But the humanity of  the  law of England had pre-
scribed that no  man should be called upon to make his defence at  a time
when his  mind was in such a situation that he appeared incapable of doin"
so;  that however guilty he might be, the trial must  be  postponed to a time
when, by collecting together his intellects, and having them entire, he should
be able so to model his defence, if he had one, as to ward off the punishment 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
485
of the law;  and it was for the jury to determine Avhether the prisoner was
then in that state of mind.  [Shelf. 468.]
  AVith these lights before us, the construction of the statute which forbids
the trial of any insane person, cannot be attended with much difficulty.   A
state of general insanity, the mental powers  being Avholly perverted or ob-
literated, would necessarily preclude the trial, for a being in that deplorable
condition  can make no  defence  whatever.  Not so, however, Avhere disease
is partial, and confined to some subject other than the imputed crime and
contemplated trial.  A  person in this  condition may be fully competent to
understand his situation in respect to the alleged offence, and to conduct his
defence Avith discretion  and reason.  Of this  the jury must judge ;  and they
should be instructed that if such should be found to be the case, it will be
their duty to pronounce him sane.  In the case at bar, the court professed
to furnish a single criterion of sanity,  that is, a capacity to distinguish  be-
tween right and wrong.   This, as a test of insanity, is by no means invariably
correct; for while a person has a very just perception  of the moral qualities
of both actions, he may at the same time, as  to some one in particular, be
absolutely insane, and consequently, as to this, be incapable of judging ac-
curately between right and wrong. If the delusion extends to the alleged
crime or the contemplated trial, the party manifestly is not in a fit condition
to make his defence,  hoAvever sound  his mind  may, in other respects, be.
Still, the insanity of such  a person being only partial, not general,  a jury un-
der a charge like that given  in this case, might find the prisoner sane; for
in most respects he would be capable of distinguishing between right and
wron"1.  Had the instructions been that the prisoner was to be deemed sane,
if he had a knoAvledge of right and wrong in respect to the crime with which
he stood charged, there would have been but little fear that the jury could
be misled ; for a person who justly apprehends the nature of a charge made
against him, can hardly be supposed incapable of defending himself in regard
to it, in a rational way.   At the same  time, it would be Avell to impress dis-
tinctly on the minds of jurors, that they are to guage the mental capacity of
the prisoner in order to determine whether he is so far sane as to be compe-
tent in mind to make  his defence, if he have one ; for unless his faculties are
equal to that task, he  is not in a fit condition  to be put on his trial.   For the
purpose of such a question the law regards  a  person thus disabled  by disease
as non compos mmtis, and he should be pronounced unhesitatingly to  be in-
sane, Avithin the true intent and  meaning of this statute.  AVhere insanity is
interposed as a defence to an indictment for an alleged crime, the inquiry is
always  brought down to the single question of capacity to distinguish be-
tween right and wrong  at the time when the act was done.  In such cases
the jury should be instructed that "it must  be clearly proved that at  the
time of committing the act the party accused was laboring under snch a de-
fect of reason, from disease of the mind, as  not to know the nature and qua- 
486
THE TRIAL OF
Hty of the act he was doing—or if he did know it, that he did not know he
was doing wrong,"  The mode of putting the latter part of the question to
the jury on these occasions, has generally been, whether the accused, at the
time of doing the act, knew the difference betAveen right and wrong; which
mode, though  rarely, if ever, leading  to any mistake with the jury, is not
deemed so accurate  when put generally and in  the abstract, as when put
with reference to the party's knowledge of right and wrong in respect to the
very act with which  he is charged."   (2 Greenl. Ev. § 373.)  This is the
rule laid doAvn by  aU the English Judges but one, in the late  case of Mc-
Naughton, while pending in the House of Lords.   The case is reported  in 10
Clark & Fin. 200,  and  the opinion of the judges may be found  in a note to
the section of  Green. Ev. referred to.  In  Rex v. Oxford,  (9 C. & P. 525,,)
Lord Denman, Ch. J. charged the jury in this manner : " The question is,
whether the prisoner was laboring under that species of insanity  which sat-
isfies you that  he  was  quite unaware of the nature, character, and conse-
quences of the act  he was committing, or in other words, whether he was un-
der the influence  of a diseased  mind, and was  really unconscious, at the
time he was committing the act, that it was a crime."  The insanity must be
such as to deprive  the party charged with crime, of the use of reason in re-
gard to the act done.  He may be deranged on  other subjects,  but if capa-
ble of distinguishing between right and wrong in the particular  act done  by
him, he is justly Hable to be punished as a criminal.
   Such is the undoubted rule of the Common Law on this subject.  Partial
insanity is not necessarily an excuse  for crime ; and can only be so where
it deprives the person of his reason in regard to the act charged to be cri-
minal.   Nor in  my judgment was the statute on this subject  intended to
abrogate or qualify the  Common Law rule.   The words of the statute are,
" No act done by a person in a state of insanity can be punished as an  of-
fence."   (2 R. S. 697 § 2.)  The clause is very comprehensive  in its terms,
and at first blush might seem to exempt from punishment every act done by
a person who is insane  upon any  subject  whatever.  This would, indeed, be
a mighty change in the law, as it Avould  afford absolute impunity to every
person in an insane state, although his disease might be confined to a single
and isolated subject.  If this is the meaning of the statute, jurors are no lon-
ger to inquire whether the  party was insane " in  respect to the very act
with which he is charged," but whether he was insane in regard to any act
or subject whatever; and if they find such to have been his condition, ren-
der a verdict of not guilty.   But the statute is not so understood by me.  I
interpret it as I should  have done if the words had been " no act done  by a
person in a state of insanity," in respect to such act,  " can be punished as  an
offence."  The act, in my judgment, must be an insane act, and not merely
the act of an insane  person.  This was  plainly the  rule of law before the
statute was passed; and although that took place more than sixteen years
since, I am not aware that it has at any time been held or intimated by any 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
487
judicial tribunal, that the statute had abrogated, or in any respect modified,
this principle of the Common Law.
   But to return to the trial of the preliminary question in the present case.
The jury found, not as the issue required them to do, that the prisoner was
or was not insane—but that he was "sufficiently sane, in mind and memory,
to distinguish between right and wrong."  This verdict was  defective.  It
did not  directly find any thing, and certainly not the  point in issue; but
evaded it by an argumentative finding.   At the utmost, the jury only made
an approach towards the point to be decided, but failed to reach it.  They
should have been required to pass directly on the question of insanity, and
should not have been allowed to evade it by an argumentative verdict of
any sort.  Such a finding as this would be objectionable in a civU proceed-
ing, and in a criminal case should not be allowed. [In the matter of Morgan,
a  lunatic, 7 Paige, 236.]
   The preliminary trial being closed, a plea of not  guilty was entered for
the  prisoner ; and the court proceeded to the trial of the main issue. Nu-
merous objections were taken in the course of the trial by the counsel for
the prisoner, most of which were obviously not well founded,  and were pro-
perly overruled by the court.   I shaU notice but four of the points excepted
to, as it is deemed unnecessary to give to each of them a separate examina-
tion.
   Several  persons, drawn as jurors, were in the first  place challenged for
principal cause, by the counsel for  the prisoner; but the court held that
these challenges were  not sustained  by the  evidence adduced in their sup-
port.  Challenges to the favor  were then interposed; but the jurors were
found by the triors to be indifferent.  Various exceptions were taken by the
prisoner's counsel to points made and decided in disposing of these chaUen-
ges; and although the several jurors thus challenged  were ultimately exclu-
ded by the peremptory challenge of the prisoner, it is now urged that these
exceptions are still open to examination and review in this court.  I think
otherwise.   The prisoner had the power and the right to use his peremptory
challenges  as  he pleased ; and  the court cannot judicially know for what
cause or with  what design he resorted to them.  [The People vs. Bodine, 1
Denio, 310.]
   He was free to use or not use them, as he thought proper; but having re-
sorted to them, they must be foUowed out to aU their legitimate consequen-
ces.   Had he omitted to make peremptory challenges, his exceptions grow-
ing out of the various challenges for cause would have been regularly here
for revision.   But he chose,  by his own  voluntary act, to exclude these ju-
rors ; and thus virtually, and, as I think, effectuaUy, blotted out all such er-
rors, if any, as had previously occurred in regard to them.   But the case of
the juror Beach stands on other grounds.   He was first challenged, as is said,
for principal cause ; which, after evidence had been given, was overruled by
the court.  He was then challenged to the favor; but the  triors found him 
488
THE TRIAL OF
 to be indifferent.  No peremptory chaUenge was made, and he served as one
 of the jury.  As to this juror, every exception taken by the prisoner's coun-
 sel is now here for examination and revision.
  AVhen a juror is challenged for principal cause or to the faA'or, the ground
 of the challenge should be distinctly stated ; for Avithout this the challenge is
 incomplete, and may be wholly disregarded by the  court.  It is not enough
 to say, I challenge for principal cause, or to the favor, and stop there.  The
 cause of the challenge must be specified.   In Mann vs. Glover. (2 Green. R.
 195,) the  Court  say :  " A party cannot make a principal challenge or a chal-
 lenge to the favor  by giving it a name.  A challenge, whether in writing or
 by parol,  must be  in such terms that the court can see in the first place whe-
