600
m
■^••k
Hp	ghjfl
^fiSf
*&

'IP
'^^rfjp	M|g		UT*P5bc *
•L-3/ '			^Pay
^t^^L .•			■^QMh" ^7
^v|B|			7^>* • ^Htjjj^W^A
	&5fl#jl3	lifllv^v	PE^M;':' -; ^.Tflr*^
Iffl			OBKHryXv :.'•>'
	i .^jHjn	i^Sw	S5&
e'UPB	';|^jtf|H		^K.lfl
Wii.'ir: r*	^* ^zr~^i^	MTf'::.", •/	fi-■:«!#*?%••«
 
Surgeon  General's Office
15 '■■
 
 
 
TRIAL
                              V*


JUDGE WILKINSON, DR. WILKINSON,  AND MR..MURDAUGH,
ON INDICTMENTS FOR THE MURDER OF
JOHN  ROTHWELL  AND ALEXANDER  H. MEEKS,
AN AFFRAY W
Flicn OCCURRED AT THE GALT HOUSE, LOUISVILLE, KY., ON THE 15TH OF DECEMBER, 1«38
REPORTED BY T. EGERTON BROWNE,

    Editor and Proprietor of the Louisville Daily Reporter
Printed and Published at the Daily Reporter office, Pearl street, Louisvilk,

           1ND TO BE HAD OP ALL THE BOOKSELLERS.
               I
LOUISVILLE:
     APRIL, 1839. 
w.
                    Entered, according to  Act of Congress, in the year 1839,
                            BY  T.  EGERTON  BROWNE,
In the Office of  the  Clerk  of the  District Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky
                                     in the Eighth Circuit. 
INTRODUCTION.
   I deem it necessary tha t the reader should be made
 acquainted with a few circumstances connected with
 this trial, for the better understanding of the ques-
 tion placed at issue before the jury." I shall endeavor,
 without the slightest bias, for I have none, to make
 the proper explanation, not, I trust, displeasing^ any
 party interested in the proceedings.  As I take upon
 myself this responsibility,  I shall  confine my re-
 marks to what fell within the range of my own ob-
 servation.
   On the evening of the 15th of December, I was
 in the Louisville City  Theatre, shortly before the
 rising of the curtain, when a young gentleman who
 had just come into the boxes, told me that an affray
 had taken place at the Gait House, about six o'clock
 that evening, in which one person had been killed
 and another so dangerously wounded  that his life
 was despaired  of; and  that  two others  had been
 slightly wounded.   It was also mentioned that the
 parties engaged in the affray were, on one side, three
 gentlemen  of Mississippi;.one, Judge Wilkinson,
 of Yazoo county,  in that state; another, Dr. Wil-
 kinson,  his brother; and  the  third,  a gentleman
 named Murdaugh, the Judge's friend, and from the
 same state; on the other side, Mr. Redding, of the
 firm of Varnum & Redding,merchant tailors, corner
 of Pearl and Main streets;  his brother-in-law, Mr.
 Rothwell,' the  hatter,  corner of Market and Sixth
 streets; and Mr. Meeks, formerly bar-keeper to Mr.
 Dcwees, on Wall street, &,c.  It was stated that the
 affray arose out of a circumstance which had occur-
 red at Mr. Redding's store at four o'clock that eve-
 ning; and that  the altercation then engendered had
 been renewed in the bar-room of the Gait House—
 where the persons had met, it  was not known for
 certain, how.   The gentleman  telling the affair in
 the  Theatre, gave  his  evidence  afterwards at the
 examining  court  and  subsequently  at  the  fol-
 lowing trial. He  said  that  he could not tell which
side  was  to blame,  the thing  was so sudden; but
 that it was a dreadful  sight.  One  person, Meeks,
he had seen lying dead on the floor, with his bowels
protruding from a wound in  his belly; and another,
Rothwell, lying on chairs', with blood oozing from
wounds in his back.  That it was a strange circum-
stance, as he understood  the Mississippi gentlemen
were men of the highest character; and  also that
Redding  and Rothwell were men greatly esteemed
by the community of Louisville, and that their char-
,Htcr had alwavsstood very high.  This gentleman
 • med to think that  it would b» impossible to form
 any correct opinion until  the facts could be legally
 investigated.   He had understood the  Mississippi
 gentlemen had been arrested and taken to jail, on
 suspicion of  having inflicted  the wounds which
 caused the death of Meeks and the danger of death
 under which  Rothwell labored.   The  excitement
 of the crowd about the Gait House, he stated, was
 vxry great, as  the  persons assembled knew only of
 the stabbing and the, blood  spilled,  without any
 chance of learning the other facts correctly. Short-
 ly after, perhaps by 8 o'clock, the police officer who
 had taken one  of the gentlemen to jail, came  into
 the Theatre, as usual  in his rounds of duty, and I
 learned from him, thai it had been considered proper
 to take the  Mississippi gentlemen out of the Gait
 House privately,  lest the crowd  might  interfere
 with them; and  that one gentleman had accom-
 panied him; another, Capt. Turner; and the third,
 one of the other officers.  That the Mississippians
 were themselves greatly injured in the affray; and
 that they seemed every way disposed to meet the
 investigation.  The officer told me that when it was
 found  these gentlemen were lodged in jail, the crowd
 was easily dispersed on the Mayor's remonstrance.
 He said, groups of persons talking over the matter
 were in the streets and around the jail; but he did
 not apprehend any interference with the proper au-
 thorities.  I had confidence in  his statement,  and
 fully believed  that no outrage would be attempted
 which would not be promptly controlled  by the Po-
 lice, backed, as I knew they would be, by every res-
 pectable citizen.
   Groups of persons were to be seen at tlje corners
 of the streets next  day, Sunday, talking over the
 occurrence; some of course  speaking of the blood-
 shed in terms of abhorrence, others justifying  it as
,unavoidable, in self-defence—and,  in short, it was
 quite certain that public opinion was very, much di-
 vided as to the merits of the case.  All looked with
 anxiety to the examination at the police court, as if
 that alone could give a clue to the apparent mystery
 of persons of high character being involved in a dif-
 ficulty  of the  kind.   On that evening about six
 o'clock, Mr. Rothwell died, at Mr. Redding's house,
 where  he had been removed from the Gait House.
 liisdeath occasioned a great and melancholy gloom
 throughout the whole city.  People talked of it
 with tears, as a circumstance peculiarly  to be la-
 mented.  The oldest  inhabitants of the city could
call to mind, vividly, the day on which his mother
haH l'inrlr.d in the « harl with him  *n infant in her 
IT
INTRODUCTION
arms, just  thirty-9even years ago.  He had grown
up with its growth—almost its coeval in years—
and he had prospered with its prosperity by keeping
pace  with  its enterprize and industry.  As a me-
chanic, he had reached competence after a life of toil;
as a citizen,  he had won the affections of all that
 knew him, by  the warmth of his  heart, the de-
votedness of his friendship, and the zeal and prompt-
itude with which he sought the  point of  danger
when fire  or pestilence assailed their habitations.
That the untimely death  of such a man should be
deeply deplored,cannot excite wonder;  that it arous-
ed angry passions  may  be  pardoned;  but  that  it
could have induced the citizens of such a civilized
community as Louisville to  submit  to any innova-
tion on the prerogatives  of legal authority or the
principles of justice, would  be a  belief which ao
reasonable  and  unprejudiced mind could entertain.
On Monday  morning  Messrs. Wilkinsons and
Murdaugh  were brought before, the Police Court,
which was crowded to excess; but  the necessary
witnesses being absent, the investigation was post-
poned to the following Wednesday.
  About three o'clock  in the afternoon Mr. Roth-
well's remains were attended to the grave by a very
large concourse  of citizens; many of  the companies
of the city in costume.  He  was buried in a little
grave-yard set apart several years ago by his father,
on a piece of wood-land which he had owned, about
a mile south of Centre street, near Beargrass creek.
He was in his 38th year, and unmarried—his mother
one single, and three married  sisters, surviving him.
  We have but little opportunity for  collecting any
details of interest to the reader respecting  Mr.
Meeks. His family, it was said, lived  at Madison,
Indiana. He had been some years known in this
city; part of the time as bar-keeper to Mr. Dewees,
who keeps the hotel on  Wall street.  Since his
death it has been erroneously  asserted in the eastern
papers that he was the noted  Robinson;  but  it is
certainly a mistake.  Many still assert that he had
a great resemblance to Robinson; that, however,
may have been accidental.
   The examination at the Police Court, in the order
 in which it took place, will be found in the appendix.
 It is only necessary here to state that with  its pro-
 gress all excitements and prejudices abated; and
 every one began to view the question of the guilt
 or innocence of the accused as a matter which a jury
 alone could properly decide.  So considerably had
 the examination allayed the public excitement, that
 when  the gentlemen  were admitted to bail, they
 could run no  risk whatever in walking the streets
 like other citizens.  I shall not presume to say that
 prejudices did or did not exist of such a nature as to
 render their trial in Louisville involved in difficulty.
 A copy  of their  petition  to the  Legislature  for a
 change of venue, will be found in the appendi:;; also
 a copy of the act authorizing that change.-
 .  I do not now recollect any other point of interest,
 or necessary to be explained, which will not be found
 in the proceedings themselves.
   My motives for publishing this trial are threefold:
 one, I am not  uncandid enough to disavow; it is my
 professional  duty, as  much as the  advocacy of the
 lawyer is his duty to himself and his family who
 live by his labors; a second is that I wish to  gratify
 the citizens of Louisville by any exertion I can make
 for them in  compensation for their patronage;*and
 the third, which I can with sincerity say is the most
 powerful and most satisfactory to my own mind, is
 the conviction  that the publication will aid the great
 principles of truth and justice. If those whose pas-
 sions on either side have hitherto obscured their men-
 tal visioD, can  judge now more impartially from the
 facts and evidence than  they could hitherto  have
 done, I shall esteem myself a useful  laborer in.the
 search of truth, and in the establishment of my own
 principles of belief, that man is more prone to the
 love of truth  and justice  than to deceit and  evil,
when  the opportunity is afforded him of choosing
between them.
                   T. EGERTON  BROWNE.
 Daily Reporter Office,        1
   Lofiisville, Ky. April, 1839. S 
TRIAL
JUDGE   WILKINSON,   DR.  WILKINSON   AND  MR.  MURDAUGH,
   IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MERCER COUNTY, KY., ON INDICTMENTS FOR THE  MURDER OF
        JOHN  ROTHWELL   AND  ALEXANDER  H.  MEEKS.
Special Term, appointed by Act  of Assembly, changing the venue from  Jefferson to Mercer  Circuit
        Court.   Hon. John L.  Bridgjs, Judge.  Edward J. Bullock, Prosecuting Attorney.
                     Monday, March 4th, 1839.
   Pursuant to Act of Assembly* passed in the Le-
gislature  of Kentucky on the 24th day of January,
on petition of  Messrs.  Wilkinsons  and . Mur-
d.iHgh, for a change of venue from Jefferson county
to Mercer county, the trial of this important case
was appointed to commence at Harrodsburgh on
 Monday,  the 4th of March, 1839. On the appointed
day,  the  Court being opened  in due form, before
Judge Bridges, the Counsel for the prosecution ap-
plied for time to collect the witnesses  for the Com-
monwealth,, most.of thqse summoned  not being in
attendance. The Court  required till next day for
considering the grounds urged; and upon resuming,
on the 5th, decided that  all  parties should be pre-
pared to go to trial on the following Monday.
   The intermediate time was employed by the pro-
secution and defence in collecting by  summons  or
attachment the several witnesses, most of whom ar-
rived at Harrodsburgh on Sunday evening,  the 10th,
by the stages; and next morning it was generally
known that all parties were prepared and anxious
for the trial.
   Special »term  of the Mercer Circuit Court,
held in Harrodsbugh, Mercer County, Ky., by act of
Legislature changing  the  venue  from  Jefferson
County—The Hon. John L. Bridges, Judge; Edw'd.
J. Bullock, Esq., Prosecuting Attorney. The Hon.
Benjamin  Hardin assistant counsel, employed by the
relatives  of the deceased, Rothwell.  Counsel for
the Defence—the Hon. Judge Rowan, S. S. Prentiss,
Colonel Robertson, Samuel Davis, John B. Thomp-
son, Chas. M. Cunningham, James Taylor, and C.
M. Wickhffe.
   First day of Trial, Monday, llth March, 1839.
   The Court wjts opened by the crier in the  usual
form, precisely at 10 o'clock, A. M.;  Dr. Wilkinson,
\T r M urdaugh, and their leading counsel, being pre-
sent at the bar.
  After a little delay it was intimated to the Judge
that one of the defendants, Judge Wilkinson, was
not in court, and probably would  not be able to
reach town till eleven  o'clock, as information had
been received that he had been  obliged to wait in
Louisville  h few hours extra for an important wit-
ness.
»Pee Appendix letter \,
  The Court suggested a recess till 11 o'clock.
  Judge Rowan begged leave before the order was
made, to occupy the attention of the court for a few
moments, for the purpose of withdrawing a motion
he had made on a former day relative to the order in
which the Counsel on both sides should address the
Court.  That point had been since adjusted between
the Prosecution and the Defence.
  The Court observed that the Counsel on bothsidea
should of course adjust that matter between them-
selves.
  Judga  Rowan  then stated that by arrangement
the order of speaking to  evidence would be for the
Prosecuting Attorney to open the argument, Col.
Robertson to follow,  Mr.  Hardin next, and then
himself, (Judge Rowan,) and the Prosecuting Attor-
ney to conclude.
  The Court said there was no  objection to that ar-
rangement.   The  recess might now  take  place,
with an understanding that when Judge-Wilkin3on
reached town, notice should be given to the proper
officers, that the Court might resume with as little
delay as possible.
  Judge Rowan intimated that on Judge Wilkin*
son's arrival, should any contingency arise render-
ing it important to the defence to make  any change
or addition of counsel in the order of  speaking to
evidence, he wished to make a reservation  in favor
of such change or addition.  [This was understood
as alluding to the probability that Mr. S. S. Prentiss
had been employed by Judge Wilkinson, and would
arrive with him for the purpose of addressing the
jury.]  The Court said it  was a matter of  arrange-
mentibetween the counsel on both sides, with which
the Court had no disposition to interfere.  Mr. Har-
din said he had made no concessions on that point.
The subject here dropped, the Prosecuting Attorney
merely repeating the  order  before  mentioned  in
which the counsel on both sides should speak to evi-
dence. The Court then took a recess.
  Shortly after twelve o'clock, Judge Wilkinson ar-
rived in a hack, accompanied by Mr.  S. S.  Prentiss
of Mississippi and  Gen.  Chambers of Louisville.—
They drove to Dr. Graham's, where Dr. Wilkinson,
Mr. Murdaugh and several of their friends were stop-
ping.  It was by this time so late, that it was gene.
rally known the court  would not resume  till after
dinneT time. 
   At half p4t>i oneo'clock, the court again sat, .ludge
 Wilkinson,  Dr.  Wilkinson  and Mr.  Muidaugh
 being  present, were recognized to save their bail.
 After  the sheriff had called the  jury pannel, the
 Court  asked the gentlemen for the defence,  if they
 were ready to proceed?  Judge Wilkinson stood  up
 and said, "I wish, sir, S. S. Prentiss to be called, as
 one of my counsel." Mr. Prentiss was  called, but
 did not answer. "Do you know,  Mr. Wilkinson,"
 observed the Court, "where the gentleman now is''"
 "I do not, sir," replied Judge Wilkinson, "but a per-
 son is  gone for him."  After waiting nearly  half an
 hour for Mr. Prentiss, the Court asked if the swear-
 ing of the jury could not be proceeded with, while
 waiting for Mr. Prentiss?  To which the  gentlemen
 for the defence answered in the affirmative, and the
 swearing of the jurors,  individually, was commen-
 ced. The Court interrogated each juror  thus—Are
 you a house-keeper of this county?  Are you in any
 way related to the prosecutor,  the deceased, or the
 defendants; either by marriage or otherwise?   Have
 you heard any statements of the transaction from
 any persons professing to know the facts; or  have
 you conversed  with any of the witnesses on the sub-
 ject?   To these interrogations ten of the  pannel
 answered in the negative; two answered that they
 had heard Dr. Graham  speak of it, but bad formed
 no opinion from his statements; six answered that
 they had heard Dr. Graham talk of the matter, after
 his return from Louisville, and that they had formed
 opinions; and four were peremptorily challenged by
 the defence without assigning cause.  The prosecu-
 tion made no challenges.  Thus, twenty-two of the
 pannel were called;  six  of whom were set aside by
 the court for having already  formed opinions; and
 four set aside by challenge from  the defence.  The
 ten passed, with the two who had formed no opin-
 ion from what  they had heard, completed the jury,
 and were sworn to try both the indictments.  The
 names of those accepted by both sides will be seen
 in the order in whioh they were subsequently  called.
 The six who stated  that they had heard  Dr. Gra-
 ham speak of the affray and that they had formed
 no opinions, were,  Marbly, Bruce, Chapman, Col-
 man, Thompson, and Curry; those challenged pe-
 remptorily by the defence, were—Cohoon, Randall,
Jones, and Huff.  C. Humphries and Jacob Vanars-
 dall were the two who had heard Dr. Graham speak
 of the  matter but had formed no opinions.