 ther it is for principal cause or to the favor, and so determine by what form
 it is to be tried;  and secondly, whether the facts,  if true, are sufficient to
 support such challenge."  Again, the challenger must " state  why the juror
 does not stand indifferent.  He must state some facts or circumstances which,
 if true, will show either that the juror is positively  and legally disqualified,
 or create  a suspicion that he is not or may not be impartial.  In the former
 case the  challenge would be a principal one, triable  by the  court—in the
 latter it would be to the favor, and  submitted to triors."
  These vieAvs are sound  and appropriate, and their observance  would
 greatly promote  order and convenience in the determination  of challenges.
 I am aAvare that chaUenges are not unfrequently made in general  terms,
 which merely indicate the supposed character of the challenge, as  for prin-
 cipal cause or to the favor, but without  designating the particular grounds
 by which, if at all, it must be sustained.   In this posture of the question,  as
 far as a question can be said to have been made, the parties proceed to  the
 examination of Avitnesses before the court, or triors,  as the case may be.   No
 issue has been joined, and no matter of fact alleged by either  party.  AVhat
 is to be tried ?   It can hardly be  determined in such a state of things, whe-
 ther the question is one of fact or of law, and the proceeding is obviously in-
 convenient and irregular.   Challenges for principal  cause may become part
 and parcel of the record, and should, therefore, be made in due form.  They
may be demurred to, and unless some cause, sufficient of itself to raise the
legal presumption of unindifference, is alleged, the challenge must, of course,
be overruled.  But the opposite party is not bound to demur.  He may take
issue on the facts stated as ground for the challenge, or may counterplead new
matter in  evidence.   Thus an issue  of fact may be joined, Avhich must be
decided on the evidence to be adduced by the  respective parties.  By pur-
suing the  orderly mode of requiring the challenger  to specify the grounds
of his  challenge, and the  opposite  party to demur, take issue, or counter-
plead, questions of laAv and fact wUl be kept distinct; and,' as I apprehend,
the  convenience of the parties, as well as that of the court, will  be greatly
promoted.  The case  of Mann vs. Glover  has not been referred to as con-
taining any new  doctrine, but because it  presents a terse  summary  of the 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
489
law on this subject.  All challenges, except such as may be made peremp-
torily, are for cause ;  and unless some cause is stated by the challenger, the
objection cannot justly be called a challenge, nor should it be regarded as
such.
  The biU of exceptions does not show in terms what cause of challenge was
alleged  against the juror  Beach.  It is only said he was  challenged  " for
principal cause."   But from the scope  and character of the evidence given
to maintain the challenge, the  inference is plain that it was alleged the ju-
ror had formed and expressed an opinion that the prisoner Avas guilty of the
crime for which he stood indicted.  This was good cause of principal chal-
lenge, as has  repeatedly been  held by this  Court.   [Exparte Vermilyea, 6
Cow. 555 ; 7 Id. 108 ; The People vs. Mather, 4 AVend. 229 ; see also Mann
vs. Glover, supra;  The State vs. Benton, 2 Dev. & B. 196 ; Irvine v.Kean,
14 S. & R. 292 ; The Commonwealth v. Lesher, 17 Id. 155.]  AVe must then
understand this cause of challenge  to have been alleged; and as evidence
was gone into, the  fact must have been  expressly or virtually denied by the
public prosecutor.   An issue was thus joined to be tried by the court;  and
if the fact alleged was found to be true, the juror was  necessarily excluded.
Every challenge for principal cause, must be for  some matter which imports
absolute bias or favor, and leaves nothing for the discretion of the court.  The
truth of the fact alleged, and that alone, is  in question.   Its sufficiency as
ground of chaUenge is conceded by omitting to demur and taking issue on
the fact.  It is otherwise on a challenge to the favor.  That must be deter-
mined by triors, who  are to pass upon the question of actual bias or favor.
They are final judges upon the matter submitted  to them, and  from  their
decision, Avhen  properly instructed, the law has provided no appeal.
  The challenge of the juror  Beach,  for principal cause, was  not, in my
opinion, sustained by the evidence, and  was  correctly overruled.  He had
only an impression that the prisoner was  guilty, but nothing which deserved
to be called an absolute opinion.  He had doubts of the prisoner's guilt, and
as far as any opinion  had been formed, it Avas contingent and hypothetical.
Such impressions  or opinions  fall short  of  what is required  to  maintain a
challenge for principal cause.   [The People v. Bodine, 1 Denio, 281-306 ;
The People vs. Mather, 4 AVend. 243 and cases there cited; Mann v.  Glover,
supra;  IrA-ine v. Lumberman's Bank, 2 AV. & S. 190, 202.]
  The  challenge for principal cause  having been overruled, or in other
words found not to be sustained by the  evidence given in its support, this
juror was challenged to the favor ; and the question of his indifference was
submitted to triors on  the. same  evidence which  had been given to the
court, on the trial of the challenge for principal cause.  As the bill of ex-
ceptions states, the court charged the triors  the same as in the case of the
juror Taylor, to which charge,  and every part and portion thereof, the coun-
sel for the prisoner excepted.
   In the case of the juror Taylor, evidence was given tending to show that 
490
THE TRIAL OF
he had decided impressions against the prisoner, and a pretty strong belief
of his guilt;  and in the case of Beach the evidence, although less decisive,
was of the same character.   The court charged the triors in the  case of the
juror Taylor, among other things, that the resort to the triors by the priso-
ner's counsel Avas in the nature of an appeal from the opinion of the court
on the facts,  and that a hypothetical opinion formed by the juror did  not
disqualify him.  These points were distinctly stated in the charge, and as it
seems to me  are  plainly reached by the exception as taken.   The charge
embraced several distinct propositions, amongst which were  those I have
stated; and  although a separate and formal exception was not  pointed at
each of these positions  as laid  down by the court,  the exception  as taken,
was in my opinion fully sufficient to apprise the court and the counsel of
what was intended.  In terms, the exception extended to " every part" and
" portion" of the  charge, which would  seem to be sufficient to reach every
distinct position of law Avhich  had  been  laid  down by the court.   At all
events, in a capital case, Avhere it is obvious that the court regarded the ex-
ception as stated  fully sufficient for the occasion, I  do not feel at liberty to
overlook it as deficient in the requisite degree of certainty.
  Then, as  to the legal  positions laid down by the court, and which have
been already stated, it seems  to me  they cannot  be maintained.  I would
not be understood to hold that a hypothetical opinion necessarily disquaHfies
a juror.   It clearly does not.  K such were its effect, it would uphold a chal-
lenge for principal cause, which it wiU not. Still, it is some evidence of bias,
and upon which triors in their discretion may set a juror aside.  [The Peo-
ple v. Bodine, supra.']   The court should not instruct them as matter of law,
as was done in this case, that such an opinion does not  disqualify a juror,
for this, in effect, is charging them that he cannot be set aside on that ground.
If the triors find that bias actually exists in the mind of the juror, although it
is proved only by the formation of a hypothetical opinion, they may and ought
to reject him.  Some minds  are so constituted that such an opinion would
exert a controlling influence in the jury box, while with others, its influence
would  be neither seen nor felt.   AU this is to be considered and passed upon
by the triors. No rule  can be laid down which wUl enable  them in every
case to determine with unerring certainty that the juror is or is not indif-
ferent  between the parties.  It is not a question to be solved by a rule of
law, but by the common sense of the triors, and if this has fair play, the dif-
ficulty wUl rarely be found very great.  The triors  must  find that the juror
stands impartial and indifferent,  or they  should reject him.  It is the pro-
vince of  the court to  say  what evidence is admissible  on the question of
indifference; but its strength and influence in establishing the aUegation of
bias or favor, are for the triors alone to determine.   The court erred in in-
structing these triors that the juror could not be  found unindifferent on
evidence that he  had formed a hypothetical opinion of the guilt of the priso-
ner.  The instruction should have been  that this was evidence to be con- 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
491
sidered by the triors, and if it convinced them that actual bias existed, the
juror ought to be excluded; but if his mind Avas, notwithstanding, found to
be impartial and unbiassed, the  objection should be disregarded.
  I know of no sense in which a resort to triors by a challenge to the favor
can be rightly regarded  as an appeal from  the decision of the court, on a
challenge for principal cause.   The latter species of chaUenge is allowed on
some ground from which the law infers  partiality or bias; and Avhere the
fact is put in issue, the court has  only to find Avhether  it is true or not.  If
true,  the laAv adjudges unindifference—and the juror is necessarily excluded.
The  court is not to pass upon the question of actual bias, but simply to
ascertain the truth of the aUeged cause of challenge; for if that is true, it
folloAvs that  the  juror is unindifferent.   But on a challenge for favor,  no
such  isolated question is presented to the triors.  They are first to  inquire
whether the alleged cause or ground of challenge is true in fact.   But this
is not all;  for supposing its  truth to  be established, they must then pass
upon the effect it has produced  upon the mind of the juror, and find Avhether
the consequence has been actual bias or favor.   The triors must come to
this conclusion before they can  exclude a juror on a challenge to the favor.
But as no such question is to be decided  by the court,  on a challenge for
principal cause,  the charge in this case,  that the resort to the triors was an
appeal from the decision of the  court, was erroneous.  Besides, the tendency
 of such a charge must  be  to prejudice the prisoner on the question to be
 decided by the triors ; for it virtually places'them in the position of persons
 sitting in judgment on what had immediately before been determined by the