  Judge Rowan, previous to the reading  of the in-
dictments, addressed the court for permission to in-
 troduce Mr.  S. S.  Prentiss of Mississippi, a prac-
 ticing  lawyer  at the head of the  bar in his own
state, and who now asked leave to practice in this
court for the purpose of aiding  in  the present de-
fence.  The court assented, being satisfied of  Judge
Rowan's assertion;  and ordered the clerk to  swear
in Mr  Prentiss, which was accordingly done
   The jurors 3\\orn and called over by the clerk cd
 the court, were  -Benjamin Alsop,  R.  M. Davis,
 Buckner Miller, Robert Alexander, John Bowman,
 John  Burton,  Elijah Gabbott, John Bohan, John
 Adair. Ehneazer McGoffin, Charles Humphries, and
 fj.ab Vanarsdali

   The clerk of the court then read the two indict-
 ments, as follows:
   The  Commonwealth of  Kentucky,  Jefferson
 County,  and Circuit Set. December Term  of the
 Jefferson Circuit Court, in the year of our Lord onei
 thousand eight  hundred  and thirty-eight, the jurors
 of the Grand Jury, empannelled and sworn  to en-
 quire in and for the body.of the said county of Jef-
 ferson, in the name and by the authority of the com-
 monwealth of Kentucky, upon their oaths, present,
 that Edward C. Wilkinson, Gentleman, John Mur-
 daugh, Gentleman, and Bonjamin R. Wilkinson,
 Doctor of Medicine, late of the said county and cir-
 cuit, on the fifteenth day of December, 1838, in the
 said county of Jefferson and state of  Kentucky,
 with force and  arms, feloniously,, wilfully, and of
 their malice aforethought,  an assault did make in
 and upon one John Rothwell, there being; and the
 said Edward C.  Wilkinson,  with a certain knife,
 which the said Edward C. Wilkinson then and there
 had and held in his right hand, the said John Roth-
 well in and upon the left side of the back, near the
 back bone of the said John  Rothwell,  and also in
 and upon the chest, near the collar bone and right
 lung of him the said John Rothwell, then and there,
 feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought,
 did strike, thrust and penetrate, giving to the said
 John Rothwell then and there, with the knife afore-
 said, in and upon the left side of the back, near the
 back borne of him the said John Rothwell, two mor-
 tal wounds—one  of said mortal  wounds between
 the  eleventh and twelfth  ribs of the said John
 Rothwell, and of the length of four inches  and of
 the depth of five inches; the other said mortal wound
 on and cutting through the seventh rib on* the same
 left side of him  the said John  Rothwell, and of the
 length of five inches and of the depth of four inches;
 and also giving  to the said John Rothwell then and
 there,  with the knife aforesaid, one other  mortal
 wound, in the chest  of him the said John Rothwell,
 near the collar bone and near  the right lung of hint
 the said John Rothwell, of the width of one inch
 and of the depth of five inches; and that the said
 John Murdaugh and the said Benjamin R. Wilkin-
 son, were then and there feloniously, wilfully, and
 of their malice aforethought, present, aiding, assist-
 ing, comforting, helping and maintaining the said
 Edward C. Wilkinson in giving  to the said John
 Rothwell the  said several mortal  wounds, in man-
 ner and form aforesaid; of which said mortal wounds,
 the said John Rothwell,froin the said fifteenth day of
 December in the year aforesaid,  until the sixteenth
 day of the  same month and year aforesaid, at the
countyand circuit aforesaid, did languish, and lan-
 guishing did live; and on'the said  16th day of Dj-
 cember, in the year of our Lord 1833, aforesaid, at
 the county and circuit aforesaid, the said John Ri'th-
 well,  of the said several mortal wounds afon raid,
did die.  So the said jurors, upon  their oath afore-
said, Ho say—that the said  Edward C. Wilkinson
 the said John Murdaugh, and the said Benjamin It
 Wilkinson, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and
of their malice  aforethought,  in manner and form
and by-the means afore-aid, did kill and murder the
said Jqhn Rothwell. country to the form of the sta-
 tute in that case made and  provided,  and acainst 
(7)
 the peace and dignity of the commonwealth of Ken-
 tucky.                      FR. JOHNSON,
           Commonwealth Attorney in and for the
                          Fifth Judicial District.
 A copy, attest:
   Phil. T. Allin, Clerk.

   The Commonwealth of Kentucky, Jefferson coun-
 ty, and Circuit Sctv December Term of the Jeffer-
 son Circuit Court, in the year of our Lord 1838, the
 jurors of the Grand Jury, empannelled and sworn,
 in and for the body of the said county of Jefferson,
 in the name and by the authority of the common-
 wealth of Kentucky, upon their oaths, present—that
 John Murdaugh, Gentleman, Edward C. Wilkinson,
 Gentleman,  and Benjamin R. Wilkinson, Gentle-
 man, late of the said  county and circuit, on the fif-
 teenth day of December, 1838, in the said county of
 Jefferson and  state  of Kentucky,  with force and
 arms, feloniously, wilfully, and of their malice afore-
 thought, did make an assault in and upon Alexander
 H. Meek, there being; and the said John Murdaugh,
 with a certain  knife, which he the said John Mur-
 daugh then and there had and  held  in his-left hand,
 the said Alexander H. Meek,  in and upon the right
 side of the belly, between  the hip bone and the na-
 val of him  '.he said Alexander H.  Meek, then and
 there feloniously,  wilfully, and of his malice afore-
 thought, did strike, thrust and penetrate, giving to
 the said Alexander H. Meek, then and there, with
 the knife aforesaid, in and upon the right side of the
 belly, between the hip and the naval of him the said
 Alexander H.  Meek,  one mortal  wound, of the
 breadth of one inch, and of the length of six inches,
 and of the depth of six inches—of which said mortal
 wound the said Alexander H.  Meek then and there
 instantly died; and that the said Edward C.  Wilkin-
 son and the said Benjamin R.  Wilkinson were then
 and there feloniously, wilfully, voluntarily, mali-
 ciously, and of their  malice aforethought, present,
 aiding, assisting, helping, abetting, comforting, sus-
 taining, and maintaining the  said John Murdaugh
 in the felony and murder aforesaid,, in  manner and
 form aforesaid, to do and  commit.  So the jurors
 aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do say—that
 the said John Murdaugh, the said Edward C. Wil-
 kinson, and the said Benjamin R. Wilkinson, then
 and there, feloniously, wilfully and maliciously, and
 of their malice aforethought, in manner  and form
 aforesaid, did kill and murder the said Alexander H.
 Meek, contrary to the'form of the  statute in that
 aase made and provided, and against the peace and
 dignity of the commonwealth of Kentucky.
                            FR. JOHNSON,
           Commonwealth Attorney in and for the
                         Fifth Judicial District.
 A copy, attest:
  Phil. T. Allin, Clerk Mercer Circuit Court.

  After reading each indictment the  Clerk gave the
 prisoners in charge to the jury, in this form:

  "Upon this indictment, gentlemen, the prisoners
at the  bar have been  arraigned and have  pleaded
not guilty—and  for their trial have thrown them-
selves upon God and their country,  which country
you are.  You will therefore hear the evidence be-
tween  the commonwealth and the accused, and a
true verdict give according to the same; and if you
find them guilty you will  assess the punishment—
if not, you will say so, and no more."

  Here fifteen  witnesses for the prosecution were
 sworn, and all but Mr.  Redding ordered to with-
 draw into an apartment attached to the court.
   Mr. Redding was  then  requested by Mr. Hardin
 to state what he knew of the transaction.
   Mr. Redding.  Some time in December Dr. Wil-
 kinson called at my shop to purchase a suit of clothes
 and desired that they would be ready on the follow-
 ing Saturday.  He then agreed for an overcoat, to
 be furnished the next week, and a pair of pantaloons,
 and said he would call at  the appointed day for the
 suit of clothes.
   [Col. Robertson here rose and  observed to the
 court that on a former occasion, at the examining
 court, the  counsel for the defence had suffered evi-
 dence to be gone into relative to a matter that had
 occurred some four  or five hours  previous to the
 transaction laid in the indictments.  He could not
 conceive why  it  should now be  attempted  to con-
 nect  these transactions.  It  would be established
 that the persons killed had not been present at what
 occurred at Mr.  Redding's and had nothing to do
 with that affair.  He therefore objected to the  pre-
 sent  investigation being allowed to embrace the af-
 fair at Redding's store, which formed trie subject of
 another prosecution.
   The court said it was impossible at the  present
 stage of the case  to judge  whether the  two affrays
 had any connection or not; and there could not be
 any material objection to hearing the evidence now
 in progress, because  if it subsequently turn out that
 there is no connection, it must be discarded by the
 jury, as far as it relates to the first affray; and what-
 ever may be given in proof that is not legal evidence
 will  then become harmless.  The witness  should
 be allowed to make his statement.]
   Mr. Redding, resumed:—I had the clothes pre-
 pared, and folded them on the counter to send to the
 Gait House on the appointed Saturday evening.
   Mr. Hardin.  Where was this?   You have a  tai-
 lor's shop?
  Mr. Redding. My shop  is on the lower corner of
 Third and Main streets.   There  is but one square
 between my shop and the Gait House; but my shop
 is on the opposite  side of Main street.
  Mr. Hardin.  In the city of Louisville?
  Mr. Redding.  Yes.
  Mr. Hardin.   Well; proceed with your statement.
  Mr. Redding:—On that  Saturday afternoon  the
 Doctor came to my store  about the clothes and I
 showed them to him.  I asked him to try on the
coat.  He said, yes, and  took off his  old  coat and
 tried on the new one, which he seemed to  like very
 well.  He merely remarked, as to the fit of the coat,
that it was a  little loose; but he had been sick and
had fallen away, and hoped soon to fill it up.
   He then  took  the things  out  of his  old coat
pockets and put them into the pockets of the new
coat.  He  desired me to send the pantaloons and 
(
8)
 veet to  the  Gait  House, and at  the  iamo time
 handed  me  a $100  Mississippi Bank Bill, which
 he requested  I would hold over for a week or two,
 as he had information with regard to the arrange-
 ments  of the Banks below, that the discount in a
 few days would be considerably reduced.  He then
 went away, and in the  course of an hour or so,  re-
 turned, accompanied by two gentlemen, as I after-
 wards learned, his brother Judge Wilkinson and Mr.
 Murdaugh.  When the Doctor came in  the second
 time he  said he would have to throw the coat on
 my hands as it did not  fitnnd his  friends had told
 him it was badly made—not fashionable; it was
 the Judge that said most about it's not being fashion-
 able.  I offered to get any alteration necessary made.
 He said no, that it was no coat at all.  As soon as I
 found  they  were not disposed to take it, I said I
 would  keep  it.  The Doctor then took out some
 money and said  he would pay for the  pantaloons
and vest;  which  had been  sent to  the Gait House.
 The Judge said, no,  do not pay for them, perhaps
 they would not fit—they would be  like the coat.  I
 thought he and Murdaugh had more to say against
 the clothes than  the Doctor, who, I saw, would be
 pleased enough only for  them.  He said ths law was,
 that if  a  coat did  not fit  it should be taken back.,
 When the Judge  interfered so much, I said it took
 more than one to judge a coat, and that  I thought
 he had already  said more than he ought.  The
Judge,  who had been sitting near the stove, then
jumped up and said he did  not come there to be in-
 sulted.   I remarked that I did not  intend to insult
 him.  He snatched up the iron poker at the stove
 and rushsd at me with it,  attejnpting to strike me,
 but I received the blows on my arm.  Seeing that
 no one in the store was interfering, and  hearing
 something about a Bowie knife,  I thought to get
 them to the street where some one would be passing,
 and  I seized the  Judge  and jerked him *to the side
 door, near the corner, going into Third street.   As
 I got him to the door, I  think I slipped and fell, and
 the Judge fell with me.  I thought  the whole three
 were on  top of me, and I struggled till I got  the
 Judge under me, and I raised to keep off the Doctor,
 or to pull him down, when he tried to  stab me with
 his knife, but was prevented by some one.  Tne
 knife was like this now handed me   I think it is
 the  same knife.  The  Judge still held  on to  the
 poker.   I should have stated that when the Doctor
 drew his  knife on  me, a voice quite near, which I
 thought was Murdaugh's, cried out, kill the damned
 rascal.  It was then that some one ran up and held
 the Doctor's arm.  I threw them off, and got out on
 tke  pavement.   Murdaugh was on the  pavement,
 with his  knife drawn.  I  picked up a brickbat, and
 told them I would  whip the whole three if they
 would lay aside their weapons.  Seeing no interfer-
 ence I returned into  the shop, and  the Doctor fol-
 lowed rne in  with his drawn knife  in his  hand, de-
 manding his $100 bill.  In the scuffle I had lost my
 pocket book, in which it was, but some one just then,
 who had picked it up, handed it to me, and I gave
 the Doctor his $100 bill.  They then went away
 with  the  knives  drawn, and the Judge carried off
 the poker.  Several persons came into the shop after
 they had gone, and some  advised  me to get them
 taken up.   I did not at first want to do so, but after
 a little time was  persuaded  to go  to the Mayor's
 office.   I started for the Mayor's office, accompanied
~by Bill Johnson; but before this I went to Mr. Ful-
 ton's store and got a small dirk knife from Mr. Noel,
 which I put into my watch  pocket.  As  we went
 to the Mayor's office we  called at Vacaro's and
 Hymen's Coffee Houses, to  enquire for the Mar-
 shal, Mr. Turner,  or one of the police officers.  Not
 gieeting any of them we proceeded  to  the Mayor's
 office, and went up stairs to Mr. Pollard's  room.   I
 told the circumstances to Mr. Pollard,  the Clerk of
 the Police Court, and told him I  wanted a  warrant.
 He asked me for the names.  I said I only  knew for
 certain that one was Wilkinson, but I could get the
 names at the Gait  House.   Mr. Pollard said he could
 not give me a  warrant without the  names, but if I
 saw Mr. Turner I could get him to  go with me and
 arrest them without  a warrant.  I  told him that I
 would goto the Gait Hou?e i'ar the names, and bring
 ihsni to the office.  We then-started for the jail in
 search of  Mr. Turner, and went round there, but
 could not find him, as he was not there.  Bill John-
 son went  into the jail  to enquire for Mr. Turner,
 and I staid outside an the pavement  enquiring about
 the officers.  Before Johnson came  out I started oft
 to Market street, and over towards Rothwell's cor-
 ner.   I saw Rothwell, my  brother-in-law,  standing
 at Dr. Bernard's office, and told him what had hap-
 pened.  I was going up Market street, and he went
 along with me. We tried as  we went along to find
 Mr. Turner, or one of the City officers, but not be-
 ing able to do so, we proceeded on to  the Gait Hoase.
 We went into the  bar-room and I saw Mr. Sneed,
 who minds the bar, and asked for the Register, and
 the names of the three Mississippi  gentlemen.  In
 the meantime Mr. Everett came in, and I asked him
 if he would give me the names on paper.   He very
 politely said he would, and immediately did so.   I
 then got talking with Mr. McGrath, who was in-
 side the counter, and told how I had been treated at
 my own store.  In a short time Judge Wilkinson
 came into the bar-room, and came up to the counter
 to take a glass of  water.  I was  leaning on the
 counter, and said to him, "I think you are the gen-
 tleman that struck me  with  the poker in my own
 house to-day?"  He observed that he was,  and then
 said, "I will not quarrel or  fight with a man of your
 profession, but if  you interfere with me,  or lay a
 hand on me, I'll kill you."  As he  said this he put 
(9)
his hand behind, as I thought, in his coat pocket for j
some weapon.  I then called him a coward for com-
ing to my house with two others to assault me; and
1 offered if he and they would lay aside their wea-
pons,  and come into the street or into a room, I
would  whip the whole three  of  them.  He then
walked backwards and forwards across the room,
and I  kept telling him what I thought of him.   In
a short time he passed  out of the bar-room.  He
was gone but a little while when he and the Doctor
and Mr. Murdaugh came into the bar-room.  I saw
the Doctor and the  Judge behind,  and Murdaugh
came  towards me, a little below  where I stood at
the counter.  I remarked to him as he came up, that
he was the man who had drawn his knife on me in
my own shop.  He said, he had understood that. I
had said, that he had drawn a  Bowie knife on me,
and if I did say sd, I was a damned liar, or any one
else that said it, told a damned lie.  As he was say-
ing this he threw up  his hand with a drawn knife in
it.  I think I heard some  one  remark  that he was
the man, for he had seen him, but the fight then
began so suddenly, and the crowd rushed so close
together about Murdaugh and the others, that they
were hurried past me, and I  could  not see  what was
doing.  I know that Meeks was killed, but I did not
see him killed.  Mr. Rothwell came up when he
heard the damned lie given, and  pushed me back
with his arms, which caused me  to be outside the
scuffle.  A little  while after that,  I saw Judge Wil-
kinson, with a large Bowie knife in  his hand; he
came hurrying past me.   The knife he had was like
this; I think it is like the same knife.  [Mr. Hardin
had handed  the knife to witness.   It was probably
from 8 to  10 inches  long in the blade, two  inches
wide, heavy and shaped at the point like other knhjes
of that name.]  He came rushing by me with such
a knife as this, apparently stabbing at several per-
sons.  By that time Holmes had Doctor Wilkinson
down in  the left hand corner of the room—the left
hand as you  face the fire.
  The Judge went towards the door, and Meeks was
lying in the opposite cerner,  between the counter
and dining room, either dead or  dying.  I did not
know him.  The crowd in the left hand  corner by
this time was retreating into the  passage, and ma-
king towards the stairs.  I gathered up a chair and
followed  them, and  was in the  effort of striking
with the chair,  but fearing  I might hit the  wrong
person, I did not make the blow, and I got towards
the foot of the stairs, where I heard  Mr. Oldham
say, as if in  answer to some one on the stairs, that
he'd give the damned rascal a pistol, and a pistol
was fired, but I did not then know whether by him
or from above.
  Mr. Hardin:—Mr. Redding,  was the poker large
enough to kill a person with a blow?
  A.  Yes, I should think it was.
  Q.  What did you observe  of Rothwell irr the
passage?
  A.  He told me that he was very badly stabbed.
  Q.  You say you did not know Meeks, or that it
was Meeks that was killed?
  A.  Some one—perhaps it was Mr. McGrath-
remarked that a man was killed.  I went towards
the body, and saw  it was  dead.  I did not know
him.
  Q.  How long did Mr. Rothwell live?
  A.  Till next evening.
  Q.  He died in the city of Louisville?
  A.  Yes, at my house.
  Q.  Where did you first see Mr.  Rothwell that
evening?
  A.  I met him near Dr. Bernard's office, in Mar-
ket street— he lived at the corner.
  Q_.  Was he related to you?
  A.  Yes, he was my brother-in-law.
  Q.  Did you ask  him to go with you to the Gait
House?
  A. I think I did not ask him to accompany me at
all.  He merely  kept on with me when I told him
what had happened.
  Q.  What object had you and he in going to the
Gait House?