court.  It should never be lost -sight of, that the triors are to  ascertain the real
state of mind of the juror  to determine whether he is truly impartial and
indifferent between the  parties, without favor or bias as  to either,  and that
all the evidence given is only  allowable as material to enable the triors to
come to this result.   On this part of the case my opinion is, that there was
error in the instructions to the  triors, and for which the judgment should be
reversed and a new trial ordered.
   I proceed to another  class  of questions made by the prisoner's counsel.
   The verdict on the preliminary issue was rendered  on the sixth of July.
 In the course of the trial, and shortly after the fifteenth of  that month, seve-
 ral medical witnesses were sworn and examined on the part of the prisoner,
 with a view to establish his insanity the preceding March,  when the alleged
 murder was perpetrated.  One of these witnesses, Dr. Van Epps, had known
 the prisoner from childhood, and had visited and examined him with a view
 to ascertain his  mental condition, both  before and after the sixth of July.
 The  others had never seen the  prisoner until the fifteenth of July, but they
 also had examined him on and  after that day, in order to be prepared to ex-
 press an opinion on the  question of his sanity or insanity.
   That part of the  bill of exceptions which states the questions made and
 exceptions taken in regard to these witnesses, is perhaps liable to some mis- 
492                        THE TRIAL OF
apprehension; .and it may be that I have not rightly understood what was
intended to be decided by the court.  I have  read  this part of the bill of
exceptions  repeatedly, Avith an anxious desire to collect its true meaning;
and although I would not affirm positively that its meaning may not have
been misapprehended, I still think  no  error has been fallen  into in regard
to the views of the court.   As I understand the bill of exceptions, the court
held that it was competent for these or other medical witnesses to express
an opinion upon the question of the insanity of the prisoner  at the  time of
the alleged murder;  but that such  opinion must be formed  upon facts and
circumstances which occurred, or observations made, before the sixth of July,
when the verdict  on  the  preliminary  issue was rendered,  and could in no
degree rest upon any thing observed in the appearance, manner or condition
of the prisoner since that time; that the witnesses could not, with a vieAv to
fortify the conclusion of insanity at  the time of the homicide, be allowed to
express an  opinion that he was insane  at the trial, or had been  at any time
since the sixth of July; nor was it even allowable to say  they had examined
the prisoner since  that time with a view to ascertain his mental condition.
These restrictions  were deemed proper  by the court, as I gather from
the bill  of  exceptions, on the ground  that the verdict on the preliminary
issue had conclusively established, for all purposes connected Avith this trial,
the sanity of the prisoner  at the time  when  that verdict was rendered.  I
cannot adopt the suggestion made on the argument,  that the sixth of July
may have been taken  as a reasonable time by Avhich  to bound the inquiries
made of these witnesses.   On the contrary, it is quite clear that the court
regarded the preliminary A-erdict as decisivfi  of the question of present in-
sanity, and therefore limited the Avitnesses to the time when that verdict was
rendered.  In giving  reasons  for his opinion that the prisoner was insane,
Doctor Aran Epps  spoke of an interview with him since the sixth of July,
when he "was stopped by the court, who then remarked  (an  objection
having been made  by  the counsel for the People) that the question of pres-
ent sanity had been tried and verdict rendered on the sixth of July instant,
and that the question of the present  sanity could not be then again re-tried ;"
that the question  now was as to the sanity of the prisoner Avhen the deed
was done, the preceding March, " and that the evidence  of insanity must be
confined to facts before and at the time of committing the act, and up to the
sixth of July instant, when the verdict  of sanity was rendered."
  Doctor Hun, another of these witnesses, had first seen the prisoner on the
15th day of July.   The prisoner's counsel " proposed to prove by this wit-
ness, that in his opinion the prisoner is and was insane at the time of the
commission of the crime.  This was objected toby the counsel for the people,
on the ground  that the A'erdict on the preliminary issue, rendered  on the
sixth day of July instant, Avas  and is conclusive that the prisoner was sane
on that day, and that the same cannot be contradicted by evidence."  The
court did not pass directly upon this offer and objection, although the ground 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
493
stated by the counsel for the people is understood to have been precisely
that which the court acted upon.   This witness was asked if he had made
a personal  examination of the prisoner since his arrival at the court, which
was on the 15th day of July, " Avith reference to the state of his mind."   To
this the counsel for the people objected,  and the court refused to allow the
witness to give an answer.  He was then asked if it was his opinion, founded
upon  personal examination since the sixth day of July, that the prisoner
was insane on the tAvelfth of March, when the homicide was perpetrated.
This was objected to by the counsel for the people, and the court sustained
the objection.    The witness was  then asked his opinion, founded on such
examination, as to the prisoner's being insane at the time when the question
was put.  This was also objected  to and excluded by the court.  Dr. Mc-
Naughton Avas examined under like restrictions.   " The  court decided that
the witness should not testify as  to any examination made by  him of  the
prisoner since the sixth day of July instant," and particularly " instructed
the witness that he should, in any future testimony to be given by him, upon
the trial of this cause, exclude all knowledge or information gained by him
of or about the prisoner, since the sixth day of July instant."  These refe-
rences to points decided and views expressed by the court, clearly show, in
my opinion, that the court regarded the preliminary verdict as absolutely
conclusive, for all purposes in this case, that the prisoner, on and after the
sixth of July, was in a sane state.
   The views of the court  upon this  part of the case were, in my opinion,
clearly erroneous.  In strictness, the verdict on the preliminary issue was
not before the court and jury on the  trial of the issue of guilty or not guilty
—nor was it in any respect material  to  such trial.  But  if it should be re-
garded as  a fact in the case, of which the court and jury, while engaged in
the trial of the main issue, might take notice,  no such consequence as that
deduced by" the court would follow from it.  The  only object of the prelimi-
nary trial  was to ascertain the mental condition of the prisoner, in order to
 determine whether  he should  be tried on the  indictment.  This, I repeat,
was the only object of that trial;  and the result  at which the first jury ar-
rived could have no possible bearing or  just influence upon the trial of the
main issue.  The indictment was  not to be tried piece-meal, but at one time
 and by a single jury.   If, therefore, the  opinion sought to be obtained  from
 these medical witnesses was  otherwise  competent  and proper, (and that
 seems to have been conceded,) it is perfectly clear that the preliminary ver-
 dict constituted no obstacle to its reception.
   I am not about to inquire how far or under what circumstances medical
 witnesses may be admissible on the question of insanity, although in general
nothing is better settled than that such evidence is competent.  [1 Phil. Ev.
 290 ;  Shelf, on Lu. 62, 67, 73 ;  1  Greenlf. Ev. §  440.]   And I entertain no
 doubt that such a witness should be allowed to express  an opinion in regard
 to the mental  condition of a person alleged to be  insane, in the month of 
494
THE  TRIAL OF
 March, although the opinion may have been founded solely on an examina-
 tion made in the succeeding July.  In most cases, undoubtedly, the opinion
 Avould be more satisfactory and convincing Avhen based on observations made
 at or about  the time to which the inquiry relates.  But it was not decisive
 against the reception of such evidence, though founded on examinations made
 at a later period.  The competency of the testimony is one question, and its
 effect another.   The first is for the  court, and the latter for the jury.  It
 wiU sometimes undoubtedly be  found, and perhaps not unfrequently, that
 the mental  malady is such that  an examination would  disclose, beyond all
peradventure, to a skillful physician,  what must have been the condition of
 the patient for  months or years before.   The lateness of the time when the
 examination was made, as Avell as the character of the malady, are certainly
 to be considered in determining the degree of consequence which should  be
 given to the opinion of the witness, but unless  the intervening time is much
 greater than from March to July, that c an furnish  no solid  objection to the
 admission of the evidence.  If I could, therefore, adopt the suggestion that
 the sixth of July was adopted by the court as  a reasonable Hmitation to in-
 quiries of this description, I should still be unable  to agree  that the court
 had a right to impose any such restriction upon the witnesses.  It was com-
 petent for such witnesses to state what their opinions were, whether founded
 on examinations before or during the  trial; and those opinions might not
 only extend to  the mental  condition  of the prisoner, at the  time when the
 homicide was perpetrated, but they might be brought down  to the very time
 when the witness was speaking.  The latter would be admissible, not because
 the present  insanity of the prisoner would necessarily  control the verdict,
 but because it tended to fortify the conclusion  that insanity existed in the
 preceding March.  But  although such are my views upon this part of the
 case, it is not supposed that the court excluded the evidence of the opinion
 of these witnesses, in consequence of the lateness of the period when  their
examination had been made.   The evidence was shut out, as I understand
 the case, because the verdict on the preliminary issue was  supposed to con-
 stitute an insuperable bar to  its reception.  This, as I before said, was, in
 my judgment, erroneous.  Upon the  whole case, therefore, I think the judg-
 ment of the  court should  be reversed, and a  new trial ordered.
   Whether the prisoner was or was not insane at the time of the homicide,
 or the trial, is not a question  before us  on  this biU of exceptions, and  no
 opinion on that subject is intended to be expressed or intimated.
                                                 Judgment Reversed.