  A.  I went with  no other design than to get the
names of the three Mississippi gentlemen.
  Q.  What brought you to the Mayor's office?
  A.  I went to the Mayor's office for the warrant
and for the City Marshal to arrest them.
  Q.  Why  then did  you return to the Gait House
without the warrant?
  A.  Because  I could not get a proper  warrant
without first going for the names.  Not being able
to get the names without going to the Gait House,
I went there for them.
  Q.  Were you told of any other way  in which
they could be arrested?
  A.  Mr. Pollard told  me  that if I came acre si
Mr. Turner, the City Marshal, he could arrest them
without a warrant.
  Q.  Did you try  to get the Marshal?
  A.  I enquired at the jail, at Mr. Vacaro's, and at
another place, for Mr. Turner.
  Q.  When you went into the bar-room, did you
tell Mr.  Everett the object you had in demanding
the names?
  A.  Yes;  and Mr. Everett remarked it could not
surely be Judge Wilkinson.
  Q.  You mentioned a dirk  you had—did you dis-
play it at the Gait House* upon any occasion thai
evening?
  A.  No;. I never drew it from my  watch-pocke*:.
  Q.  Was Mr. Rothwell  in  the room when you
first spoke to Judge Wilkinson?
  A.  No; I do not think he or <;..f- friend of  ir.ir.t
was present. 
(10)
  Q.  Didyou sec the blow inflicted upon Rothwell
that caused his death?
  A.  No; the crowd shut me out from seeing dis
tinctly what was doing.
  Q.  Did you find one  of the knives on the floor?
  A.  Yes; when the 'fray was over.
  Q.  Where did  you next see these three  knives
together?
  A.  I called at the jail and asked Mr. Chenoweth
if t he knives were there.  He said yes, and produced
them.
  Q.  Was there blood  on the three knives at the
time?
  A.  Yes.
  Q.  Can you account for the blood being on them
still?
  A.  I told  Mr. Chenoweth at the jail to keep
them with the blood on them, just as they were.  He
rolled them up in a piece of paper.
  Q,.  What became of  them since?
  A.  He gave them to me rolled up  in paper, and
I put them away in my trunk.  [Here the jury ex-
amined the knives.]
      CROSS-EXAMINED  BY COL. ROBERTSON.
  Q.  Were either of the unfortunate men who lost
their lives, at  your house when  the poker business
commenced?
  A.  No, sir; I do not  recollect seeing Mr.  Meeks
at my house  at all—he might be there, but not
knowing him, I have no recollection of seeing him.
I am certain Mr. Rothwell was not there.
  Q.  Now, I beg you will be particular in answer-
ing me;  are you sure neither was there?
  A.  I am certain that I do not know either was
there.  Mr. Meeks might have been there and I not
know it.
1  Q.  Did any one take part in it while it was go-
ing on?
  A.  I don't think any one but myself was en-
gaged in that  business.
  Q.  How long after that did the affray at the Gait
House take plaee?
  A.  I could not say the time.
  Q,.  Was it one, two, three, four, five, six or eight
hours?
  A.  I cannot say exactly how long.
   Q.  Can you not say about what time?
   A.  A very short time after it happened I went
 to the Mayor's office----
   Q.  Never  mind that now—say about what  time
 did you go to the Gait House after  the affray  at
 your shop?
   A.  It was but a short time.
   Q.  Was it four or five hours?
   A. Oh, no.
   Q.  Well, state about what time?
   A.  It was late in the evening—I suppose it was
from half an hour to an hour; I could not now  tell.
I started off a few minutes after the fight----
  Q.  I want to know the time between the fight
at your house and the fight at the Gait House?
  A.  Well, you know the distance, Col. Robert-
son----
  Q.  It is not the distance, but the time I want to
know?
  Court.  Say the time, sir.
  A.  Well, it could not have been an hour I think;
it was between half an  hour  and  an hour—I said
that before.
  Q.  When you first started for the Mayor's office
who was with you?
  A.  Mr. Johnson.
  Q.  Where did you meet Mr.  Johnson?
  A.  He  was in my shop after  the  difficulty—a
good many had been in.
  Q.  Where did you and Johnson go?
  A.  We went to the Mayor's  office together.
  Q.  Where did you part?
  A.  We parted at or near the jail; but I  cannot
exactly say where: I know he was not with me
when I got on Market street.
  Q.  Well, when you next saw him, where was it?
  A.  It was at the Gait House.
  Q.  You say you got a knife?
  A.  Yes, a dirk.
  Q.  You borrowed it from Mr. Fulton's?
  A.  I borrowed it immediately after the first 'fray.
It was a small dirk.
  Q,.  Had it two edges, or one?
  A.  I do not recollect—I never took much notiqe
of it—I do not even recollect pulling it out of the
scabbard.
  Q.  For what purpose did you borrow that knife?
  A.  I thought, perhaps, these men might attack
me—I knew they were armed and  I was not.
  Q.  Who was with you when you borrowed the
dirk?
  A.  No one was with me.
  Q.  Where did you see Rothwell first that even-
ing?
  A.  I met him at Dr. Bernard's office, near Sixth
street.
  Q.  Had you really no intention in going to the
Gait House but to get the names?
  A.  No; none.
  Q.  Then why did you ask Mr.  Rothwell to  go
with you;  you could get the names yourself?
  A.  I did not  ask  Mr. Rothwell to  accompany
me; he went along unasked.
  Q.  When you entered the bar-room  of the Gait
House whom did you see there?
  A.  I saw Mr. M'Grath and one or two others.
  Q.  How long after you got the  names was it till
the Judge came in?
  A.  After I got the names I remained a few min- 
(Ill
utes  -probably fifteen or twenty minutes—and then'
the Judge came in.
  Q.  Well; when he came in you were the first to
begin the altercation, were you not?
  A.  1 merely remarked to him that I believed  he
was the gentleman who had struck me with the po-
ker in my own shop, and he said he did not wish to
quarrel or fight with a person  of my profession.
  Q.  Then it was,  I suppose, that you exhausted
the vocabulary of the English language in abusing
him?
  A. Why, yes, sir, I suppose I  did.  I told him
very plainly what  I thought of him.
  Q,.  You called him some hard names,  such as
coward, and-so-forth?
  A.  I called him a coward, and  other things that
I don't  now recollect—and  said  I would whip the
whole three if they'd lay aside their  weapons.
  Q.  Well, after this language did he molest you?
What did he do?
  A. He walked back  and  forward several times,
and finally he went out.
  Q,.  And what became of you?
  A. I remained after.
  Q.  For what purpose?  You had  got the names.
  A. I had no  other business than expecting Mr-
Turner, the marshal, would be along, and call in;
I expected  Mr  Turner or one of  the officers would
come in.
  Q.  How long was it before Judge Wilkinson re-
turned?
  A.  A very short time.
  Q_.  Was it five, ten, fifteen, or twenty minutes?
  A.  It might be five, ten, or perhaps fifteen min-
utes.
  Q.  Where was Mr. Rothwell?
  A.  I did not see him then.
  Q.  When did you s«e him afterwards?
  A. I saw him next when he came up to push me
aside.
  Q. Had he not a stick?
  A. I did not see any stick  with him there.
  Q.  Did he not go to Mr.  Monohan's and get a
stick?
  A.  I did not see him have a stick,  or  know of
his preparing himself with any thing of the kind.
  Q.  You and Rothwell went there together.  Had
he not a stick then?
  A. I did not see one with him.
  Q. Where was he when you got'the names?
  A. When we  first  went  in he separated, and I
did not see him till he came up to  push me  away.
  Q.  Did you see him on Doctor Wilkinson, when
the Doctor was down?
  A. I did net see him on Doctor Wilkinson at all.
  Q. Did you see him use a stick in that room?
  A. If he had a stick I did not know it; I never
raw hint u:c one there.
  By Judge Rowan:—Have you not employed con««-
sel in this case?
  A.  I have spoken to Mr. Hardin.
  Q.  Have you not employed him?
  A.  I spoke to him to attend to the case.
  Q,.  Can you not say whether or not you have em-
ployed him?
  A.  Yes, I have.
  Q.  What fee are you to give him?
  Mr. Hardin:—I have no  objection to that being
answered.                    '
  Judge Rowan:—What, sir, is the  amount of fee
you have promised?
  A.  Mr. Hardin demanded $1,000, and I made no
objection.
  Q.  Are you to give him any thing more?
  A.  No, sir; there is nothing mora.
  Q.  No contingent addition?
  A.  No, sir—not any.
  Q.  After Johnson- left you where did you see him
next?
  A.  I do not recollect seeing him again till at the
Gait House.
  Q.  When parting at the jail did you not agree to
meet at the Gait  House?
  A.  No, sir; there was no agreement of the kind.
  Q.  Did you make no agreement for him to bring
any one with him?
  A.  No, sir.
  Q.  Did you meet him with any person on your
way, and with whom?
  A.   No;  not that I recollect.
  Q.  Did you see any one on your way down Mar-
ket street^
  A.   Yes; on  our way down I think we might
have  met Mr. Holmes and some one else.  Mr.
Johnson  might have had some conversation with
him; but I think I felt no disposition to talk jus*
then.
  Q.   Is not Mr. Holmes a remarkably stout and
large man?
  A.   I  think he is a very stout man.
  Q.  With whom else did you meet him?
  A.   Mr.  Wallace, I think.
  Q.   Any one else?
  A.   It appears to me there  was another gentle-
man with him;  but lam not positive.
  Q.   Did  Mr..  Johnson say nothing about  haw.
your friends ought to treat the Mississippians?
  A.   No, sir; not that I recollect.
  Q.   Was Mr.  Holmes at the Gait House?
  A.  Not at first; but I saw him there afterwards
with Mr. Halbert.
  Q.   Mr. Halbert is a large, stout man?
  A.  Yes; he is a very stout man.
  Q.   Were there any other large stout men there?
  A.  Yes.
  Q.   Was Mr. Oldham there? 
(12)
   A.  Yes  I saw Mr. Oldham.
   Q.  You saw him fire the pistol?
   A.  I was not sure that it was he fired it, or that
 the shot did not come from above.
   Q.  Who else of your acquaintance was there?
   A.  Mr. Reaugh  and several  others might have
 been there.
   Q.  Was Mr. Monohan there?
   A.  Yes; I saw Mr. Monohan there—he stopped
 at the Gait House.
   Q.  Were any of these men in the house or pas-
 sage while you were abusing Judge Wilkinson?
   A.  I do not know whether they were or not.  I
 did not see them, if they were.
   Q.  Was not your object in abusing Judge Wil-
 kinson to bring on a quarrel, that you might chastise
 him?
   A.  No, sir.  If that had been my object I should
 have proceeded otherwise.
   Q.  Do you recollect any of the persons named
 asking you any questions about the Judge?
   A.  I do not recollect—I think not.
   Q.   Why did you stay after the Judge retired?
   A.   I expected Mr. Turner or  Mr. Pollard would
 come up.
   Re-examined:—Q.  The bar-room opens into the
 dining-room?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Do the boarders come into the bar-room
 when waiting for supper?
   A.   They do; but there are two ways of going
 into the supper room.
   Q.  Were not many persons assembled waiting
 for supper?
   A.   I do not know.
   Q.   Did you see these three gentlemen when they
 entered the bar-room?
   A.   I did not see them immediately when they
 came in.  I saw them when  Mr.  Murdaugh advan-
 ced.
  Q.  Did  you make  any observation respecting
 them wnen you first saw them together?
  A.  I think I remarked, that I believed they were
 all three on me.
  Q.  Which of them did you see first?
   A.  I saw Mr. Murdaugh first—the others after
 him.
  Q.  What was the first thing you saw Rothwell
 do?
  A.  When Mr. Rothwell came up towards us he
 put his arm so as to push me back.
  Q.  Did you see the Doctor knocked down by Mr.
 Holmes?
  A.  I did not see Mr. Holmes  knock the Doctor
down;  I saw ?»ir.  Holmes over him when he wa<-
 down.
   Q.  What in particular did you observe about
  them when they came in?
   A.  I think the Doctor had his hand in his pocket;
  and the Judge too had his band in his pocket.
   Q.  How was Mr. Meeks stabbed?
   A.  I did not see Mr. Meeks when he was stab-
  bed;  the crowd cut  me off from seeing him; the
  whole occurred so quick that I had not time to do
  any thing.
   Q.  When the crowd got past you what did you
  observe of Meeks?
   A.  Meeks, when I next saw him, was lying on
  the floor: he was about half way between the dining
 room door and  the counter,  nearest the counter,
 when Mr. McGrath asked me who was the man that
 was killed.
   Re-Cross-examined:—Q.  Which of your friends
 had a stick, a sword cane, or knives in the scuffle?
   A.  I  do not recollect any  thing of  a stick, or
 sword cane, or of any knives but those I have men-
 tioned.
   Q.   Well; who had the sword cane?
   A.   I saw no sword cane.
   Q.  Who stabbed Judge Wilkinson in the back
 with the  sword cane?
   A.   I did not see any one doit.
   Q.  Did you see Judge Wilkinson use his knife?
   A.  I saw him stabbing at several persons as I
 thought.   I saw him  make one stab at  Mr.  Roth-
 well.
   Q.  Was it your friends that pursued Judge Wil-
 kinson into the passage?
   A.  I suppose it was—I was myself after him.
   Q.  Where was it you saw him stab at any one?
   A.  I think it was near the foot of the  stairs.
   Q,.  It is a considerable distance from  the foot of
 the stairs to the bar-room?
   A.  Yes.
   Q.  Twenty or thirty feet?
   A.  May-be not quite so far.
   Q.  You say you have no recollection of seeing
 Meeks before that evening?
   A.  No;  none that I can remember.
  Q.  Did you not see him as you went up  to the
Gait House?
  A.  No; I do  not recollect stopping to speak to
any one; but might have made some remark to Mr.
Hill, as I passed a store  where  he stood.
  Q.   Mr. Horace B. Hill?
  A.  No; it was young Mr. Hill.
  Q.   Can you account for so many of your friends
being there assembled that evening?
  A.  I don't know that I can  account for it; Mr.
Holmes told me that Mr. Halbert had invited hirn lo
go there to have some drink.
  Q.   <By Judge Rowan.)  Who advised  you  to pet
out prores' against thesegentlemen? 
(13)
  A.  I do not recollect;  a good msny advised me;
Johnson was one.
  Q.  You stated that you did not see Mr.  Meeks
till at the Gait House?
  A.  I stated that I did not recollect seeing him
till then; he was a  man  with whom I was  not ac-
quainted; I might  have  seen  him frequently,  but
not to know him or to recollect him.
  Q.  Did you or did you not see hitn at your house?
  A.  He might have been at my house, but I did
not notice him. I  have often heard of Mr.  Meeks,
but do not recollect to have ever seen him to know
him before that.
  Q.  When  Mr. Murdaugh  came  into the bar-
room had he on a great coat?
  A.  Yes; a drab-colored great coat.
  Q.  Holmes did  not live in the neighborhood of
the Gait House?
  A.  No, sir; Holmes is a river man.
  Q.  (By Mr. Hardin.)  When Holmes is in town
he is frequently with Mr. Halbert, I believe?
  A.  Yes; very frequently.
  Q.  (By Col. Robertson.)  How do you know
that?
  A.  I am acquainted with both and have seen it.
  Q.  Mr. Johnson does not live  near the Gait
House?
  A.  He has a cellar on Water street and I believe
a couple of stalls in the market.
  Q.  You say you had borrowed the dirk  in case
you were attacked?
  A.  Yes, sir.
  Q.  How came it you did not use it?
  A.  I did not draw it at all; I do not know that I
thought of drawing it.   1 had not been in the habit
of carrying any thing of the kind, or I might have
thought of it.
  Q.  And, had you no means of defending yourself?
  A.  I picked up a chair.
  Q.  Had the dirk any scabbard?
  A.  It had a small metal case—I did not  pay
much attention loit.
  Q.  Did you enquire at Mr. Fulton's the  price of
that dirk?
  A.  I think not.
  Q.  You do not know the price then?
  A.  I do not.
  Re-examined  by  Mr. Hardin:—Q. I understand
there was no arrangement made by you with any of
the gentlemen to meet at the Gait House?
  A.  There was none.
  Q.  Did Judge Wilkinson wear an over coat?
  A.  I think he wore a frock coat.
  Q.  Did Mr.  Marshall Halbert  board at the Gait
House?
  A.  Yes.
  Q.  Do not people congregate in the bar-room of
the Gait House before supper?
  A.  Yes, they generally do.
  Q.  There was no condition in respect to the fee
you were to give me?
  A.  No condition whatever.
  Q.  Were you urged to  employ counsel by the
mother and sisters of Mr. Rothwell?
  A.  Yes, it was at their solicitation.
  Q.  (By Prosecuting Attorney.)  When you say
you remained at the  Gait  House waiting for Mr.
Turner, would you have known where to go for him
had you left?
  A.  No, I would not have known where to go—
I did not know where Mr. Turner live'd.
  Q.  Would not any other officer  have answered?
  A.  Yes, if any other had come in.
  Q.  Had you any intention in addressing Judge
Wilkinson at the Gait House to revive the quarrel?
  A.  It was not my object to revive the quarrel.
  Q.  When you spoke to Murdaugh and he said if
you said so you told a damned lie,  who told him he
was the person ?
  A.  I think it was Meeks.
  Q.  What other weapons did you see for  assault-
ing them but the cowhide?
  A.  I saw no other weapons, nor any other after
but the pistol with Oldham.
  Q.  Was there any demonstration  on the part of
any one to  induce them  to think they would be
assaulted?
  A.  None that I know of.
  Re-Cross-examined:—Q.   Is  not Mr. Turner a
married man with a family?
  A.  Yes, sir; so I understand.
  Q.  Does he not reside in Louisville?
  A.  Yes, sir.
  Q,  Could he not have been found at his house?
  A.  I did not expect he would be at home at that
time.
  Q.  When you  remarked to Judge  Wilkinson,
"You are the gentleman who struck me with the
poker," what object  had  you in the remark, un-
less to renew the quarrel?
  A.  I did not say  any thing more to him till he
said he would not quarrel with a man of my profes-
sion.