   During the foregoing  proceedings in the Supreme  Court,  the  prisoner
 remained in chains in the jail  of Cayuga  County.   After the Court had
 granted him a new trial,  he was visited by the  Circuit Judge, and examined
 with reference  to his mental condition, and  the propriety of a second trial 
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
495
before his Court.  He found the prisoner in a gradual decline of health and
strength, and as unconcerned about his fate as when upon trial for his life.
It is understood that his Honor declined to try the prisoner a<rain.  He was
never re-tried.
  William Freeman died in his cell, August 21st, 1847. 
 
APPENDIX.
       POST-MOBTEM  EXAMINATION  OF FREEMAN.

  _ So great had been the conflict of medical opinions, as to the mental  con-
dition of WilHam Freeman at the time he assassinated the Van Nest family,
during his trial, and, indeed, until his death, that when the morning prints
of the 21st of August, 1847, announced his death, the inhabitants of the city
of Auburn, with an almost unanimous impulse, expressed each to the other
the desire that the body of the wretched being should be  examined.  To
some, his life had been one of crime ;  to others, it had been one of moral in-
nocence, yet of misfortune and distress; toothers yet, in numbers abundant,
it had been a perfect, yet painful riddle, Avhich they hoped  medical science
might enable the learned to solve, by a careful examination of the nhysicai
organs through which, in life, the prisoner's mind Avas manifested, m.  post-
mortem examination, therefore, was  called for,  by a very large number of
citizens Avho had taken no part in the excitement occasioned by the prison-
er's homicides.
  The resident physicians desired that Doctors Brigham and McCall might
be notified by telegraph, and requested to attend.  The desire was complied
with,  and those medical gentlemen attended.  They did not reach Auburn,
hoAvever, until nine o'clock in the evening, that being the hour for the arri-
val of the cars.   Lest, during the inevitable delay of twelve hours for those
gentlemen to arrive,  the body might  undergo some change to disguise his
condition at death, it Avas deemed expedient by the resident physicians to
remove his brain from the skull at once, and put the same in  ice, where it
might be preserved in condition until evening.   This was accordingly done
by Doctors Briggs and Fosgate, assisted by Doctors AVillard and Robinson,
at about  nine o'clock in the  morning of the 21st of August.
  Doctors Brigham and McCall arrived in the cars at precisely nine o'clock,
and proceeded to the office of Dr. Briggs, where they met Doctors Briggs,
Dimon, Fosgate, Van Epps, Hyde and Luce, and a large number of law-
yers and  other persons assembled to  witness an examination of thejbrain.
That  organ was then  carefully dissected  by Dr. Brigham, the attending
physicians agreeing with him, as to the appearance of its several parts, when
laid open to the view.  At the conclusion of the examination, the following
paper was drawn up  by request of Doctor Brigham; and after being read
to the other physicians present, all of  Avhom assented to its correctness, was
signed by the persons Avhose names appear thereto:

                          " STATEMENT.

  " The undersigned  being present at the examination of the brain of Wil-
liam Freeman, coincide in the opinion that this organ presented the appear-
                 32 
498
APPENDIX.
ance of chronic disease ;  that the arachnoid membrane was somewhat thick-
ened and congested;  that the medullary portion was of an unnatural dusky
color, and in places harder than  natural, as if par-boiled;  that the posterior
portion of the skull appeared diseased, and the dura-mater at that point un-
naturally adherent; and that the left temporal bone  in the vicinity of the
auditory nerve Avas carious and much diseased.
             " A. BRIGHAM,            CHARLES ArAN EPPS,
             " JOHN M'CALL,          BLANCHARD FOSGATE,
             " LANSINGH BRIGGS,    CHARLES A. HYDE,
                           " AVILLIAM O. LUCE.
  "Auburn, August 21, 1847."
  On the twenty-third day of August  the Editor of this A'olume consented
to undertake  the labor of preparing a report of the case.  He thereupon
addressed a note to the several physicians who where present at the exami-
nation, requesting, in reply, a statement of the particulars of the  same, the
facts discovered, and their deductions therefrom.   In reply to that note, the
foUoAving communications were received.'
                 OPINION OF A. BRIGHAM, M. D.

                                       State Lunatic Asylum, 7
                                        Utica, September 6, 1847. j"
  Sir :—Your letter informing me that you intend publishing the trial of
William Freeman for the murder of the Van Nest family, and  requesting
" a detail of the  facts developed by the post-mortem examination of the
brain of  Freeman, Avith deductions therefrom, touching  the  enigma of his
deeds," I have  just received, and cheerfully hasten to  comply with your
request.
  Anxious to witness the examination of the body of Freeman, I very readily
compHed with a solicitation to visit Auburn after his death; but I did not
arrive until the examination had been partially completed, and did not see
any part  of the body except the brain and the upper part of the skuU, and
a portion of it, including the diseased ear.
  I was, however, informed by Doctors Fosgate, Briggs,  and other medical
gentlemen, that  the lungs were found  much diseased, and that he died of
consumption ; symptoms of which had been observed for some time.  I Avas
also told that of late an  increase of disease of the brain had been apparent;
that there had been copious discharges of foetid matter from one ear ; that
he had lost the sight of one eye; and  that the muscles of the face on one
side  became  paralyzed, and  the mouth drawn  to one side, several weeks
previous to his death.  I  also understood that he had been for some time
very feeble, and moved and spoke with extreme difficulty.  They also read
to me from notes they had taken of the post-mortem examination, that they
found the dura-mater adherent to the posterior part of the skull, and the an-
terior portion of  this membrane inflamed and congested, Avith considerable
serum between it and the arachnoid membrane; and that the anfractuosities
or grooves between the conA'olutions on the right side, were filled Avith serum,
and the superficial vessels of the right anterior lobe of the brain highly con-
gested on the superior surface.
  The entire brain, without the dura-mater, weighed two pounds, eleven
and three-fourth ounces; the cerebrum weighing tAvo pounds six ounces, and
the cerebellum five and three-fourths ounces.
  After my arrival, about tAventy hours after the death of Freeman, a more 
APPENDIX.
499
minute examination of the brain was made by myself, in the presence of a
large  number of physicians and citizens of Auburn.   We noticed that the
skull was quite thin, and the upper posterior portion appeared diseased, as
it it had been formerly injured and  inflamed; and at this  point the dura-
mater was strongly adherent, and when removed, blood continued  to ooze
from the bone.
   The arachnoid membrane was opaque, thickened and congested, and un-
usually firm.   It could be  removed  from  the  convolutions, and then pre-
sented a thick net  work of congested blood vessels, similar  to Avhat is most
generally found in  those who have died after long continued insanity.  The
gray or cineritious  portion of the brain seemed partially atrophied in  places,
or thinner than usual, especially on the  anterior and  superior part  of the
brain, and the outside  appeared harder than natural; while beneath this
thin layer jt was soft, and of the usual appearance.
   The white fibrous or medullary portion of the brain  was changed from its
natural state.   It Avas of a dusky gray color and presented numerous bloody
points ; and what Avas particularly noticeable, it Avas much harder and firmer
than natural,  and  appeared  as if its fibres had  become adherent to each
other, presenting an appearance similar to  what is often, if not usually, seen
in the brain of an insane  person who has died from General Paralysis.
This unusual  hardness extended to the annular  protuberance and the me-
dulla oblongata.  The left hemisphere of the brain was  not quite as hard and
firm as the right.   The right thalamus  appeared to have undergone some
change, as if at some time previous  there had been an  effusion of blood into
the middle of it, which had not been entirely absorbed.
   The inner portion of the left temporal bone  was carious, and the dura-
mater covering this portion of the skull Avas red and congested.  The mem-
brane of the tympanum and the internal structure of the ear were destroyed
by disease.  There was also a collection of foetid pus in  a cavity of this bone,
having no connection  Avith  the external ear.  The cerebellum, and other
portions  of the brain not mentioned in the  foregoing account, appeared nat-
ural.
   As regards  " deductions" from this post-mortem  examination, it must be
evident to every one Avho has even  but a slight knoAvledge of the physiology
and  pathology of the brain, that such a condition of this organ and its mem-
branes as was found in this case, Avas incompatible with the healthy perform-
ance of the mental faculties.
   I  have very rarely found so extensive disease of the brain  in those who
have died after long continued insanity, as  we found in this instance;  and I
believe there are few cases of chronic insanity recorded in books, in which
were noticed more  evident marks of disease.  It should be recollected, that
although  insanity is a disease of the brain,  yet it usually is but a slight dis-
ease of this organ.  If it was not so, it Avould soon prove  fatal.  Hence, we
find  many persons  unquestionably  insane to enjoy good bodily health for
many  years;  the  disease of the brain, though sufficient to  derange the
mind,  not being so  severe as to perceptibly disorder the general health.  In
such cases, after death, some disease of the brain or its membranes wUl be
found, but usually less than in the case of Freeman.
   The Avhole history of this  man, his  parentage, his imprisonment, punish-
ments, deafness, crimes, trial, sickness, death, and the  post-mortem appear-
ance of his brain, establish,  most clearly to my mind,  and I doubt not to
others who are much acquainted with mental maladies, that  this Avas  a case
of insanity—that Freeman had disease of the  brain, and Avas deranged in
mind, from a period some time previous to his leaving prison, until the time
of his death.
  A  slight review  of his history may serve to render this more strikingly
evident. 
500
APPENDIX.
  1. He was hereditarily disposed to insanity.   An uncle  and an aunt  of
his were insane for many years.
  2. He had been exposed to causes, both  mental and physical, likely  to
develop  this disease:  arrested  and imprisoned when a boy but sixteen
years of age, for a crime Avhich there is good reason to beHeve he did not
commit; whipped repeatedly in prison; and struck on the head with a board
and rendered deaf.
  3. After five years' imprisonment and seclusion, he came out remarkably
changed  in  appearance,  manners  and character.   From being a lively,
cheerful, bright lad, he had changed to a dull, unsocial, and apparently idi-
otic being; complaining that he had been abused; that he had worked five
years in prison, and ought to be  paid for  it.  This notion engrossed all his
thoughts.
  4. Suddenly he undertook to right himself or to get his pay, and solely by
the most bloody, yet most irrational means, (no doubt  the  offspring of in-
sane delusion,) by " killing round awhile" as he phrased it, and without any
attempt to plunder, or  any regard as to whom he destroyed—indifferently
men, women, the sleeping infant—those  who were entire strangers to him,
and whom he knew and  acknowledged never had given him  any cause  of
offence Avhatever.
  5. Arrested for these crimes, and in ansAver to questions, he confessed all;
but from that day to the time of his death,  during  his long protracted im-
prisonment and trials,  he never asked a question respecting his probable
fate, nor took the least interest  in the proceedings for and against him ;
never asked  his  counsel a question, nor made any suggestion to  them or  to
any one else.' During  his trial he did not betray the least emotion, nor ex-
hibit any consciousness of Avhat was doing in court, but day after day sat by
his counsel,  apparently regardless of every thing and every body, and Avith-
out any change of countenance, except the frequent,  unconscious laugh  of
the idiot.  Even when  called up  by the Judge to receive sentence of death,
he did not appear to knoAV any thing of the proceedings  that  had taken
place in court relating  to himself; and Avhen told by the Judge, " You have
been tried for killing John G. Van Nest—the Jury say you killed him, and
Ave are now  going to sentence you to  death;" and then asked by him, " Do
you  understand this;  do you knoAV what I mean ?" answered, " / don't
know."
  6. His appearance since his trial has been that of a  person nearly bereft
of intellect.   I saw him the last week in June, and found him more demen-
ted than he  was  the year previous, during the trial;  almost totally deaf and
speechless, and apparently affected by General Paralysis.   Never, scarcely,
have I seen  such a mere fragment  of humanity,  so  far as mind was  con-
cerned.
   7. He died of disease of the lungs—a disease of which a majority of the
insane die;  and his  brain, on examination, exhibited those appearances  of
disease most generally found in those  who have been long insane, though,  in
this case, to  a greater extent than is usually seen.
  In conclusion, I add, that at the time of the trial of Freeman,  I was very
confident that he was insane, and that the heinous crime he committed was
the consequence of mental derangement.  I can now have no rational doubt
of the entire correctness of that opinion.                                .
             Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
                                                    A. BRIGHAM.'
  B.  F.  Hall, Esq.,  Auburn,  N. Y. 
APPENDIX.                           501
                 OPINION OF JOHN McCALL, M. D.