  Q.  You say you  staid to converse with your
friend, Mr. McGrath.   Holmes, Halbert,  and the
rest of your friends remained from some other mo-
tive?
  A.  I don't know  how  many remained, or for
what.
  Q.  Mr. Rothwell  never suggested  to  you the
propriety of "giving them a little throwing over to
teach them better  manners" ?
  A.  No, sir.
  Q.  Nor Mr. Johnson?
  A.  No, sir.
  Q.  NorMr.  Menk-,? 
(M)
  A.  I don't s:iy that I kn-w Mr. Mocks at all, utr?
  Q.  How long did  you stop with Mr. Rothwell
when you first met him on Market street?
  A.  I made no stop at all at Rothwcll'a.  I merely
told him what occurred and what I was about to do
in respect to getting their names?
  Q.  What remarks did he then make?
  A.  He said that was proper to do.
  Q.  (By Col. Robertson.)  Did you feel cool and
in good humor?
  A.  I did not feel in very good humor but I kept
cool.
  Q.  Well; you were very cool and almost in a
good humor?
  A.  I was collected enough, but a good way from
being in a good humor.
  Q.  By Mr. Hardin:—Did Holmes, or Johnson, or
the others accompany you  when you  went to the
Gait House?
  A.  No, sir; no one but Mr. Rothwell.
  Q.  Who interfered when you were talking to the
Judge?
  A.  No one.
  Q.  Where did you see Oldham first that evening?
  A.  The first I saw of him was near the foot of
the stairs.
  Q.  There are two passages, one from across the
door of the bar-room, and the other  from Main
street;  in which did you see Oldham?
  A.  It  was  in the  passage near  the foot of the
stairs—they meet there.
  Q.  For the Defence:—You say you were cool and
collected; did you see that blow given  to Mr. Mur-
daugh? [pointing to the mark of a blow cm the side
of Mr. Murdaugh's head.]
  A.  No, sir; I did not see it at all.
  Q.  By Judge Rowan:—When you called at Mr.
Rothwell's how did you  invite him to accompany
you?
  A.  I did not invite him;  I told him what had
happened and what I was  going to do.  I did not
stop; I only mentioned it to him.
  Q.  The jail is nearer to Jefferson street than to
Market street; why did you  not take the  shortest
way by the Mayor's office, instead of going round
by Market street?
  A.   Because it is shorter to go by Market street
to the Gait House than by the Mayor's office.
  Q.  When you were at the Mayor's office, was it
not shorter to go from that to the Gait House than
by Rothwell's  corner, if you had nothing to get but
the names?
  A.   I  went to the jail to look for  Mr.  Turner;
when there, it was shorter to go by Market street
than to return by the Mayor's office.
  Q.  Was not Mr. Rothwell a large stout man?
  A.  Yes; he was a tolerable large and stout man.
  Q.  By Col. Robertson:—You have spoken of a
knife being found on the floor; do you know whose
knife it was?
  A.  No, I do not know whose knife it was; I only
picked it up.
  [Witness allowed to retire.]
        MR. CRAIG CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Mr. Hardin:—Mr. Craig, state what you know of
this transaction.
  Mr. Thomas Craig:—I was in Mr. Redding's shop
on the day the affray happened which led to the un-
fortunate occurrence at the Gait House.  It was on
Saturday, and  DV Wilkinson called and  tried on
part of the suit of clothes  made for him, not seem-
ing to make any objection to the coat.  He left a $100
bill, and he also left his measure for an overcoat,
and said that he would redeem the $100 bill, and
pay for the  whole of the clothing.   He took away
the coat on him, and returned in  about an hour and
said he would leave the coat on Mr. Redding's hands.
He said he found a deficiency under one arm.  The
Judge made a great many objections to it.  He said
it was not a fashionable coat; it had not a proper
collar; and that it was no coat at all.  I went my-
self up to the mirror with  them to look at the  fit of
the coat.          •
  The Judge came round to the stove and sat by it.
My attention was not  directed to the conversation,
and I cannot recollect  what was said; but the coat
was returned, and the Doctor took out money to pay
for the  pantaloons and vest, when  the Judge re-
marked that he ought not to pay  for them till he
would know how they might  fit—that they might
be like the coat.  They came towards the back part
of the stove,  and the Judge sat on a high stool at
the stove.   The Doctor was near the cutting board.
When the Judge made the remarks about the panta-
loons,  Mr. Redding observed he had more to say
about them than he ought; upon which Judge Wil-
kinson picked up the poker and struck Mr. Redding;
and  Mr. Redding jerked him to the side door.   Mr.
Redding, after being out on the street with them,
picked up a brickbat.  He said he would whip the
whole three if they would lay by their weapons.   I
saw Mr. Murdaugh standing on  the  edge of the
pavement  with his knife drawn in this  position
[showing position.]
   Q. By Mr. Hardin:—Did  you see a knife with
Doctor Wilkinson in the shop?
   A. No;  I did not see the  Doctor have any knife
before he left the shop.
   Cross-Examined:—Q.  Was there not a damned
lie given  before Judge  Wilkinson  picked up the
 poker?
   A.  I did not hear any.
   Q.  Did not Mr. Redding walk  up to Judge Wil-
 kinson with his arms akimbo in an offensive manner
 before the Judge picked up the pokn ? 
(16;
   A.  I did not see any thing of the kind.
   Ci.  What were the positions of the parties at the
 time?
   A.  The Judge was sitting  and  Mr. Redding
 standing, when the Judge picked up the poker.
   Q.  Repeat as nearly as you can the exact words
 which led to this.
   A.  The Judge remarked that the law was, that
 when the clothes did not suit they were to be thrown
 on his hands. Mr. Redding said to the Judge  that
 he had rather more to say about it than he ought.
 The Judge said he did not come there to be insulted.
 Mr. Redding appeared to me to be very mild.
   Q.  Is this all you heard pass between them?
   A.  I heard the conversation going on, but did
 not pay much attention to it.  I suppose I heard all
 that passed between them, but was not paying any
 attention.
   Q.   How far were you from them?
   A.   About as far as from this to you.
   Q.   DW you not hear Mr. Redding say, "who are
 you," or "you are too officious"?
   A.   I did not.
   Q.   What time of the day was it?
   A.   It Was after dinner.
   Q.   What hour?
   A.   It might be between  three and four o'clock;
 perhaps it might be near three, or between that and
 four.
   Q.  Which was it, nearer to three than to four?
   A.   I cannot exactly say.
   Q.  Were there many people about the shop du-
 ring the difficulty?
   A.   There were not many  at the shop till after
 the affray: after that  several  were there, and ad-
 vised Mr. Redding to take the law of the Mississippi
 gentlemen.
   Q.  Mention those that were there?
   A.   I think Mr. Holmes was there; I cannot well
say the others, being pretty much of a stranger at
 Mr. Redding's. I did  not then know Mr. Holmes.
   Q.  Did you see Mr. Johnson or Mr. Meeks then?
   A.   I did not notice Mr. Meeks,  nor did I then
 know Mr. Johnson.
   Q.  When  some of those present  advised  Mr.
 Redding to take the law of them; what reply did he
 make?
  A.  He said he did not like to sue them.
  Q.  Did  not some one, or  several,  recommend
him to take redress himself with his friends?
  A.  None that I ever heard.
  Q.  When the Judge struck at Mr. Redding, did
 the Doctor try to separate them?
  A.  I thought he did, but could not say whether
he intended to separate them or to assist his brother.
  Q.  Could you not tell by his approach whether
he meant to separate them or not?
   A.  It was difficult  to tell, because  Mr. Redding
 so instantly made a rush out of the door when he
 caught the Judge that there was no time to see what
 the Doctor meant.
   Q.  Did the Doctor touch either of them ?
   A.  He did not put  his hands upon Mr. Redding;
 but he put his hand, I thought, upon his brother.
   Q.  Did you see any knife with the Judge on that
 occasion?
   A.  I did not see him draw a knife in that affair.
   Q.  Did you see any knife at all?
   A.  I cannot say that I saw any  knife but with
 Mr. Murdaugh, after  Mr. Redding had  picked up
 the brickbat.
   Q.  Did you see any  one but Judge Wilkinson
 strike Mr. Redding?
   A.  No; I did not see either of the  others  strike
 him.
   Q.  By Judge Rowan:—Did not various persons
 come into the shop before Mr. Redding went  to the
 Mayor's office?
   A.  Yes, several.
   Q.  Was Meeks among them?
   A.   I do not recollect seeing Mr. Meeks.
   Q.  Where was Mr. Redmond?
   A.  He was outside  the door.  I think I saw him
 when I went to the door: the Judge and  Mr. Red-
 ding had been separated, and I saw Mr. Redding
 pick up the brickbat.
   Q.  Was not Mr. Redmond in the  house any part
 of the time?
   A.  I think not—but he might have been,  with-
 out my seeing him.  There is a projection which
 might have prevented me seeing him from where I
 sat.   I did not observe Mr. Redmond  if he was in
 the shop.
  Q.  How much  of the room was  hid from your
 view by the projection?
   A.  About one fifth.   I  might have seen Mr.
 Redmond, but am not certain.
  Q.  Do you live with Mr. Redding?
  A.  Yes; I live with him yet, and  work in his
 shop.
  Q.  Did you not hear Mr. Murdaugh say,  "stop
 this fight"?
  A.  No, sir.
  [Witness allowed to  withdraw.]
   W. WEAVER, A BOY, CALLED AND  EXAMINED.
  Mr. Hardin:—State what you know of the affray
 in Mr. Redding's shop.
  W. Weaver:—I was  in Mr. Redding's shop, and
saw the gentlemen talking  about the coat.   Mr.
 Murdaugh said he did  not like the coat: the  other
said  he did; one of them, the Judge,  said he'd be
damned if it did not take more than  one to judge of
the coat.   Judge Wilkinson called out for his knife.
Doctor Wilkinson had  a white-handled knife.   Mr. 
(16)
Redding  pulled Judge Wilkinson out of the door ,
and the Doctor followed.  I think that knife on the
table is the same I saw with  the  Judge  when  he
came in from the street to get back the $100 bill.
  Q.  Which of them entered with the knife to de-
mand the $1C0 bill?
  A.  It  was the Judge.
  Q.  Who hallooed for  the knife?
  A.  It  was the Judge.
  Q.  Are you sure it was not Redding?
  A.  I heard  some one halloo for  the  knife—it
might be  Redding.
  Q.  Were these gentlemen in the shop when you
first wenUn?
  A.  Yes.
  Q.  Whom did you first tell about this affair?
  A.  I told my uncle.
  Q.  What brought you into Hedding's shop?
  A.  I went there about  business—I. went there
for money.
  Cross-Examined:—Q.   What   passed  between
Judge Wilkinson and Mr. Redding, when the coat
was taken back?
  A.  When the Judge told the other men he would
not take the coat,  Mr. Redding said he did not in-
sist on him  taking it, and then Judge Wilkinson
said that Mr. Redding had no right to judge,  Mr.
Redding  said he had no right.  I believe Mr. Red-
ding said he meddled more about the coat than the
Doctor did.  Mr. Redding said something like the
Judge making  himself damned meddlesome  about
the matter.  Doctor Wilkinson pulled out money
to pay for the pantaloons and vest.
  Q.  Did you see those knives since  that period?
  A.  I saw one of them with Mr.  Turner.
  Q.  Did you see them with Mr.  Redding?
  A.  No; I did not.
  Q.  Did you give any testimony at the examining
court?
  A.  No, sir.
  Q.  Do you  know why you were called up now
to testify?
  A.  I do not know.
  Q.  Is  this the Doctor or the Judge? (pointing to
the Doctor.)
  A.  The Doctor, I think.
  Q.  Is this the Judge?
  A.  It is.
  Q.  Was it he came in with the drawn knife to
demand the $100 bill?
  A.  Yes, it was.
  Q.  Who were the other persons in the store be-
sides yourself?
  A.  No one but the Doctor, Judge Wilkinson,
Mr. Murdaugh,  Mr. Redding,  and Mr. Craig, ex-
cept another boy with me.  One went in and went
out again before the fight began.
  Q.  Do you know any one named Redmond  in
Louisville?
  A.  I do not.
  [Witness allowed to withdraw.]
  The Court said it was time to close for the night,
which was assented  to by the gentlemen of the bar.
  Court:—What do  you propose to do with the
jury?
  The counsel for the defence said they had no ob-
jection to the jury being allowed to retire, and have
proper accommodations.
  Court:—Very well; let the Sheriff take charge  of
the jury, and provide for them  at a tavern.  You,
gentlemen of the jury, will take care not to converse
with any  person on the subject,  or express  any
opinion concerning this cause,  or to allow  any one
to address you about it,  during your absence from
Coui t.
  Adjourned to 8 o'clock next morning.
               SECOND DAY.
                 Tuesday morning, \2th March.
  Pursuant to adjournment the court sat this morn-
ing at eight  o'clock, and the Clerk having read the
minutes of the former day's proceedings called the
names of the jurors, and the Sheriff was directed to
remove  the  witnesses  for the prosecution  out of
hearing of the court.
  Col. Robertson then recalled and examined Mr.
Redding.
  Q.  You have prosecuted these gentlemen  for the
affray in your own house, separately, for your own
benefit?
  A.  Yes, sir; I have sued them for damages.
  Q.  Is there a coffee-house kept in your house?
  A.  My shop is on the corner.
  Q.  There is a coffee-house in the same building?
  A.  There is a coffee-house on Pearl street, next
above my shop, in the same building.
  Q.  Who owns that coffee-house?
  A.  It belongs to my  brother and me: the coffee-
house is attended by my brother.
  [Witness allowed to retire.]

   MR. SAMUEL  REDMOND CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Mr. Hardin:—Mr. Redmond go on and tell all
that you observed at Mr. Redding's store that eve-
ning.
  Mr. Redmond:—I worked for  Mr. Redding and
went to his store that Saturday afternoon to draw
some money.  I saw these gentlemen at the store.
The first of the difficulty I saw, was Mr. Redding
pulling the Judge out of the door.  He fell and turn-
ed under, the Judge being on top; but Mr. Redding
succeeded in turning the Judge under,and the Doctor
immediately attacked Redding with his knife, and
Mr. Murdaugh cried out, "Kill the damned  son of 
(17)
a bitch:" just as the Doctor  was in the act of stab-
bing Mr. Redding, and the knife was within three
or four inches of his  breast, I seized the Doctor's
arm and said, "Don't do that if you please;" and
then Murdaugh said, "Part them."  Redding then
got out into the street, with  one shoe off and the
other on; and at the same time Murdaugh was on
the pavement with his knife drawn.
  Q.   When you  first saw the Doctor approaching
Redding and the Judge, had he his knife drawn?
  A.  I supposed he had it in his  hand and drawn.
  Q.   What induced you to interfere?
  A.  I seized  the Doctor's arm to keep him from
stabbing Mr. Redding.
  Q.  What were the relative positions of the par-
ties after you seized the Doctor's arm?
  A.  The Doctor raised up and Murdaugh was on
the pavement with his knife  drawn.
  Q.   Which followed Redding into the store?
  A.   The Doctor; he entered the store with his
knife drawn in his hand, demanding his $100 bill.
  Q.   Well; what followed?
  A.   Mr. Redding had dropped his pocket book, in
the scuffle, and I picked it up and carried it in to him;
he then took out the $100 bill and returned it to the
Doctor, saying,  "Here's your $100 bill."
  Q_.   What color was the handle  of the knife you
saw with the Doctor?
  A.   It was white;  and so was that of Mr. Mur-
daugh.
  Q.   Did the Judge remain with the others?
  A.   He had  gone over  to the  other side of the
street and then returned as if to persuade one of the
gentlemen to go away.  They all then went off, two
with their  knives drawn, and the Judge with the
poker.
  Cross-examined:—Q.  Where had you been before
they fell into the street?
  A.   I had been  in the back shop;  I came to the
store to get money.
  Q.   Were you living with Mr. Redding then?
  A.   Yes;  I worked for him.
  Q.   Are you in his employment now?
  A.   No, I am not.
  Q.  Why did you stay at the door?
  A.   I was only staying to  get the money.   I had
left the back shop to go to the front shop  to get the
money.
  Q.  Had you not stated times  for getting your
money?
  A.  No, I had none; whenever I asked for money
I got it.  I had  finished my job and went  to get
my  pay.
  Q.  Were you in the shop after the affray was
over?
  A.  Yes.
  Q.  Did you not say in the examining court that
you were in the shop when the affray began?
  A.  I did not say so.
  Q.  Did you not say at  the examining court any
thing about offensive language you had heard?
  A.  No, I did not.
  Q.  Did you not, in fact,  hear Mr. Redding give
the damned lie in the shop?
  A.  I was  not  in the shop then and did not hear
Mr. Redding give the damned lie at all.
  Q.  Did  you or did  you not say so at the exam-
ining court?
  A.  I did not say so there or any where else.
  [Here Judge Rowan stated to the court that the
minutes taken  at the  examining  court had been
transmitted through  Mr. Redding's  hands  to the
Prosecuting Attorney of this court and it was only
in courtesy and through the politeness of the Prose-
cuting Attorney that the counsel for  the defence
had been allowed the perusal of them.  The Prosecu-
ting Attorney had now withdrawn these minutes
and he (Judge Rowan) now  demanded it as a public
document.
  The court said it was probable the right was regu-
lated  by Act of  Assembly.'
  Mr. Bullock, the Prosecuting Attorney, said he
did not stand upon that  point; but  the reason he
withdrew  the minutes was  that they were neither
minutes of evidence nor even a synoposis of what
had taken place at the examining court.  They ap-
peared to be nothing but a few memorandums made
for  the use of the Grand Jury but so inadequate for
any purpose in a final trial, that, finding they could
not be available to either side, he had decided upon
not using them on  the prosecution nor  yielding
them to the defence.   Here the matter dropped, the
understanding appearing to be that the minutes were
not perfect enough to use in  evidence.]
         MR. REDMOND IN CONTINUATION.
  Q.  Who went with you to  Mr. Redding's store?
  A.  I dont  recollect that any one was with me.
  Q.  Which, did you  say, attempted to stab Mr.
Redding?
  A.  It was Doctor Wilkinson.
  Q.  Well,  now, how can you  be  sure that was
his  design?