                                          Utica, September 10, 1847.
   B. F. Hall,  Esq.—Dear Sir:  In compliance Avith your request that  I
 would " communicate in form  for publication, the  facts discovered at the
 examination pf the brain of AVilliam Freeman, and my deductions therefrom,
 touching his insanity," I am glad in being able  to say that I was present and
 witnessed  the dissection and inspection, by Dr. Brigham, of the  brain, its
 membranes and the upper part of the skull, and a portion thereof involving
 the  left ear, as  described so  fully in the  Doctor's report of the  case for
 publication ; and that I regard his statement as strictly correct in all respects.
   That able physiologist and experienced physician in the management and
 treatment  of the insane, has  given  you, in my opinion, a  full  and accu-
 rate  account of the case; and hence I  consider myself relieved from the
 labor of furnishing a detailed statement of thcobservations made and the
 deductions formed, as afforded on that occasion, " touching his insanity."
   In the  examinations made  and witnessed  by me, during  nearly  forty
 years' practice  in my  profession, I  have never  seen greater or  stronger
 evidence  of chronic disease  of. the  brain, and its  membranes, in cases of
 insanity of several years' standing, than in Freeman's.
   My opportunities during his long trial, for  judging and  making up my
 mind  respecting his sanity or insanity at  the time  he  murdered a Avhole
■ family  in " cold  blood," Avere such as enabled  me  to say, unhesitatingly,
 that  he Avas, in my judgment, not only insane  then, but at the time of the
 commision of the crime.
   In my opinion his brain was  permanently  diseased at the time  he left
 the State  Prison.  That his insanity, which Avas a consequence of that affec-
 tion, continued  to groAv Avorse, until he became utterly demented, is a fact
 which I should hope no one can now doubt.
   It is in this, as in every such case, very gratifying to the friends of medi-
 cal and legal truth, to  know that it was fully and severely investigated to
 the satisfaction,  it is believed, of our Avhole  community.
       AVith these views I remain, my Dear Sir,
                             Very truly and sincerely,
                                                   JOHN McCALL.
                  OPINION OF DAVID DIMON, M. D.

                                            Auburn, January 4, 1848.
    Dear Sir :—William Freeman died on the twenty first of August, 184 7,
  after a confinement in the jail of eighteen months.  In the month of January
  previous, his lungs became diseased, in consequence of a severe cold.   Pre-
  vious to this attack his appetite and sleep were good, and his health did not
  appear to have suffered ; and up to the time of his decease he had no delirium,
  but retained  his senses to the  last.  A few days before his death I visited
  him, in company Avith Dr. AVillard.  He then answered questions correctly;
  and complained of great difficulty in breathing, and other distressing symp-
  toms, Avhich he referred to  his lungs.  The jailer informed me that he readily
'made knoAvn all his Avants;  and that when he had become satisfied that his
  disease would prove fatal, he manifested less  reserve, was  more Avilling to
  hear, and answered inquiries more readily than he had formerly done.   The
  day previous to his death, Mr. Clough, an artist, in company Avith  Mr. Van
  Anden, went into  his  cell  to make a sketch of him.  Upon Mr. Van Anden's 
502
APPENDIX.
feeling his pulse, he asked him if he was a physician;  showed him the mat-
ter Avhich he expectorated;  said he was too weak to sit up ;  that they would
have to draw him lying down.   After the sketch Avas finished, he Avished to
see it, and seemed much pleased with it.
   A post-mortem examination of the bod}r was made in the forenoon of the
day of his death, in the presence of several physicians and citizens.  His
lungs Avere found extensively disorganized, and contained numerous ulcers,
full of matter.   The brain was removed from the skull, and the dissection of
it deferred, until Doctors Brigham and McCall, who subsequently came from
Utica for that purpose, should arriA'e.  This examination took place at night.
To the statement made  by the other physicians,  I  could not  subscribe.
The arachnoid membrane had, to me, a uniform appearance, one part being
no more thickened than another; and had a natural transparency through-
out.  The same Avas true, so far as I could see, of the substance of the brain.
It' there was any unnatural hardness or density of the brain, or alteration of
color, (so far as color could be determined by candle light,) it  extended,
with  remarkable uniformity, throughout its entire  structure.  No portion of
it indicated, to my senses, any decided marks of disease.  Whatever general
unhealthy appearance it might have presented, Avhich my experience would
not enable me to detect, could be attributed, to another disease, which was
the cause of  death, and about which there was no doubt and no difference
of opinion.
                                      Yours, &c.
  B. F. Hall, Esq.                                DAVID DEMON.
          OPINION OF BLANCIIARD  FOSGATE, M. D.

  Df.ar Sir :—In reply to your note requesting a statement of the post
mortem examination  of the body of AArilliam  Freeman, at which I assisted, I
beg leave to say that  my views of that case are embodied in an article lately
prepared by me,  and published in the American  Journal of the Medical
Sciences for October, 1847.   If that article will answer the purpose indi-
cated in your letter, it is at your disposal.     Yours, &c,
  B.  F.  Hall, Esq.                   BLANCIIARD FOSGATE.