  A.  All I know, is,  that  he would have stabbed
him had I not arrested his hand.
  Q.  Had not Mr. Redding a pair of shears in his
hands defending himself in the shop?
  A.  I did not see any such thing.
  Q.  Where were you when Doctor Wilkinson was
attacking Redding?
  A.  I was on the pavement.
  Q.  Was not Mr. Redding by his superior strength
near turning over Doctor Wilkinson?
  A.  Yes; I thought so.
  Q.  Did he  attempt to use the knife till he was in
danger of being turned under? 
(18)
  A.   I did not see the knife till the Doctor had it in
the attitude of stabbing; Mr. Redding raised up a
little, keeping the Judge under  with one arm, and
with his other arm round the Doctor's neck trying
to pull him down.
  Q.  I wish you to be as particular as possible in
describing this.
  A.   Well, I have done so already. Mr. Redding
had Judge Wilkinson down and reached his arm  to
pull down the Doctor, when  the Doctor  raised his
knife to stab Mr. Redding as he was about to  be
pulled under  by Mr.  Redding.   [Here  witness
showed the manner.]
  Q.  Where was the Doctor's knife till then?
  A.  I did not see the knife till that tune with the
Doctor.
  Q.  What appeared to be his  intention when  he
came up?
  A.  It appeared to be his design to pull Mr. Red-
ding off his brother.
  Q.  Was it not when Mr. Redding had him nearly
turned under that he drew his knife?
  A.  As Mr. Redding was  trying to pull him
down, the Dr. raised the knife to stab him.
  Q.  Could you recognize the knife?
  A.  I think it is one of those present in court.
  Q.  Was it not at that moment that he drew and
opened his knife?
  A.  He must have  had it drawn and open before,
because he could  not have got his other hand disen-
gaged to assist in opening it when Mr. Redding had
hold of him.
  Q.  Which of  these was the knife?
  A.   I think that was it: the other is the one Mr.
Murdaugh had.
  Q.  Where was Mr. Craig?
  A.  I saw him after I went into the shop.
  Q.  When  these gentlemen  were in  the shop
talking where was Mr. Craig.
  A.  Mr. Craig was at his board.
  Q.  Did you see a boy named Weaver there?
  A.  Yes.
  Q.  What hour was it when the affair happened?
  A.  I think it was between three and four o'clock.
  Re-examined:—Q.  Did you see the Doctor taking
out his knife?
  A.  No;  I  saw him  with it drawn in his hand
when he made the stab at Mr. Redding.
  Q.  Did  you see Mr. Murdaugh when he cried
out "Kill the damned rascal" or some such word?
  A.  Yes.       *
  Q.  Was there any attempt made by  the  Doctor
to take his brother  off when  on  the  top  of Mr.
Redding?
  A.  No.
  Q.  Did  you see any indication from Mr. Mur-
daugh to take Judge Wilkinson off Mr. Redding?
  A.  No, not any.
                3
  Q.  Did you see Mr. Redding under Judge Wil-
kinson?
  A.  Yes; when they fell on  the pavement out of
the door, I saw Judge Wilkinson uppermost.  Mr.
Redding fell underneath  when they fell out of the
door.
  Q.  Did they put up their knives when they raised
up?
  A.  The  Doctor and Mr. Murdaugh had  their
knives drawn after that when out on the pavement.
  Q.  Where was the Judge then?
  A.  He returned from the street to the pavement
and took one of the gentlemen by the arm to get him
away.
  Q.  When they went off were they still armed?
  A.  They went with the knives in their hands.
  Q.  Did you see Mr. Redding take up a brick bat
when he got disengaged?
  A.  Yes.
  Q.  Was this  before  or after the knives were
drawn?
  A.  The knives were drawn before Mr. Redding
picked up the brick bat.
  Q.  Where was Mr. Murdaugh when he called
out "Kill the damned rascal" ?
  A.  Mr. Murdaugh stood  on the  pavement near
the street when he said "Kill the damned son of a
bitch."
  Q.  It was not till you caught the Doctor's  arm,
so that he could not make the blow, that Murdaugh
advised you to "Part them, don't let him kill him" ?
  A.  Yes; I kept hold of the  Doctor's arm, so that
he could not make the blow.
  Q.  Was it all in  the same breath that  he said
"Kill the damned rascal," and "Part  them—don't
let him kill him" ?
  A.  No, not in the same breath—there was a little
time between the expressions.
           MR. JOHN PARIS,  EXAMINED.
  Mr. Hardin:—Mr.  Paris, state to the Court and
the Jury what you know of this affair.
  Mr. Paris:—I was  passing Mr. Redding's store,
after dinner, when I heard some fuss and stopped to
look in.  When  I heard  the  fuss at first I was in
Main street and I went round the corner into Third
street, when I saw Mr. Redding fall out of the side
door with one of the  gentlemen.  Another gentle-
man had a knife and said he would kill him.  I said
"Don't kill him," and a young  man then caught his
arm.  After this Mr. Redding picked up a brick bat
and one of the gentlemen said "Give me my money."
He followed Redding into the shop and got the $100
bill.  They returned  to the street, and as Redding
got  to the door he said he would whip the whole
three of them if they would  put away their knives.
  Q.  Which of the gentlemen had the  knife when
you first saw them? 
(19)
  \,  I think it was the gentleman they called the
Doctor.
 Q.. What sort of knife was it?
  A.  It  was just such a knife as one of them—
[pointing to a knife.]
  Q.  Who caught the Doctor's arm?
  A.  I do not recollect the young man's name who
caught the Doctor's arm.
  Q.  Look here, [pointing to the witness' bench,]
if you can recognize the person?
  A.  I think that young man, [pointing to Mr.
Redmond,] is the person.
  Q.  Which way were you going when your atten-
tion was first attracted?
  A.  I was coming up Main street when I heard
l he scuffle and then turned the corner into  Third
street.
  Q.  Did you see Mr. Murdaugh; and what was he
doing?
  A.  1 saw Mr. Murdaugh there; but he was not
taking any part in the affair.
  Q.  Was he not also armed with a knife?
  A.  I saw him after on the pavement with a
drawn knife.
  Cross-Examined:—Q. Which of them said "Damn
you, I'll kill you" ?
  A.  It  was the gentleman with the knife.
  Q.  You made some remark to him?
  A.   I said "don't kill him."
  Q..  Then he must have had time to stab Redding
tf you had time to ask him not to do it?
  A.   No, he had not time to make the stab when
his arm was caught.
  Q.  While he was saying, the words "I'll kill you"
had he not time to do so if he intended it?
  A.   I cannot say whether he had time to kill  him
in the saying of the words.
 . Q.  What occurred after they got up?
  A.   All three went into the shop, and when they
came out Mr. Redding came to the door and  said
"Lay down your  damned knives and I'll whip the
three of you." "No," said Mr.  Murdaugh, "I'd
rather cut your damned guts out."  With that one
of the  gentlemen came up and took him away:—
they went off with their knives drawn.
  Q.  What hour was it?
  A.   It was between three and four o'clock.
  Q_.   Did you hear Mr.  Redding say there were
"fifty or five hundred on him"?
  A.   No; I did not.
  Q.  Or Mr. Murdaugh say "it was a darned lie?"
  A.   No, I heard nothing of that sort.
  Q.  Are you positive as to the  words used by
 Murdaugh when Redding offered to whip the three
of them?
  A.   I think Redding said, "If you are gentlemen,
lay down your knives and I'll whip the three of you?"
Mr. Murdaugh replied, "I'd rather cut your damned
guts out."
  Q.  Are you a coffee-house keeper?
  A.  Yes.
  Q.  What were the relative positions of the par-
ties when the Doctor said "I'll kill you"?
  A.  I cannot say exactly, being frightened at the
time.  The Doctor was standing up; Mr. Redding
standing up, but rather leaning back; and Judge
Wilkinson standing up.
  Re-Examined:—Q.  Were they so tliat you could
see themdistictly?
  A.  No;  they were crowded or huddled up  and I
could not well tell how their positions were.
  Q.  Were you at the examining court?
  A.  I was, but not examined.
  Q.  Did  any one ask you any questions  about
what you could tell?
  A.  Col. Robertson asked me some questions.
  Q.  (For  Defence.)   When you  say they were
huddled together do you mean to say they were on
their feet?
  A.  Yes.
        MB.  EVERETT  CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Mr. Hardin:—State, Mr. Everett, what you know
of this transaction.
  Mr. Everett:—Mr. Redding applied to me for the
names of three Mississippi gentlemen, one of which
he said  was Wilkinson.  I gave him the names. I
called Mr. Redding to the window and asked him the
nature  of the difficulty. He told  me about it.—
Shortly after I went out,and in ten or fifteen minutes
 I was told by Mr. Snead, that there was likely to be
 some difficulty, upon  which I  returned and saw
 Judge  Wilkinson  walking  up and down the bar-
 room very  much excited.  Redding was addressing
 the Judge.  I determined to go  round and get the
 Judge away, and going into the passage towards the
 bar-room door, I met the Judge coming  out of the
 bar-room.   I asked him to go with  me to his room,
 which he did.  We found his brother and Mr. Mur-
 daugh there.  The Judge asked me if I had pistols;
 I said no, and he then asked me to get him some.
 I said I would try, and I went down to the bar.  In
about ten minutes  I  saw the Judge enter the bar-
 room, and I then put on my hat and walked out of
 the house.
   [Here Mr. Everett was asked to make a drawing
 of  the bar-room, which he did, and it was examined
 by the jury and some gentlemen of the bar.]
  Q.  When you went up stairs with the Judge who
 was in the room?
  A.  We found the Doctor and  Mr. Murdaugh
there.
  Q.  What passed between the parties?
  A.  The Judge told them what had occurred be-
low in the bar-room.
  Q.  He then asked you for the pistols? 
(20)
  A.  Yes; it was then he asked for the pistols.
  Q.  What part of the house is the room in?
  A.  It is on the first story, above, room 35.
  Q.  Does the supper bell be rung in that part o f
the building?
  A.  It is rung along the passage and then down
the stairs.
  Q.  Had the bell been so rung at or nearly after
the time you were above with them?
  A.  No; it was too soon for supper.
  Q.  Is the room in the South-East corner of the
building?
  A.  Yes; On the first floor above.
  Q.  Had the bell been rung for  supper when the
Judge came down to the bar-room the second time?
  A.  No; it was rather before supper time.
  Q.  What time does the bell ring for supper?
  A.  At that season it rings about half-past five
or near six o'clock.
  Q.  Did you see any part of the affray when the
Judge re-entered the bar-room?
  A. . No; for I picked up my hat and went away.
  Q.  Did you afterwards see any of it?
  A.  The difficulty was over when I returned.)
  Cross-Examined:—Q.  What were the words that
passed  between ,the Judge and Mr. Redding when
you first saw them?
  A.  I do not recollect them.
  Q,.  Did you observe by them and others any thing
alarming?
  A.  I observed that there was a good deal of ex-
citement.
  Q.  Did you see many strange faces in the bar-
room?
  A.  There  were many .strange  faces in the bar-
room that evening.
  Q.  Had you any difficulty in getting the Judge
to go to his room?
  A.  I merely asked  him to walk up, and he im-
mediately consented, and we went  up the public
steps.
  Q.  Why  did you  interpose to  get the Judge to
his room?
  A.  From what  I saw pass between the Judge
and Mr. Redding, I saw the Judge was greatly exci-
ted, and I thought it  my duty to prevent a quarrel.
  Q.  Was not Mr. Redding greatly excited?
  A.  I did not notice whether Mr. Redding was
greatly excited or not.
  Q.  What way did you understand the Judge's
request for pistols?
  A.  No words passed to justify me in forming an
opinion of what they were wanted for.
  Q.  Well, what did they want them for?
  A.  I cannot say that they mentioned what  they
wanted them for.
  Q.   When they afterwards came down to the bar-
 room, was it by  the usual and main passage and
 door to the supper room that they came?
  A.   It was.
  Q.   Is it  usual for those who are boarding to as-
 semble in the bar-room a short time before supper?
  A.   It is the usual practice.
  Q.   How many bells are rung for supper?
  A.   Only  one bell for supper.  The practice of the
 house is to collect in the bar-room before the supper
 is ready.  Sometimes  there is a delay;  sometimes
 none.
  Q.   When the bell rings is there not a considera-
 ble rush made to the supper room?
  A.   It has been the  case that if  a person did not
 rush in, he would be late for supper—unfortunately,
 of late it has not been so.
  Q.  What time was it when you noticed those
 strange faces assembled in the bar-room?
  A.   I think it was about five o'clock.
  Q.  What hour was it when Mr. Redding first
 came to the Gait House?
  A.  When he came to ask for the names it was
 was about four o'clock.
  Q.  What time was it when the affray took place?
  A.   It was about dark.
  Q.  What hour was it when all was over?
  A.  It must have been about six o'clock.
  Q.  Was it not on  account of the number  and
strange faces of those in the bar-room that you feared
Judge Wilkinson was in danger when you took him
out of the barroom?
  A.  Mr. Sneed told me that there would probably
be a difficulty; on that account I wished to take the
Judge away.  I  did  not infer danger from any par-
ticular person or collection.
  Q.  Did not Judge Wilkinson  on reaching hi*
room  in  company with you exclaim, "Good God!
we claim from you the means of our protection."
  A.  I cannot say that I heard such words.
  Q.  Were Meeks, Rothwell, Johnson, Holmes and
Oldham, frequenters of the house?
  A.  Meeks I did not know; I did not know Mr.
Rothwell, though I have  been in Louisville since
'35; Johnson I did not know; nor  Holmes; I knew
Oldham.
  Q.  Was Mr. Redding a frequenter of the House!
  A.  No; Mr. Redding was not in the habit of be-
ing at our house.
  Q.  Do you not easily recognise persons who have
been at the house?
  A.  I usually know a person who has been at  the
house.
  Q.  Mention some that  were there that evening
who frequented the house occasionally.
  A.  Monohan was often at the house; hegenerally
has business when he attends there.   Mr. Reaugh is
sometimes there. 
;«ij
  Q.   Well, to come to the point, what was it about
 the persons in the bar-room that excited your alarm
 and caused you to take Judge  Wilkinson  to his
 room?
  A.   I remarked many strange faces, which tended
 to excite my alarm and apprehension. It was from
 what I had beard  of the affair at Mr. Redding's
 Btore;  the  assembly of persons; and the words be-
 tween Mr. Redding and the Judge,that my apprehen-
 sions were excited.
  Q.   Can you see into the bar-room from the stairs?
  A..  Yes; there is a window looking into the bar
 from the steps of the stairs.
  Q.   Are these the public stairs?
  A.   Yes, the principal and public stairs.
  Q.   (By Mr. Hardin.)   Is there not another door
 to the dining room known to those familiar with the
 house.
  A.   There is a small private door  used  by those
 well acquainted with the house.
  Q.  Was there such a crowd in the house as to
 cause a rush to the dining room door at supper time?
  A.   No; not at that time.
  Q.  When navigation is open and the Legislature
 in session, are there not many strange faces arriving
 at the Gait House every evening?
  A.   I could not say what proportion of strange
 faces these circumstances would cause to be present.
  Q.  Do you recollect the date of this affair?
  A.   I cannot say  whether it was the 15th of De-
 cember or not.
  Q.   Was not the navigation open then?
  A.   I cannot say.
  Q.  Had Mr. Marshal  Halbert been boarding at
 the Gait House at the time?
  A.  He had been there about a week.
  Q.  If the affray had not  happened at Mr.  Red-
 ding's shop, would the assembly of strangers in the
 bar-room of the Gait House that evening have at-
 tracted your attention?
  A.   I do not think it would.
  Q.  (For Defence.)  Had  Judge Wilkinson been
 at the Gait House may times before?
  A.   Yes, many times.
  A.  What were his deportment and general char-
 acter?
  A.  He  had  always been a remarkably mild and
retiring gentleman, of inoffensive manners.
  Q.  Was it because you saw strange faces in the
bar-room at the same time Mr. Redding was there,
and on account of what you had heard of the pre-
vious affray, that you wished to get Judge Wilkin-
Bon to his own room?
  A.  Those were the reasons I wished to get  the
Judge away.
  Q..   (By Mr. Hardin.)   Had not  a number of
boarders who do not lodge in the Gait House, assem-
bled in the bar-room for supper?
   V  Yes, several.
  Q.  Do  not  other citizens  assemble there from
half an hour to a quarter of an hour before supper, to
hear the news and look over the book of arrivals?
  A.  Yes, it is very general.
  Q.  (For Defence.)  From the time Mr. Redding
asked the names till the whole difficulty was over,
how long was it?
  A.  I think  it was probably over an hour.
  Q.  How  long  was it  from  the time Mr. Sneed
spoke to you till you went up with Judge Wilkinson
to his room?
  A.  It was only a few minutes.
  Q.  How long was it till the Judge returned?
  A.  It was probably fifteen minutes.  It could not
have been  more than 20 or 25 minutes from the
time Mr. Sneed spoke to me to go in till the Judge
returned to the bar-room.
       JOHN LUCAS,  CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Mr. Hardin:—Are you oneof the City Officers that
arrested these gentlemen?
  A.  Yes.
  Q.  Did you find any of these knives about them ?
  A.  I did not see any of these knives at the time.
     MR. ROBERT POPE CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Mr. Hardin—Mr. Pope tell the court and jury
what you know of this transaction.
  Mr. Pope:—I was  in the Gait House the evening
this affair took place.  I  boarded there at the time.
When I went in that evening there appeared to be
a great deal of  excitement.  There were many per-
sons in the bar-room not usually there. I was stand-
ing behind the counter when Mr.  Redding  came in
with a paper in his hand and pronounced Judge
Wilkinson a damned rascal, liar, swindler and mur-
derer.  Shortly after the Judge entered the room
and came towards the counter where the glasses and
decanters were to take a glass of water.  Redding
said to him he  was the gentleman who struck him
in his shop that evening.   The Judge said he would
not fight him or quarrel with him, but if he touched
him or laid a hand on him he'd kill him.  Redding
then called him names and abused him—calling him
coward, &c.  The Judge walked up and down the
room and  then left it.  In some short time after
Judge Wilkinson returned into the bar room, and
Murdaugh and the Doctor along with  him.  Mur-
daugh  came  towards Redding who  was stand-
ing with  his  back to the counter,  and Redding
remarked you  are one of the damned rascals who
attacked me at the shop with a bowie knife this
evening.    Mr. Murdaugh said,  "if you say  I
attacked you with a bowie knife you are a damned
liar and if  you touch me  I will cut your guts out.'