  " AVilliam  Freeman—the murderer of the Van Nest  family—was a
native of Auburn, Cayuga Co., N. Y., twenty-three years  old.  In  stature
he measured about five feet  seven  inches,  and when in health weighed in
the vicinity of one hundred and fifteen pounds.   He had abroad chest, and
was of muscular make.  AVith the exception of a slight admixture  of abo-
riginal blood, he was  of African descent.
  " At the age of sixteen he was  sentenced  to  five years' imprisonment  in
the State Prison at Auburn, for grand larceny. It was long since conceded
that of this charge he was innocent.   His sentence expired  in September,
1845.  He left his prison conscious of the injustice he had suffered, and had
imbibed an idea that  he was entitled to  pay for his time.  This sentiment
could not be eradicated from his mind, and on several occasions he applied
for warrants against those whom he  supposed liable.   Remuneration with
him was the one idea.  Failing in this mode of obtaining redress, he armed
himself with a common butcher's knife, and a cane with a blade attached to
the lower end, and from his lodging made his way toward the OAvasco Lake,
at about sunset  on the 12th of March, 1846.   After examining two or three
premises, he finally selected the residence  of Mr. Van Nest as the  proper
place to begin  ' his work,' as  he  termed it,  and there massacred Mr. Aran
Nest, his wife,  and one  child, aged two years, and Mrs. AVyckoff", aged 
APPENDIX.                         503
seventy.   He stabbed Mr. Van Arsdale in the chest, Avho subsequently re-
covered.   In the affray he entered every room in the house, both above and
below, but took nothing away.   He went to the  stable, unfastened and
mounted a horse, and Avas some rods from  the scene of devastation in the
incredibly short period of not more than five minutes from the time of en-
tering the house, as Avas proved in evidence.  Three days afterwards he was
committed to Cayuga county jail to await his trial.
  " He Avas tried at a special session of  Oyer and Terminer, July, 1846—
first, as to Avhether he was sane at the time  of trial, and secondly, on the in-
dictment.  A verdict of sufficient soundness of mind to be put on trial Avas
rendered on the preliminary issue, and of Avilful murder on the indictment.
A trial calling  forth so much talent  in  its  prosecution, and  arousing  such
fearful excitement among the people, is of rare occurrence.  Subsequently,
however, a new trial was granted by the Supreme  Court.
  " On the part of the people, the cause  was conducted by Hon. John ATan
Buren, Attorney-General of the State of New York, and for the defence by
Hon. AVilliam H. Seward, Ex-Governor of  this State.
  "My knowledge of the prisoner commenced on the 16th of March, 1846,
being the day after his commitment, and it continued until the completion
of a post-mortem examination of his body on the twenty-first of August, 1847.
  " During the scene at Aran Nest's, he received a severe Avound in the ar-
ticulation of the right thumb with the carpus—the  artery barely escaping
division.  This circumstance saved the lives of other members of the family,
because,  to use his own expression,  'he  couldn't handle  his  hand  any
longer.'
  " My services Avere required on account of this injury.  In addition to the
wound, I also  found him  entirely deaf in the left, and partially so in the
right ear.
  "It Avas a sincular circumstance  that he never made  an inquiry  as  to
either the extentor condition of the injury, or the time necessary to com-
plete a cure, or the prospect of recovering the use of his hand—though  it
was  the right, and  as a  laborer was his main dependence.  Neitherdid he
complain of any sensibUity in the wound, although the physical evidences
of pain accompanying the inflammatory stage were such as to leave no doubt
of its existence.  In fact, from  the time of  his commitment until the day  of
his death, although he often saAv, and was  attended by me through his last
sickness, he asked only two questions, one about his medicine, the other re-
garding his diet, and these were made during his last illness.
  " During the principal part of his incarceration,  he passed his time stand-
ing ;  his body erect—his head a little drooping, and with arms folded.  He
sustained this posture with statue-like  stillness—indicating great muscular
strength.  He  exhibited a calm, quiet expression of countenance, occasion-
ally broken by a  smile, Avhich had the appearance of just bursting into
laughter, but would quicklv subside, leaving the same unalterable  expres-
sion, as undisturbed as though a gleam of mirthfulness had never occupied
his fancies.  To the careless observer, it appeared as though he endeavored
to suppress an  irresistible propensity to  laugh.  This smile  was never ac-
companied by  any vocal sound, but often glowed upon his features, regard-
less  of time, place or circumstance, indicative of intense mental emotion.
For this emotion he could  never assign a cause.   I say he never could, be-
cause, when asked, he always said he ' didn't know.'  My conclusion is also
based upon the remarkable fact,  that on the trial, seventy-two^ witnesses on
"both sides coincided in the opinion that the prisoner did  not intend to de-
ceive in any reply made to the numerous interrogatories put to him.
   "  His deafness increased until the sense of hearing was nearly, if not quite,
obliterated.  I doubt whether  he heard any conversation for the  last two 
504                          APPENDIX.
 weeks of his life; at all events, I  could  not  get a reply that harmonized
 with my question.
   " On the twelfth of  June, 1847, I Avas called to see the patient as being
 ' not very well.'  He had a quick, thready pulse—considerable cough, with
 free expectoration—not much  appetite, but rather thirsty.  He made  no
 allusion to these symptoms, but directed  my  attention to his left ear, which
 discharged pus profusely.  From  this  time  forth, the aural discharge con-
 tinued, accompanied by all the symptoms of tubercular  phthisis, until his
 existence terminated, six days  after the  chain that bound  him to  the ma-
 sonry of his cell had been removed.
   " About three Aveeks previous to his  decease, I observed a prominent pro-
 trusion of the left eye, and upon further  examination there proved to be an
 entire obliteration of vision.  He  could  not  close the lids over it, for they,
 with all the muscles of that side of the face, were paralyzed, and the mouth
 considerably drawn to the  right.   The cornea of both organs had much the
 same appearance.  The loss of vision,  I  am inclined  to think, was the re-
 sult of functional, not organic,  lesion.  The protrusion depended most pro-
 bably upon the loss of  muscular power in its motor apparatus, in common
 with the  muscles of that side of the face.  The globe, in articulo-mortis, re-
 covered in a great measure its natural  location, as did the paralyzed mus-
 cles of the face—a common occurrence of facial distortion from, nervous
 lesion at death.
   " Owing to insufficiency of light in  the cell, but more particularly to the
 shattered condition of  the  patient—being deaf, almost blind, and  nearly
 speechless—no  satisfactory account of symptoms or the effect of remedies
 could be obtained from him.
   " As this case presents points of interest in many particulars, I  would re-
 mark that phrenologically, Mr. FoAvler  says, ' he is very defective  in the
 mental temperament, and  has great predominance in the muscular.  His
 propensities (with the exception of self-esteem and firmness, very large—
 and combativeness and  destructiveness, large) are all small, and  have but
 little influence.   The inteUectual faculties are not  so small,  yet the quality
 of brain  considered, their  influence is quite  limited.   He has one  of the
 most imperfect  developments of brain  I ever saAv.  He has no real balance
 to his mind; it is entirely one-sided, he being  at the mercy of circumstances,
 and the stronger  propensities.'   (See  Phrenological Almanac  in  press for
 1848.)   Another phrenologist, though of less notoriety, has aUowed him a
 much better development; but whatever the external evidences of mind
 the contour of  his head may denote, they all have reference  to  a healthy
 brain.
   " I have measured his cranium  in two ways:  First, by passing a string
 across the frontal and around the spinous process of the occipital bones.   It
 measured, in the greatest circumference, tAventy-one inches.   Secondly,
 after the directions laid down in Combe's Phrenology, by callipers.
       Viz. from occipital spine to  indiA'iduality,       7 3-8  inches.
             "  occipital spine to  ear,  *              4 4-8    " "
             "  ear to individuality,                 4 6-8     "
             "  ear to firmness,                     5 3-16   "
            '"  destructiveness to destructiveness,   5 3-8     "
             "  cautiousness to cautiousness,         4 7-16   "
             "  ideality to ideality,                  5 1-8     "
   " On proceeding to  a post-mortem examination, the body was found ex-
 tremely emaciated.^   The costal and pulmonary pleura, though easily sepa-
rated, Avere extensively adhered, and the lungs were an almost entire mass
of disease.  Tuberculous matter was interspersed Avith abscesses throughout
the whole organ.   The pericardium contained about one and a half gtlls  of 
APPENDIX.
505
 serum.   The heart contained polypi, but had a healthy appearance.   Liver
 natural.  Gall bladder a little distended.  Mucous membrane of the stomach
 slightly inflamed.   Intestinal mucous coat healthy.   Mesenteric glands tu-
 berculous.  Urinary bladder distended.  Kidneys natural.  The peritoneum
 appeared healthy, but the sac contained some fluid.
   "Upon opening the cranium, the bones were found rather thinner than
 ordinary, particularly for a colored subject, and the dura-mater was adhe-
 rent to a portion of the occiput.   The  anterior portion of this membrane
 Avas congested and  inflamed, Avith considerable serum  between it and the
 arachnoid.  This latter tunic was somewhat thickened and congested.  The
 anfractuosities of the right hemisphere of the cerebrum  were filled with
 serum.   The superficial vessels of the  right anterior lobe highly congested
 On the superior surface.   Cerebellum to all appearance healthy.
   " The whole brain, separate from the dura-mater, weighed 43 3-4 ounces
 avoirdupois.  Cerebrum 38 ounces.  Cerebellum 5 3-4 ounces.
   " On section of  the medullary substance,  it was found thickly studded
 with bright red points.  The right thalami  appeared  to have undergone
 some change, and  the whole  superior brain was more or less congested.
 The membrane covering the petrous portion of the left cavity Avas congested,
 and the remaining parts of it appeared healthy.
   " There were caries of the inner part of the petrous portion of the left
 temporal bone.  The membrana tympani, with the internal structure of the
 ear, mostly obliterated.  There Avas a necrosis containing fetid pus, having •
 no perceptible connection with the external ear.
   "Remarks.—The important question connected  with this subject  is,
 whether the pathological state of the brain, its membranes and the ear, is
 one of long standing or of recent occurrence ?   On this point rests the phy-
 sical evidence of the prisoner's accountability.  If by possibility it could be
 determined that the organ of mental manifestation was without disease when
 the crime Avas perpetrated, then depravity unparalleled must be assigned as
 the only cause;  and if so, the disease of the organ at his decease  could not
 be held in extenuation of his crimes.
   " That the diseased condition of the brain was of long  standing, appears
 to be unquestionable from the fact, that the mental organ  could not sustain
 so great a lesion as the autopsy presented, without the mind having exhibit-
 ed sudden and violent derangement, as well  as other symptoms which ac-
 company its acute  diseases.  This, however, was not the  case. He  never
 complained of, or exhibited the ordinary  symptoms  in such instances, nor
 ever gave  evidence of any mental change whatever; but on the  contrary,
 presented the same  characteristics  throughout.  During his last sickness,
 there was not a single symptom indicating acute inflammation of the brain,
 and yet, on examination after death, there  were abundant and unequivocal
 evidences of inflammatory action  there.
   " The disease of the ear also was chronic, and dated its commencement
 some months previous to the commission of the  crime.   On his trial it was
 proved  in evidence that about two years previous—Avhen  an inmate of the
 State Prison—he was struck on his head Avith  a board, the blow splitting the
 weapon into fragments.  He attributes his deafness to this  cause, or, to give
 his own description, 'it knocked his words down his throat—his ears dropped
 down—his ^kernels (meaning the  tonsils) dropped.'  Noav, the infliction of
 this Hoav upon a thin skull, associated with his  own account  of its effects,
 Avould lead us to conclude that the concussion seriously injured the auditory
 apparatus.   It possibly burst the tympanum, and if so, it opened a commu-
 nication between the  external ear and the fauces, which  induced^ the re-
mark that 'it knocked  the words down his throat,' &c.  Is it not a just con-
clusion, that from this injury the diseased action was set up, which ultimately
involved the whole brain ? 
506
APPENDIX.
  " Whether the facial paralysis was the result of cerebral congestion, or
whether it was owing to a diseased state of the nerves of motion in connec-
tion with the condition of the ossa petrosa, may be questionable, because the
nerves, as they passed off the brain, were apparently healthy; but the right
hemisphere of the brain being the most deeply implicated in the organic de-
rangement, the paralysis would  appear, as it did in this case, in the muscles
of the opposite side.
  " It should not be forgotten, that the deceased had passed through scenes
of blood seldom equaled, Avhere  but a single individual was the aggressor;
that he had been surrounded by the wild fury of an enraged populace for
hours;  that he had been chained, and for a portion of the tune bedded upon
the stone floor of a dimly-lighted cell, for almost eighteen months; suffering
the jeers and grimaces of inhuman  and uncounted spectators; wasting by
the slow process of consumption; sustaining the blight of one physical ener-
gy after another; with little compassion  and less than ordinary attention;
and through the whole  period, having scarcely asked  a question regarding
either friend or foe, soliciting no favor, showing no hatred, exhibiting  no re-
morse, entering no  complaint,  and through  all, sustaining  an undisturbed
tranquillity.
  " From this concatenation of circumstances, this unruffled, equable,  almost
idiotic state of mind, that no  external relation could disturb, or internal in-
fluence alter, we can scarcely come to any other conclusion by pathological
reasoning, than that the state of. mind which  he exhibited subsequent to his
arrest, depended on a chronic derangement of the mental organ, and must
have existed antecedent to  the crime itself.  IT such a combination of patho-
logical facts, and«,all the other circumstances attending the prisoner from his
arrest  to his death,  do not establish an unsound state of mind, they at least
present one of the most extraordinary cases  furnished by the annals  of our
race.   Such a case demands the careful consideration of the philosopher and
jurist.
   ' How much the cause of justice and philosophy is indebted to the un-
wearied perseverance of the  eminent advocate who withstood the tide  of
popular indignation in conducting  the prisoner's defence, is left for other
hands  to register; but  true it is, that over prejudice and error, science has
gloriously triumphed.
                                        "BLANCHARD  FOSGATE.
  " Auburn, N. Y, Sept.  1, 1847."