  Some one then caught Murdaugh's hand and the
fight commenced.  Blows were struck at Murdaugh
and the crowd  closed up as they passed round to-
wards  ths dining  room door.  Immediately after, 
(22)
my attention was attracted to the other comer of the
room near the folding doors into the passage and I
saw Judge Wilkinson standing in the door way with
a bowie knife in his hand.  Rothwell was standing
a few feet from the door in  a line towards the fire
place.   The Judge looked a moment and then stab-
bed Rothwell under the shoulder.  Rothwell  was
stooped a little—not as if fighting—but leaning over
some one down on the floor.  Almost  instantly a
fight commenced with raised chairs and the crowd
moved out of the room  into the passage.
  Q.  Did you see the Judge effect  the stab he made?
  A.   I saw the knife enter Rothwell's back.
  Q.  Which way was he turned?
  A.  His back was full towards me, rather leaving
his side inclining to his back next  the folding door,
and his face turned from the door.
  Q.  Was he fighting at the time?
  A.   I did not think Rothwell was doing anything
at the time.
  Q.   Did you see him get the other wounds?
   A.   I saw but the one stab.
  Q.   What sort of door is  that from the passage
into the bar-room, and what was  the relative posi-
tion of the parties?
  A.   It is a folding door.  One fold was  open; the
other shut.  The Judge was in the  open part by him-
self. Rothwell was a few feet from the door towards
the window of second cross street.
  Q.   Which was he nearer to, the window or the
door?
   A.   About one fourth nearer to the door than to
the window.
   Q.   How far was he from where the Judge stood
before he made the stab?
   A.   About five or six feet.
   Q.   In what part of the room did the fight  begin.
   A.   It began with the  altercation between  Red-
 ding and Murdaugh near the place  at the counter
 where the bottles and glasses usually stand—about
 one third of the counter from the passage door.
   Q.   When Murdaugh came up to Redding was he
 armed and with what?
   A.  He had his knife open in his hand; a Spanish
 dirk knife like one of these.
   Q.   When the words passed was the open knife
 in his hand?
   A.  It was.
   Q.  How soon did you notice him with his knife
 drawn after entering the room?
   A.  My attention was drawn to him when Red-
 ding said he was one of the men who attacked  him
 with a knife in his shop that evening.
   Q.  When Redding said that, what reply did Mur-
 daugh make?
   A.  Hesaid if you lay your hands on me or touch
  me I'll cut your guts out.
  Q.  When Murdaugh came in at the door irom
the passage had he his knife drawn in his hand?
  A.  I did not notice hirn coming in at the door.
My attention was first drawn to him when the words
passed which I have already mentioned.
  Q.  Did you see Mr. Meeks killed?
  A.  No, Ididnot.  I saw him afterwards lying on
the floor, and perceived that  he was stabbed in the
belly. There was a short cow hide or something that
I took to be such lying by his hand.  It had been an
impression on my mind that he had struck Mr. Murj
daugh with that cow hide which caused him to be
stabbed.  He was expiring when I looked at him and
in a  moment died—almost instantly as I looked at
him.
  Cross-Examined:—Q.  Were you acquainted with
Dr. Wilkinson?
   A. I never saw Doctor Wilkinson to know him
till he was before the examining court.
   Q.  What was Rothwell's position when stabbed ?
   A. He was stooping and the fight was going on
before him, where I supposed some one was down,
but I did not see any person down.
   Q. What occasioned you to be in the bar-room at
the time?
   A. I was there to supper.  I generally went into
the bar room fifteen minutes before supper.
   Q. When Murdaugh's hand was caught and he
struggled towards the dining room door did you sec
any blows struck on him?
   A. I saw some blows given at him but could not
say li>' whom, the crowd closed them up so.
   Q. (By Mr. Hardin) Do any persons board at
the Gait House that do not lodge there?
   A. Yes, several.
   Q. Do such boarders congregate in  the bar room
before meals?
   A. Yes, always.
   Q. CFor Defence.) Did you see Murdaugh struck
at with a stick?
   A.  I had an impression that some one was using
a stick at  Murdaugh.
   Q. Was the fight going on before Rothwell when
 he was stabbed?
   A.  It  was going on between  the door and the
 window and he was between the fight and the door
 when he was stabbed.
   A.  What was the distance between the crowd
 and where Judge Wilkinson stood?
   A.  About six or seven steps.   [Feet.]
   Q.  How  far was the Judge from the end of the
 settee.
   A.  About two or three  feet.
   Q.  Which was Judge Wilkinson  nearer to the
 door or the settee?
   A.  About two thirds nearer the settee than the
 door. 
(23)
  Q.  What space was  between  where the Judge
stood and Rothwell?
  A.  About five or six feet.
  Q.  From the position in which Rothwell stood
could the Judge tell from where he stood whether
Rothwell was taking part in the fight?
  A.  It appeared to me that Rothwell was not in-
terfering but leaning over  something down before
him.
  Q.  Could you tell what he was doing before he
was stabbed?
  A.  I had not observed him till I saw the Judge
make the stab.   I did not know that he was in the
room till then.
  Q.  When Murdaugh was seized by the hand was
iie not dragged over towards the dining room door?
  A.  Yes, I thought so.
  Q.  Were not several blows inflicted on him dur-
ing that time?
  Q.  (From Mr. Hardin.)  Had he his knife drawn
in his hand before any blows were struck at  him?
  A.  Yes, when he came up to Redding and Red-
ding said you are one of the men who  struck me in
my house.
  Q.  (For defence.)  When Murdaugh was first
closed upon by the crowd did you see him struck?
  A.  He might have got a couple of blows at the
moment.
  Q.  What is the distance from the entrance of the
bar-room from the passage to the dining room door?
  A.  About eight steps.
  Q.  Which is the length of the room?
  A.  It is longer between the doors than from the
counter to the door; but the whole room is longer the
other way.
  Q.  Where in the room was Meeks stabbed?
  A.  Near the dining room door.
  Q.  (By Mr. Hardin.)  How  many  weapons did
you see in use that night?
  A.  I saw only two—Mr. Murdaugh's and Judge
Wilkinson's.
  [Witness allowed to withdraw]
     WILLIAM JOHNSON CALLED  AND EXAMINED.
  Mr. Hardin—Mr. Johnson state what you know
of this affair.
  Mr. Johnson—On Saturday evening I was going
from Main  to third street and near the corner went
into the Pearl Street house kept by Mr. Redding's
brother, who told me Jack was irritated at what had
occurred at his  shop.  I went in to ask Jack about
it and saw Mr.  Rowland,  Captain Rogers and Mr.
Norris there. Some one said the Mississippians were
damned rascals  and ought to be punished; and some
body else said there was a regular course to be taken.
Mr. Redding said he had no one to go with him to the
Mayor's office and 1 volunteered to go with him. We
went and took Henry Shone along with us.  As we
went along we called at Vacaro's and at Hyman's
enquiring for the  officers.  We then  went] to the
Mayor's office and up to Mr. Pollard's room, but he
refused to give a warrant without the names.  He
offered a blank warrant to have the names inserted
as soon as they could be ascertained. Redding would
not take the warrant till he could get the names.—
Mr. Pollard  said if we  could get the Marshal, Mr.
Turner, he would act without  the warrant.   We
went then  to the jail to enquire  for him and to see
Mr. Ronald.  Mr. Ronald asked me the matter
and 1 was a minute or two telling him and Mr. Che-
newof th.  Mr. Redding was out on the pavement
talking to Mr. Shone as I supposed but when I turn-
ed out again he was gone.  It appears Mr.  Redding
called at Mr. Rothwell's and took him along to hunt
for the names.  As I  passed on, I overtook  Mr.
Deering between Mr. Vacaro's and Mr. Shaffer's and
he went along with me, and as we went we enquir-
ed where we'd find Mr. Turner or Mr. Dunn, the
officers, till we come to Zanone's corner where we
parted.  I went on to Jack Redding's  and Mr. Var-
mun's son told me Mr. Redding and  Mr. Rothwell
had gone to the Gait House for the names.  I  went
on in the direction of the Gait House, having a little
business with Mr.  McCrum about 'buying a calf.  I
stopped to talk to Mr. McCrum a while about the
calf and then I passed on to the Gait House.  I  went
into the bar-room and  saw Mr.  Rothwell  standing
at the fire  place with his back to the fire and saw
Mr. Redding at the counter getting  the names.  I
stepped to the door and invited Rothwell to  come
over to the City Saloon  and have something to drink,
but he  refused, saying he  had taken  something at
the bar. I then went  myself and took Mr. Oliver
and Mr. Meeks over and we met Mr. Taylor at the
door of the Saloon and we all] went in and drank
something. After drinking Taylor and Meeks went
over to the Gait House and Mr. Oliver and I had a
few words with the bar-keeper after which we left
and went to the Gait House. On returning there it
appeared as if some excitement had  been going on
there.  Mr. Redding was leaning on the counter re-
lating some circumstances and Mr. Murdaugh came
in.  He spoke and the damned  lie passed between
them and as I thought  Mr. Murdaugh struck at Mr.
Redding and made two or three blows at Mr. Meeks
who struck him with  a whip or cane.  They were
then crowded towards the dining room door and I
saw  Murdaugh strike  at Meeks with his knife.  I
saw Judge Wilkinson make a thrust  at Meeks  too
and shortly after observed him fall dead.  The Judge
retreated back to the corner from which he had ap-
proached Meeks, and by the time he got back Meeks
fell dead.  After Meeks fell, Murdaugh tried to es-
cape out of the door, and the Judge passed between
the dining-room door and Meeks' feet as if to make
his escape after Murdaugh.  While doing so, the 
(24)
 the doctor was down in the other corner and Holmes
 beating him with his fist and Rothwell leaning over
 Holmes saying, "peace, gentlemen, for God's take,"
 and trying to get Holmes oft'the Doctor.  When
 Murdaugh had got to the door and the Judge after
 him; and when the Judge got to the door, seeing the
 fight in the corner with his brother, he turned back
 and made a lunge with his bowie knife at Rothwell
 whose back was to him.  Then Murdaugh and the
 Judge made their escape and the Doctor got disen-
 gaged and made to the door when Oldham was  en-
 tering and the Doctor struck at him with his knife
 and Oldham sort of shrunk from the blow when the
 door closed and I saw no more.
  Q.   What part of the bar-room was Murdaugh in
■after entering the room?
  A.   In the S. E. corner with his knife drawn.
  Q.   Where was Judge Wilkinson then?
  A.   Judge  Wilkinson was in the  N.  E.  corner
 probably unknown to the spectators.
  Q.   Which did Murdaugh or Redding speak first?
  A.   I think Mr. Redding said "I presume you are
 the gentleman who attempted to strike me with your
 knife; give me some cause why you did so." I think
 Murdaugh said, "It is a damned lie!"
  Q.   Is this the knife Murdaugh had in  his
hand.
  A.   I think it is—it was just such a knife.
  <&.   Did you see M urdaugh aim a biow of the knife
et Redding?
  A.   I think he struck at Redding and that Meeks
struck him off.
  Q.  Had you seen Meeks that day  before the af-
fray at Redding's shop?
  A-   I did not see Meeks that day till I saw him
Trt the tai'lors shop.
  Q.  When  Murdaugh  and Redding and Meeks
were at the counter near the centre of the bar-room,
where was Judge Wilkinson?
  A.  Judge Wilkinson  was in the N. E. corner,
and kept there till Meeks was in the N. W. corner,
when  he approached him and made a thrust of  his
bowie knife and  then retreated back to  the  Fame
corner he had been in before.   As Judge Wilkinson
made the thrust, before he could  get back Meeks
fell dead.
  Cross-Examined;—Q.  Where did you first meet
Meeks that day?
  A.  As I was  going from the Post Office to the
Pearl street House, I Baw Meeks and Redding's bro-
ther.  I had a few minutes conversation with them
and then observed I would go and ask Jack about it
myself. I then started to do so and Meeks came out
of the door, but whether he came with me into the
store or not I do  not know.
  Q.  Who were in the store when  you went in?
   A.  Captain  Rogers, Mr. Roland and Mr. Red-
 ding.
   Q.  Did you notice any conversation  between
 Meeks and Redding in the store?
   A.  No, there was  none.
   Q.  Was Meeks present when you spoke to Red-
 ding?
   A.  He wa« either in the store or at the door.
   Q.  Did you see Meeks and Redding in conversa-
 tion in theshop?
   A.  I do not know whether Mr. Meeks epoke or
 was known to Mr. Redding.
   Q.  Did you not see him in the shop?
   A.  I do not know that I saw him in the shop or
 not. Mr. Meeks came with me from the coffee house
 towards the store. He was my acquaintance and ac-
 companied me towards the door.
   Q. Was Mr.  Redding in the coffee house just be-
 fore that?
   A.  I did not see Mr. Redding in the coffee house,
 it was his brother.   Mr. Meeks went with me to-
 wards the shop  but I cannot say whether Mr. Red-
 ding noticed him or not.
   Q.  Did Meeks say why he accompanied you?
   A.  He did  not intimate why he accompanied
 me. He started  with me from  the  coffee  house
 when I said I'd go to the shop.
   Q. Can you say whether he did or did not enter
 the shop?
   A.  I do not know whether he came into the
 shop.
   Q.  When you were in the shop what advice was
 given to Redding?
   A.  Some advised Redding to chastise the Missis-
 sippians.   But one said there was a regular course to
 take.
  Q,  Who were the persons in the store then?
   A.  Mr. Redmond  who had seen the fuss.   Mr.
 Rothwell was also there.
  Q.  Are you sure Meeks was not one of those pre-
 sent.
  A.  I cannot say whether Meeks was in the store.
 He had started with me from the coffee  house to-
 wards the store door but cannot say that he entered.
  Q.  Well, who else was in the store?
  A.  Mr. Roland and Captain  Rogers and Mr.
 Redmond. There might be three or four more stand-
 ing about.  I 6aw Mr. Paris there.
  Q.  When the proposition  was made to Redding
 to chastise these gentlemen did you interfere?
  A.  Yes, I said to Redding, no, take the law.—
 Mr. Redding then asked me if I would go with him
 to the Mayor's office; and I went with  him.
  Q.  When you went to the  jail whom did Red-
ding converse with?
  A.  Mr. Redding and Mr. Chenoweth were talk-
ing on the pavement and I went in. 
(25)
  Q,  Did you see any one besides those you have
Already  named, on your way to the Mayor's office.
  A.  I saw others as I went that I did not know.
  Q.  Did you hear  Deering say if they were not
secured  they would be gone before the warrant could
be got?
  A.  I did not.
  Q.  Did you not say to Deering that if they came
out their hides would not hold shucks?
  A.  I never said so to Deering.
  Q.  When you were in the  bar-room did you hear
Mr. Miller make any observation about his being a
grand juror  and the boys must  mind themselves?
  A.   I have no recollection  of hearing Mr. Miller
say that he was one of the grand jury and the boys
must mind themselvest.  I saw him talking to Mr.
Reaugh but do not remember the conversation.
  Q.  What motive had you for following Redding
and Rothwell to the Gait House?
   A.   I only went up Main street to negotiate with
Mr.  McCrum about his calf.  When I was so far
 I thought I'd  go into the Gait House to see if Mr.
 Redding had got the names.
   Q.  When you did go in, what passed between you
and them?
   A.   When  I was going to take Meeks, Oliver,
and Joseph Taylo r to  the  opposite coffee house, I
 asked Rothwell to come over and have something to
 drink,  he refused saying he had drank some at the
 bar.
   Q,.  What motive had you for returning to the bar
 {oom when you knew Redding had got the names?
   A.   I expected Mr. Turner would be along to ar-
 rest them.
   Q.   How did you know Redding and  Rothwell
 were at the Gait House together before you got there?
   A.   When I called at  the  store and asked Mr.
 Varnum's son for Mr. Redding, he told me that he
 and Rothwell had gone to the Gait House to get the
  names.
   Q.   When you proposed to  Meeks, Oliver,  Tay-
  lor and the others in the saloon to have something
  to drink, did you not say   *'come boys  let us take
  a drink and  then let us go over and give these fel-
  lows hell?"
   A.   No, ZU R—No, Sir!—nothing of the kind.
    Q. After these gentlemen were put in jail did you
  not go from house to house proclaiming that they
  ought to be hanged?
    A.  Many gentlemen asked questions and I told
  them as near as I could tell, about what I had seen
  but always said, let the law  take its course.
    Q,.   What conversation  passed at the opposite
  coffee house while you and the others were drinking,
  relative to the expected row?
    A   There was no conversation of that kind.
    Q.  When You met Holmes in third street, who
  was with him?
  A.  He and some other person were passing along
towards  the  theatre—they were  going about a
dog.
  Q.  Did Mr Redding or Mr. Shone speak to him?
  A.  They might have spoken to him, but I do not
recollect that they did.
  Q.  What did you say to Holmes?
  A.  I am not sure that I said any thing, or what it
was, if I did, except it might be something about the
dog.
  Q.  When you invited Rothwell to  go from fhe
bar-room to the coffee house what sort of a stick had
he  in his hand?
  A.   I did not see any stick with him.
  Q.   When he was at the door had he not a stick?
  A.   I did not  see a stick with him at the door or
the fire or at all that night.
  6t-   At the beginning of the fight in the bar-room
who struck the first blow?
   A.  I thought Meek struck at Murdaugh with the
whip to  keep him from making the stab with the
knife.
  Q.   What weapon had you prepared yourself with.'
  A.   I had neither weapon nor stick myself.
  Q.   Who had the  sword cane?
   A.  I saw no sword cane.
  Q.   Who give Judge Wilkinson  the  stab in  hiy
 back?
    A.  I don't know.
   Q.  What conversation took place between you
 and Mr. Reaugh?
   A.  I do not remember—it was about some men
 being sponges, or some such thing.
    Q.  Try if you can recollect?
    A. Oh,it was about that and one thing and another.
    Q.  Come now recollect what it was about?
    A.  Why Judge, can you recollect what corn patch
 you planted ten years ago?
    Q.  My question is a very plain  one, cannot you
 recollect some of the words that passed?
    A. No, for I do not keep  the leaves of a diction-
 ary in my head.
    Q. Well we'll see if some  one else can recollect it.
  When the proposition was made to Mr. Redding to
  take vengeance on these gentlemen who observed
  it and what did Meeks say?
    A.  It was proposed by some by-stander or loafer;
  but I do not recollect Meeks recommending it.
    Q.  Was Mr. Samuel  Jackson there?
    A.  I do not recollect seeing him thereat all.
    Q.  What time of the day was it?
    A.  It was before sun set—may be an hour.
    Q.  Did you see Mr. Holmes in the bar-room of
  the Gait House when the affray began?
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  Did you see Mr. Oldham?
    A.  I saw him at  the door as they made their re-
  treat out.
                    1 
(26)
  Q.  Did you hear or see him shoot the pistol?
  A.  I did not mind it.
  Q.  Did you not know he had pistols?
  A.  I knew he always carried arms since he was
 a city officer.
  Q.  When you and Redding went to the Mayor's
 office and saw Mr. Pollard what did he say?
  A.  As we had not the  names he offered to let us
 have the warrant with blanks for the names  to be
 afterwards filled up, and said if we could find Mr.
 Turner  he could act without a warrant.   Mr. Red-
 ding said, no, he would get the names first.
  Q.  After that whom did you invite to the Gait
 House?
  A.  I do not recollect inviting any one.
  Q.  Did you not tell any one to be there?
  A.  No, I have no recollection of any such thing.
  Q.  Did Redding refuse to take the  blank war-
 rant?
  A.  Yes, he said he would get the names first.
  Re-Examined:—Q.   Where did  you see Mr.
 Holmes first in the  Gait House?
  A.  In the passage talking to Mr. Halbert.
  Q.  Where did you see him during the fight?
  A.  I saw him standing over the Doctor.
  Q.  Whom did you talk to besides Mr. Redding
and Mr. Shone about going to the Gait House?
  A.  No one that  I recollect.
  Q.  Did you go to the Gait House for the purpose
of assaulting these gentlemen?
  A.  I  did not.
  Q.  Did Mr.  Redding say that he was going for
that purpose?
  A.  I never heard him announce any  such inten-
tion.  Mr. Redding and others apprehended  some
little difficulty might occur in getting the names, but
 I did not hear any reason assigned.
  Q.  Did you know Mr. Meeks, and if you did, say
 what sized man was he?
  A.  I knew him well—he was quite a small man.
  Q.  Did you see Meeks after you left  him at the
door of the tailor's shop till  you  saw  him in the
Gait House?
  A.  No, I did not.
  Q.  When you met Meeks at the Pearl street cof-
 fee house, what did he say?
  A.  He said it was hard the way these gentlemen
 had treated Redding.
  [Witness allowed to withdraw.]
      MR. TRABUE CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Mr. Hardin:—Mr. Trabue, be so good to tell the
 court and the jury what you saw of this  business.
  Mr. Trabue—I was in Louisville about the 15th
or 20th of Dec. when this affair took place.  I heard
 this business  talked  over—myself  and another
 gentleman boarded at the Gait House.   I was in the
 bar-room near the fire  when some one  observed
 that had not  the Mississippi gentlemen gone up
 stairs they would have been badly  treated.  Some
 one pointed out Mr. Redding whom I knew before.
 Judge Wilkinson  came  in  and  walked  back-
 wards and forwards two or three times greatly ex-
 cited.  Mr. Redding  then entered  the  door and
 crossed the Judge's path.  The Judge stopped and
 looked at him and Redding placed his  back against
 the counter.  I think  when Murdaugh entered he
 was the first that spoke, saying, 'I understand  you
 say that  I drew a bowie knife on you—if you say
 so you are a damned  liar.'  Mr.  Redding said, 'I
 don't  know that you are the man but one of the
 three did.'  Mr. Murdaugh replied,  'if you or any
 one else says it was I,  it is a damned lie.'  A little
 man whom I knew afterwards to be  Meeks came
 up and said, 'you ore the damned little rascal that
 did it,' and he  struck at Murdaugh with  his whip.
 About the same time Rothwell struck Murdaugh,
 who had  his knife open  in his hand when he was
 first struck at.  The crowd closed up  on them and
 they were hurried towards  the dining room door.
 Shortly after I saw the Judge stabbing about  with
 his  bowie knife.  Murdaugh, Meeks and Rothwell,
 were in the middle of the scuffle when the Judge
 made towards them and I saw him stab Rothwell in
 the  back, or towards the side.  Rothwell made a
 slight shrink on getting the stab and sort-o' turned
round to  see who struck him.  As  soon  as I saw
 Judge Wilkinson stab Rothwell in the back, Doctor
 Wilkinson was knocked up against  me; and some-
 time after, Holmes had the doctor down, and raised
his head with one hand to strike him with the other.
 Marshal  Halbert came  up and addressed Holmes,
saying, "you have beat him enough."  I helped to
separate them and the doctor made his escape. I saw
the Judge, and I saw a bowie,knife glistening; they
got  out into the passage and I heard a pistol fired.
 At  the same moment I saw Meeks drop dead.__
Rothwell on the instant came in with the blood
flowing from his wound.  He took off his coat with
 some assistance.
  When you saw Judge  Wilkinson stab Rothwell,
 in what part of the room was it?
  A.  Near the dining room door.
  Q.  Did you see Rothwell get any other stab?
  A.  I saw but the one.
  Q.  Which corner of the room was it in?
  A.  In the opposite corner from  where Doctor
 Wilkinson and Holmes were engaged.
  Q.  Describe the corners as you face the fire?
  A.  Holmes  and Doctor Wilkinson were fighting
in the left hand corner as you face the fire; the Judee
 Rothwell, and  Halbert were  fighting  in the  rieht
hand corner as you face the fire. 
(27)
   Q.  Are you sure you saw Rothwell get but the
 one stab?
   A.  It sometimes has been an impression on my
 mind that as Rothwell turned, the Judge made an-
 other stab at him, but I am not certain.
   Q.  Did vou see Judge Wilkinson attempt stab-
 bing any one else?
   A.  I saw him repeatedly stabbing about with
 his bowie knife.
   Q.  Was any person then molesting him?
   A.  At  the time he was stabbing about, I did not
 see any person interfering with him.
   Q.  Is this the knife he had?
   A.  The knife was similar to that.
   Q.  What was his manner of stabbing  about as
 you describe?
   A.  I saw the Judge make several thrusts forward
 in this way, throwing his head back, [jerking  for-
 ward his arm.]
   Q.  When Murdaugh came into the room  which
 did he or Redding speak first?
   A.  Although there are many persons say Redding
 spoke the first word, I am certain it was Murdaugh,
 unless Redding spoke very low.
   Q.  On  whom was your attention first fixed?
   A.  I had my eye upon Murdaugh, Meeks  and
 the Judge; as soem as this striking commenced I re-
 treated from them.
   Q.  Did you then see the Doctor?
   A.  I  had not  discovered the Doctor till  I saw
 Holmes  beating him.  I would have seen more of
 the fight between Meeks, Murdaugh and Rothwell,
 had not  Doctor Wilkinson been struck up against
 me.
   Q. Was he then knocked down?
   A.  He was not knocked down till after Rothwell
 had been stabbed by Judge Wilkinson.
   Q. Did  Rothwell continue to fight after the stab
 you saw?
   A. My  attention was drawn  from Rothwell to
 Doctor Wilkinson, and I did not see Rothwell again
 till he was  walking from where Meeks fell towards
 the passage through the door.  The pistol was fired
 and he turned into the room bleeding.
   Q.  Were they fighting out of the  room at  the
 time?
   A.  The room had been cleared.
  Cross-Examined:—Q. Did any one else strike at
 Murdaugh  besides Meeks?
  A.  I saw some one besides Meeks strike at Mur-
daugh,  and have an impression it was a large man
like Rothwell with a stick or cane.
  Q.. What sort  of whip  or cane  was it  Meeks
struck with?
  A.  I thought  it was a polished steel cane that
Meeks struck with, but  I may be-mistaken in  that:
my impression is very indistinct.
,   Q:  When Mr. Murdaugh was struck, was he
 warning them off?
   A.  He was warning them not to strike him.
   Q.  When did he draw his knife?
   A.  As he gave the lie to the report. He 6aid, any
 man that says so, is a liar.
   Q.  Did he say, knife, or bowie knife?
   A.  I do not recollect that he said bowie knife.
 His words  were, "It  is reported that I drew a
 knife on you, and if any one says I did, he  is a
 damned liar."   Meeks came up and said, "you are
 the damned little rascal that did it," and with  that
 struck at Murdaugh.
   Q.  Did any one else at the same time commence
 striking?
   A.  My impression is, that another, a large manv
 struck at Murdaugh with a stick at the same time.
   Q.  When the Judge first left the bar room, did
 Redding remain till the Judge's return?
   A.  Redding went out before the Judge came in.
 After the Judge came in, and paced the room, Red-
 ding entered and crossed his path to the counter, and
 by that time a right smart crowd entered the door,
 and got about them.
   Q.  Was a difficulty expected  by those  in the
 room?
   A.  I don't think there were five men in the house
 that did not expect a difficulty.  It was considera-
 bly talked, of all the evening,
   Q.  What occurred in the passage when they got
 out there?
   A.  I was not out to see what passed in the pas
 sage.  After Rothwell got his coat off and lay on
 the chairs, I left the bar-room and went to my room.
   Q.  What weapons did  you observe with  both
 parties?
   A.  The only weapons I saw as I recollect, were
 the two knives,  the whip, or what appeared to me
 to be a polished steel cane.
   Q.  When Murdaugh was struck with that cane,
 did it wound his head?
   A.  I think there was a wound made when I saw
 it strike.
   Q.  Where did you last notice Murdaugh in the
 fight?
   A.  The last  of Murdaugh I saw after the  first
 scuffle, I thought he was staggering back for  the
 door where he had entered.
   Q.  Could any one observe all that was going on
together?
   A.  I do not think it possible that any one could
see every thing that occurred.
   Q.  The terror was so great that people fled from
it?
   A.  I think before the fight  was half over, there
did not remain more than ten or a dozen persons in
the house. 
(28)
   Reexamined:—Q.   What time in December did
 ;t occur?
   A.  I think about the 15th or 20th.  I was there
 a day or two before it happened.
   Q.  It was in Louisville, in the county of Jeffer-
 son?
   A,  Yes
   [Allowed  to withdraw.]
      MR. MONTGOMERY CALLED AND EXAMINED.
   Being requested  by Mr.  Hardin to state what  he
 knew of the affair—
,   Mr.  Montgomery:—I was at the Gait House with
 Mr. Trabue. The  first I saw of the affair was at
 Mr. Redding's shop,  As I was passing in  the
 street, I saw two or three gentlemen engaged in the
 door-way.  Mr. Redding appeared  to have turned
 bock on the pavement.  Mr. Murdaugh was on the
 pavement too, and  had a drawn knife in his hand;
Redding said if they would lay aside their weapons
he would whip the three of  them.   Murdaugh said
he could not begin  to do it, pointing  his  knife at
him.   Judge Wilkinson then  came up and took
 Murdaugh away.
  Q.  What time was it?
  A.  It was between three and four o'clock.
  Q.  State what you know of the affair at the Gait
 House.
  A.  Afterwards at  the Gait House, I saw Red-
ding getting  the names.  He was  using very rough
 language.  It was nearly dark when Redding came
 back into the bar-room. Mr.   Halbert said there
would  be rough work with  the Mississippians.
Hearing some one speak loud near the  counter, 1
got up and went towards the counter.   Mr. Meeks
was near Mr. Redding, who was addressed by  Mr.
Murdaugh.   Mr. Rothwell  was next Mr. Redding.
 Murdaugh had his drawn knife in his hand.  He re-
 marked that "if any one  said he drew a bowie
 knife,  it was a damned lie."  Meeks said " he was
 the damned little rascal that did it," and struck at
 him.  Murdaugh tried  to  use the  knife,  but his
 hand was seized, and he changed the  knife into
 his other hand, and made a stab at Meeks, and cut
 him in the belly, and his blood shot out upon my
 pantaloons and vest.
   Q.  Did you see Rothwell stabbed?
   A.  I saw the Judge thrust his bowie knife irito
 Rothwell's back.   The crowd  dispersed like, and
 the Judge backed out towards the passage.  I turn-
 ed towards the fire, and saw Mr. Holmes pounding
 Dr. Wilkinson very  heavily.   Halbert said to him
 "Bill, you  have beat him enough,"  and he and
 others took hold of him.  By that time I  saw the
 Judge again  appear at the door, and make a stroke
 with the knife at Holmes,  and immediately I saw
 Rothwell with the blood flowing from him
   Q.  Did you see  the Judge stab Rothwell twice?
   X-  I did  not see the Judge  stab Rothwell more
 than once, and that was in the right hand corner of
 the room as you face the fire.
  Q. Was the Judge using his knife freely?
  A. Yes; very freely.
  Q. Was any person attacking him?
  A. I did not see any person attack him.  I did
 not see any one attempt to strike him, till after ho
 had struck at Holmes with hjs knife, when Holmes
 and  Halbert raised chairs against him.  I too, raised
 a chair, not that I thought he struck at me.  Holmes
 had been separated from the Doctor when the Judge
 struck at him.
  Q.  When  the  Judge  stabbed  Rothwell,  was
 Rothwell's back to  him?
  A.  Not exactly; but a sort of quartering.
  Cross-examined;—Q.  You live in Oldham coun-
 ty?
  A. Yes, sir, I do.
  Q.  Did you hear any persons  say they would
 beat the Mississippians?
  A.  Yes, several said they would beat them well.
 The Mississippians were not in the room at the time-
  [Witness allowed to retire.]
     MR. THOMAS REAUGH  CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Mr. H&rdin;—Mr. Reaugh, state  what you know
of this transaction.
  Mr. Reaugh:—I  had been in the country that
evening, and on my return,  Mr. Kintner, of Cory-
don, asked me to go to the Gait House, and have a
glass of wine.  He was boarding at the Gait House.
I drank with him at the bar, and walked to the fire-
place. On turning round, I saw Mr. Redding talk-
ing to Mr. Rothwell.   In a few minutes  I saw Mr.
Holmes.  Mr.  Redding was in conversation with
Mr. Rothwell, and, I think, with Mr. Halbert.  I
turned to Mr. Johnson, and asked him if any thing
was  the matter? he said yes,  and  told  me  about
the   difficulty  at  Mr.  Redding's   store.   I  re-
marked that if the Mississippians fell into the hands
of these men, they would fare rather rough. "Yes;"
replied Johnson,  "they would skin them quicker
than I could skin a sheep."  I heard a Mr. Miller
say to Mr.  Redding  that if he*d get the' names he'd
attend to the matter in  the Grand Jury.  Mr.  Red-
ding went to the bar; shortly after a gentleman came
in, and Mr. Redding turned to him and said, "I be-
lieve, sir,   you  are  the gentleman  that struck
me  with the poker?"   He turned round and said,
"yes, sir,  I am."  Mr.  Redding then used very
rough language, when  the Judge said, "go  away,
or I'll kill you."  The Judge then walked the room,
and peaceably passed out to meet Mr. Everett in the
passage.  The Judge was gone some time when he
returned again and walked across to the dining
room door.  I think he had his right  hand in the
left hand pocket of his  coat.  He stood with his eye
fixed on  the opposite door, Mr.  Redding a few steps
from him, when a gentleman with a drab ovprroai 
(au;
 came towards Mr. Redding with a knife in his hand.
 He addressed himself to Mr. Redding in this way,
 "Sir, do you say that I drew a bowie knife on you?
 if you say so, you are a damned liar!"  Mr. Redding
 said, "I don't say it was you, but one of the three."
 A little man  whom I afterwards knew to be Meeks,
 came up and said, "you are the damned little ras-
 cal," and I think he was making the blow with his
 whip as he said the words.   I retired to the fire
 place and saw Mr. Meeks stagger  to the N. W. cor-
 ner of the room.  I saw him struck, as I thought,
 with a dirk, and then fall.   At the same time I saw
 a fight in the S. W. corner, and Judge Wilkinson at
 the door striking the first blow at  Rothwell, but it
 did not seem as if the blow could  reach him, but as
 he turned a little, the second blow did, and it ap-
 peared as if at the time Rothwell was in the act of
 taking off Holmes from Doctor Wilkinson.
  Q.  When  Judge  Wilkinson  stabbed Rothwell,
 was Rothwell in the S.  W. corner in the act of tak-
 ing hold of Holmes to relieve Dr.  Wilkinson?
  A.  Yes; it appeared as if he Was taking Holmes,
 or some other man, off  the Doctor.
  Q.  In what corner of the room as  you face the
 fire?
  A.  In the left hand  corner.
  Q.  It was some twenty feet from the dining-room
 door?
  A.  I think it was.
  Q.  If you  took a line from the passage door to
 the fire place, where would  Rdthwell's position be?
  A.  A little to the left of that range line;
  Cross-examined:—Q.   What part did Rothwell
 take in the fight between Meeks and Murdaugh?
  A.  I did not see him take any part.
  Q.  Had not Rothwell a stick in his hand?
  A.  To the best of my recollection, I think he had.
  Q.  Where did you see Meeks first that evening,
 and was he then excited?
  A.  Mr. Meeks seemed considerably excited when
 I first saw him that evening in the passage, and he
 asked me to go and drink with him in company with
 another man.
  Q.  When  you remarked these large gentlemen
 would handle the Mississippians roughly if they fell
 into their hands, and Johnson said "they  would
 skin them as quick as he could skin a sheep," What
 caused you to ask Johnson what was the matter?
  A.  The appearance of these men made me ask
Johnson the question.
  Q.  How many blows, and in  what  manner did
Judge Wilkinson strike at Rothwell?
  A.  Judge  Wilkinson struck  two blows, as  I
 think, holding the knife this way,—[showing it in
his right hand pointing forward.]