  Note.—Tn the April number of the American Quarterly Retrospect of American and Foreign
Practical Medicine and Surgery, for 1848, the above article by Dr. Fosgate is re-published, with  the
following comment by the learned  Editor: " AVe publish  this case not only for its intrinsic inter-
est in an historical and moral point of view, but because it is drawn up with uncommon elegance,
and in a medico-legal point of view affords a most striking illustration of the importance of this
seience'to the welfare of men.  It saved, in this instance by its generous application, the life of an
unaccountable agent from sacrifice."
            OPINION OF LANSINGH  BRIGGS, M.  D.

                                            Auburn, August 23, 1847.
  Hon. B. F. Hall.—Dear Sir: In reply to  your note of this morning, I
would observe, that the man Freeman, therein alluded to, died on Friday
last of consumption ; disease of the brain, probably, having no immediate
agency in his  death.   I never could discover any thing in his case, making
it an exception to the fact, that a very considerable and decided departure
from sanity may exist without interruption to tolerably good bodily health
during life, or exhibiting visibly, corresponding lesions of the brain on in- 
APPENDIX.                          507
spection after death.  Consequently, aside from the extensiA-ely and long
diseased condition of one ear and  the -lungs, I did not anticipate any stri-
kingly morbid appearances on examination ;  nor did I deem such manifesta-
tions indispensable to prove him  previously insane, as there Avere otherwise
abundant and convincing evidence to establish the fact, in my opinion, that
that was his condition.
   The post-mortem examination  was made about twelve hours after death,
and for a " statement  of the result—the facts discoA'ered and  deductions
made  therefrom," I would refer you to the very intelligent and accurate
notes,  made on the spot by Dr. Fosgate, and to the enclosed original paper*
drawn up and subscribed at the time and place of examination.
              I remain, very respectfully,
                                  Yours &c,
                                              LANSINGH BRIGGS.
             OPINION  OF CHARLES A. HYDE,  M. D.

                                         Auburn, September 13, 184 7.
  Hon. B. F. Hall.—Dear Sir:   Your communication requesting  me to
furnish you with the particulars in reference to the  post-mortem examina-
tion  of the brain of William Freeman, is received,  and in reply I  would
briefly say, that I am unable to do so just now, from the fact, that I have not
at this time in my possession the  minutes of the case,  (save those already
before the public,) and therefore would  respectfully beg permission to refer
you  to some one of my colleagues who was present at the autopsy, and care-
fully noted all the diseased appearances of the different organs and  tissues
in the case, at the time, as Ave progressed in our examination; and thus, by
obtaining a full and clear exposition of all the  diseased parts of the entire
system of the man,  you will  have  a  data, from which you may arrive at a
just conclusion,  deducible  not  only from the morbid  appearances  of the
brain itself, but also from the pathological state of the other organs and viscera,
all of which are intimately blended in the performance of their multiplied
and A'aried operations and functions, in a physiological  point of view, and
which evidently exhibited greater  ravages of disease than that of the brain,
and was the  immediate cause of his death.
   It is to  be regretted that the  article drawn up  and subscribed, at the
spur of the moment, by the medical  gentlemen present, had not been more
full  and explicit before it found  its way into a public newspaper ;  for it is
to be apprehended,  that erroneous opinions will thereby be promulgated;
especially when  prefaced by a long editorial, calling  Freeman a  perfect
idiot.  We regard speculation of this kind as irrelevant or merely hypothet-
ical, and consequently, unreliable and fallacious.
   The medical profession, as well  as the public, require opinions ratiocina-
tive, based upon a knoAvledge of the entire history of the case, and sustained
by known scientific principles, in  order to arrive at the truth in regard to
the  important and long controverted questions of sanity or insanity.  It is
only from deductions thus correctly drawn, that Ave  shall be enabled  to pro-
mote the interests of community, and thereby subserve the legitimate ends
of public justice, and make reliable those  necessary, important and funda-
mental laws  of medical  jurisprudence that constantly govern  our penal
courts of judicature.

  * The paper, a copy of which appears on page 497 and which was signed by Doctors  Brigham
 and  others, on the evening of the 21st of  August, 1847.  Dr. Briggs testified, that he believed
 Freeman's mind to be disordered ; and hence, his remark that " there were otherwise  abundant
and convincing evidence, to establish the fact in my opinion, that that was his condition." 
OUS                          APPENDIX.

  I will, therefore, particularly refer you to Dr. Brigham, of the State Lu-
natic Asylum af Utica; whose peculiar province it is to deal with cases of      *.  .
this kind, as he is in possession of all  the facts, and  will in due time give
them to you and the public, as well as  the medical profession.
                        Yours, very respectfully,
                                                        C. A. HYDE.
* 
 
\V£3 J