  Q.  Had Murdaugh a knife in his hand when he
was struck by Meeks?
  A.  He had a knife, but they were so close togeth-
er, it was impossible for me tell what was done.
  [Witness allowed to withdraw.]
            MR. REDMOND RE-CALLED.
  Mr. Hardin.—Mr . Redmond, state what you saw
at the Gait House that evening.
  Mr. Redmond: I was at the Gait-House that eve-
ing, on my way to my supper.   I live on  Mar-
ket, between Brook  and Floyd; and passing the
Gait House oh my way  home, I heard pretty loud
talk inside, which induced me to  enter.  When I
went in, Mr. Redding  was abusing Judge  Wilkin-
son, who  remarked he did not want to have any
thing to do with a man of his profession, and if he
laid hands on him he'd kill him.  He then walked
up and down the room  with his right hand in hie left
hand coat pocket. Mr. Everett called him  to the
counter, and catching his arm, told him he had bet-
ter go to his room. He went out, and in ten or fif-
teen minutes he returned accompanied by Mr. Mur-
daugh, the only one I noticed coming in with him.
When  Mr.  Murdaugh carrie in, I was behind Mr.
Redding.  Mr. Redding  said "you are one  of the
gentlemen who drew  a knife on me."   Murdaugh
said "you are  a damned liar."  Meeks  said "you
are; I saw you myself.''  Murdaugh replied "you
are a liar," and made a pass  at him with his knife
at the same instant that Meeks struck him  with his
whip.  Some one caught Murdaugh's right hand,
and he changed the knife into his left  hand, and the
second thrust he cut Meeks  in the  belly.  Meeks
staggered about, a little backwards, and finally fell
towards the counter.   I was then making my way
out of the room pretty quick, I tell you; and as I
was going by the crowd in the left hand corner I saw
Holmes scuffling with  the Doctor.  The Doctor had
a knife in his hand at the time.  Rothwell was lean-
ing over Holmes, begging him to get off.  Holmes
said, "let me hit him one more blow."  Judge Wil-
kinson Was at the door, and made a thrust at Roth-
well, and  stabbed him over the hip, when Rothwell
straightened up and exclaimed "oh!  1 am cut," and
the Judge/etreated out of the door.
  Q.  Were you asked at the examining court any
thing concerning what you had seen at the Gait
House?
  A.  No; 1 was not asked about it.
  Q.  After  the Judge left the bar-room,  you left
also?
  A.  Yes;  1 had no object in view to remain.
  Cross-Examined:—Q.  Did you not tell a journey-
man tailor who works  for Mr. Davie what was  to
happen at the Gait House?
  A. No, SIR!  I told him what had happened at
Redding's shop.
  Q. You say you saw a knife in  the Doctor's
hand—was he using it? 
(30)
   A.  When the Doctor lay on the floor his hand
 was flat on the boards with his knife in it.  I think
 he was pretty well used-up; and  from the  way
 Holmes had him fixed, I expect he had no chance of
 using his knife.
   Q.  During the ten or fifteen minutes between
 the acts in the bar-room was there any talk among
 those present about what had passed?
   A.  There was talk of what had happened, and
 of Redding  having offered to whip the whole three
 if they would lay aside their weapons.
   Q.  Were you at the Gait House when Redding
 went first?
   A.  No; I did not go to the Gait House to see that.
   Q.  You were in Mr. Redding's employment?
   A.  I worked for Mr. Redding at the time.
  [Here the Court adjourned for dinner and re-assem-
 bled at 2 o'clock.]
     JAS. W. GARRISON CALLED AND EXAMINED.
   Mr. Hardin:—Mr. Garrison, state what you obser-
 ved of this affair.
   Mr. Garrison:—I was at the jGalt House that eve-
 ning and saw Mr. Redding there, and heard him tell
 a  gentleman  that Judge Wilkinson was one of the
 persons  who had attacked him at his own house,
 and that they were cowardly fellows.   After a little
 I heard the Judge say to Redding, "I will not fight
 with a man of your profession; but if you interfere
 with me I will kill you."  He shortly after retired.
 I observed to Redding, that  if I was in  his place I
 would not  interfere with these fellows.  Another
person observed,  "Yes, I would get their  names and
put them under city authorities."  Redding replied,
that he had got or would get the names.  In about
ten minutes  the Judge returned and walked across
the room very briskly with his right hand in his coat
pocket.  On the  third  time  Redding crossed  the
track to the counter and observed that the  three men
were now present. Mr. Murdaugh then spoke to
Mr. Redding and  he turned  round and said some-
thing very short to him in reply; directly the damned
lie was given to what Redding said, and  the crowd
closed on them.  1 was outside the crowd and did
not see the  knives.  I saw blows struck  but could
not tell upon whom.
  Cross-examined:—Q.  State if you can  who gave
or received the blows?
  A.  I cannot tell either.
  Q.  When Mr. Redding said the three  men were
present did he speak loud enough to  be heard all
over the room?
  A.  Yes I thought so.
  Q.  You stated that when Mr. Murdaugh address-
ed Mr. Redding,  Redding turned round towards
him?                 '
  A.  Yes.
  Q.  What was Mr. Redding doing after that?
  A.  I did not see him that evening afterwards.
   Q.  What did you  observe of Mr. Johnson,  Mr.
 Meeks or Mr. Holmes?
   A.  I did not see Mr. Johnson to  know him; nor
 was I acquainted with Meeks or Holmes.
   Q.  What induced you to caution Redding by say-
 ing, if you were he, you would not interfere with
 these fellows?
 • A.  From what the gentleman said to  Mr. Red-
 ding I thought perhaps the  gentlemen had knives
 and that someone might be killed.
   Q.  Did not Mr.  Redding use very hard and op-
 probrious language to the Judge when he first  ad-
 dressed him?
   A.  I think I was in the bar-room when the fuss
 began.  I did not consider Redding had used very
 hard language except saying that they were cowards
 and if they would lay aside  their weapons and go
 into a room he'd whip  the whole three of them.
     THOMAS A. M'GRATH CALLED AND EXAMINED.
   Mr. Hardin—Mr. McGrath, state what you know
 of this affair.
   Mr. McGrath—I happened to be in the Gait House
 on the evening of this fight, and had been there but
 a short time until I understood there had been a  dif-
 ficulty.  I  heard some person speaking of it and
 saw Mr. Redding there a few minutes before Judge
 Wilkinson came into  the room.  Either Mr. Red-
 ding or some of his friends had spoken to me. Judge
 Wilkinson came into  the room and Mr.  Redding
 addressed the Judge  in this manner: "Sir," said
 he,  "I believe  you are the gentleman who struck
 me with the  poker  in my  house this  evening,
 and  you are a damned rascal;  and  if  you will
 come  into a  room or the street and lay  aside
 your weapons I'll  whip the whole three  of  you."
 The Judge walked up and down the room with  his
 hand in his pocket.  After Mr. Redding  had abu-
 sed him a good deal, the Judge came to the counter
 and  took a glass of water. He then said to Redding
 he would not quarrel or fight with a man of his pro-
 fession; but if he would interfere with him he would
 kill him.   I advised Mr.  Everett  to take the Judge
 to  his own  room, and Mr. Everett went round to do
 so.   At the same time the Judge left the bar-room.
 In five or ten minutes the Judge, Mr. Murdaugh and
 Dr. Wilkinson, all three, entered the bar-room  to-
 gether.  I was inside the counter, in the bar-room,
 and Mr. Redding stood at the counter opposite me.
 Mr. Murdaugh came forward towards Mr. Redding,
 who  said  to him, "Sir,  I believe you are one of the
 men  who drew a knife on me at my house  this eve-
 ning?"  Mr. Murdaugh said, "Sir, I understand you
say I  drew a bowie knife  on you, and you are a
damned liar if you say so,"  opening his knife.  In
a moment the crowd got round them and they moved
down the counter and I could not well see what was
 doing.  Mr. Redding moved down with them.  I
could see in the crowd that blows were passing; but 
(31)
could not discern who gave or received the blows, j
I saw a knife  with  Mr. Murdaugh, and observed
him striking with it, and 1 thought he had killed
Mr. Redding  when  I saw a man fall.  After that
there was a general fight through the room.
'  Q.  Did you see Mr. Meeks killed?
  A.  I saw him faU, but did not see the knife enter
him.
  Q.  Which  hand did  Murdaugh hold the knife
in when you saw him strike?
  A.  It was in his right hand I saw the knife.
  Q.  After Meeks fell what  was dpne  to  Mur-
daugh?
  A.  I  saw no more of Mr. Murdaugh that eve-
ning.
  Q.  State what you observed of Judge Wilkinson.
  A.  The first I saw of Judge Wilkinson after the
fight began, he was standing near  the  dining-room
door, with his back  to the door, not standing erect
but a little stooped, and  holding his arm above with
a bowie knife six or eight inches in the blade in his
hand.  He held his arm and the knife in his hand
rather above the heads of the crowd, as if to make
a passage.  He passed through the crowd to the door
opposite, and when he got in that door-way he turn-
ed and faced into the room.  He seemed to take his
stand there, and then I saw him  take a jump for-
ward and make a thrust  towards where I believe Mr.
Holmes, or Mr. Rothwell,  I could  not tell which,
was engaged  in .the fight with Doctor Wilkinson.
He returned from the blow and jumped forward,
making  another thrust, and again returned; and as
he lunged forward the third time, Marshall Halbert
took up a chair and threatened the Judge to keep
back, though  I do not think he could have reached
him with the chair from where he stood.
  Q.  Did you see the stab inflicted on Rothwell?
  A. I did not see the knife enter  Rothwell at all.
  Cross-Examined:—Q.  State  how long you have
known  Judge Wilkinson, and  what has been his
general character.
  A.  I have known Judge  Wilkinson for  three
years.   I have heard a good many gentlemen speak
of him  before and since this transaction, and have
 always heard him spoken of in the highest terms.  I
have been in  the South this  winter,  and  in his
neighborhood, and  have heard  him spoken well of
there.
  Re-Examined:—Q.  You have  made clothes for
Judge Wilkinson and I suppose he has treated you
civilly?
  A.  He has always acted like a gentleman  to me.
  Q. You were in the South this winter?
  A. Yes, sir, I have said so.
   Q.  Did you hear a letter spoken of there as hav-
 ing been written by Judge Rowan which eaused a
 great excitement in Judge Wilkinson's favor?
   A.  I heard the letter much spoken of.   There
was  a  great excitement,  but  I cannot say it was
caused by that letter.
  Q.  (For the Defence.)  I suppose a  great many
gentlemen spoke to you about this trial?
  A.  Ye6, a great many.
           [Witness allowed to retire.]
     JAMES W. GRAHAM CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Mr. Hardin:—Mr. Graham, state what you know
of this  transaction.
  Mr. Graham:—I was passing by the Gait House
that  evening about dusk  and  I saw Mr. Redding
and  Mr. Rothwell crossing the street alone; Mr,
Rothwell probably ahead  of Mr. Redding.  I slap-
ped Mr. Redding on the shoulder, and thought there
was  something singular about his countenance.  He
turned round and shook hands with me.
  Cross-examined:—Q. Was  it not some strong
appearance of excitement  attracted your attention?
  A. It was something unusual in Mr. Redding's
countenance that caused me to take notice.
  Q.  Were there any persons following them at the
time?
  A. I do not think there was any person  in the
street within a square of them at the time.
        DR. KNIGHT CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Mr. Hardin:—Doctor Knight, describe the injuries
inflicted on Mr. Meeks and Mr.  Rothwell?
   Doctor Knight:—I did not examine the wound on
Mr.  Meeks.  I saw it, bui he was dead  at the time.
I examined Mr. Rothwell—he had three wounds; one
between the eleventh snd twelfth ribs; the second
through the seventh rib, separating it.  Both wounds
were through the spleen.  There was a third wound
in the chest near the collar bone, down to the right
lung.  I consider the wound in the chest caused  his
death;  the wounds in the side had a favorable ap-
pearance from the protrusion  of the  lips of the
wounds.
   Q.  Did not these wounds in the spleen contribute
to death?
   A.  Though not the immediate cause,  they cer-
tainly contributed.
   Q. By  what sort of weapon  did the wounds ap-
pear to be inflicted?
   A.  Those through the spleen by a  large knife.:
that in the chest by some small instrument.
   Q. Could it have been made  by any  of these
knives?
   A.  It was not by  a bowie knife.  It was quite a
small puncture—made by a very small  instrument.
   I think  the puncture must have been about six or
seven  inches in  length  to where  it  penetrated.
The wound was about  as broad as the blade of
this knife, and to the depth of from five to seven
inches.
   Cross-examined:—Q.  Were the wounds made by
the bowie knife the immediate cause of death? 
(**)
  A.   No; the wound in thechest caused the death
by suffocation.
  Q.   Without that wound would death necessarily
have ensued?
  A.   It is hard to tell what might have been the
effect of the wounds in the spleen.  It is not a vital
organ;  but wounds leading to inflammation might
jprove fatal;  however, if inflammation could  be kept
down, and there were no other aggravating tenden-
cies in the system, I do not consider that they would
have caused death.
  Re-examined:—Q.  Was there not air admitted
and expelled by the wounds in the side, which caus-
ed the collapsing of the lung?
  A.   Air might have been taken in and expelled in
that way, but not  by the lungs, for there is  no con-
nection between  the cavity of the abdomen and that
,of the lungs, but the puncture through the seventh
rib passed through the diaphram.
  Q.   [For the defence.]  Could the puncture in the
chest be made by that bowie knife?
  A.   Certainly  not.
  Q.   The circumstance of the lips of the wounds
protruding, you consider a favorable symptom?
  A.   Much more favorable than  if they had con-
tracted, because the protrusion of the lips admitted
of the flowing of any blood or suppuration: a con-
traction would confine  these, and thus lead to in-
flamation, which might prove fatal in its  progress.
        DR. M'DOWELL CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Mr.  Hardin:—Doctor, state whether it is your opi-
nion that the wounds  you examined on the body of
Rothwell, through the spleen, contributed to his
death?
  Dr.  McDowell:—I am  of  opinion that  all the
wounds contributed to  death: but the immediate
cause  was from the puncture on the right side.
  Q.   Did not the other  two wounds, in conjunc-
tion with that, contribute to death, and, in fact, ac-
celerate it?
  A.   Certainly; that is my opinion.
  Cross-examined:  Q.  Would not the puncture
have caused death of itself?
  A.   No.  The lobes of one side  afford  sufficient
respiration to sustain life.
  Q.   What collapsed the lobes on the left side.
  A.  Atmospheric pressure.
  Q.   How  could  atmospheric pressure affect them
from wounds penetrating the abdomen, as both the
J3owie knife wounds entered the spleen?
  A.  Both wounds entered the cavity of the chest,
and passed through the diaphram into the spleen in
 the abdomen.     >
  Q,   What was the injury on the lung?
  A.  It was not wounded.
  Q.   Did both wounds penetrate the cavity of the
 abdomen?
  A.   Yes, both
  Q.  What sort of instrument  do you think  tin
puncture on the right side was made with?
  A.   I conceive it  must have been a very slender
instrument.  I should think not more than half an
inch in width.
  Q.  What direction did it take?
  A.  From the top of the sternum to the  juncture
of the second rib with its cartilage.
  Q.  Was the lung penetrated?
  A.  We could not find any trace that it was.
  Q.  What appearance had  the puncture on the
skin where the instrument entered?
  A.  The puncture of the skin was very small, as
with a dull blade.  The perforation was from a third
to half an inch in breadth.
  Q.  Would death have  ensued from the  wounds
in the left side?
  A. By process of inflammation it might; by process
of suppuration the patient might recover.
  Cross-examined:—Q.  What did you  observe of
Judge  Wilkinson's wounds on visiting him in the
jail?
  A.  On attending Judge  Wilkinson in jail with
my partner Doctor Powell, his attendiag physician,
I merely saw the wound.
  Q.  What depth was the wound in his back?
  A. I declined probing it, but from the length of
the discoloration, supposed it to be three or four inch-
es extending from near the shoulder blade  towards
the spine.  It must have been the puncture of a very
slender blade.
  Q.  How would it compare with the puncture in
Rothwell's chest?
  A.   It was a little larger.
  Q.  Did you examine the wounds on Mr. Mur-
daugh's head?
  A.   His head had been dressed,  and the adhesive
plasters were npt removed.
  Q.  What state was Dr. Wilkinson in?
  A.  His face and head were greatly bruised. His
face very much discolored, and his eyes swollen till
nearly closed.
  Q.   Had not the Judge some contusions about
the face?
  A.  I did not remark them particularly.
  [Witness allowed to retire.  It was here announc-
ed by the Prosecuting Attorney that the evidence for
the Commonwealth was through.   Twelve  witness-
es for the defence were then called up and sworn.]
        MR. JACKSON CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Col.   Robertson.—Mr. Jackson, state  what you
know of this business.
  Mr. Jackson:—I cannot say that I know any thing
of either fight.  I was passing Mr. Redding's in the
evening. From a few doors below Mr. Redding's I
heard some loud talking.  I had some clothes  in
my hands. I went  in and saw Mr. Johnson, Mr, 
(33)
Redding anul  Mr. Meeks.   I heard  Mr. Johnson
talking of  what ought to be done with these men.
He said to  Redding and the others that they ought to
go to the Gait House and flog them. He asked Mr.
Redding to do so.  Mr. Redding  did not seem  to
say any thing.  Johnson said, "Jack, just say the
word, and I'll go for my friend, Bill Holmes, and
wo'llfcive thein hell!" and said he was as much man-
hood as ever was wrapped up in ^o much hide.  Meeks
said, let us go any how, and we'll have a spree.  Af-
ter thi3, Mr. Redding; said, "no, I'll see thein ano-
ther time and get satisfaction."
  Sometime after, I met Mr. Johnson in the street,
and tried to pass him, but he stopped me, and I asked
what he wanted.  He said, 1 am going aiier Holmes
and think you ought to come to the Gall House; and,
that Jack Redding was a fine man and good citizen,
and that we ought to see him righted.  I refused to
interfere, saying I was not a man  of that character,
and I would do my own fighting, and let others do
the same.
  Q.  Meeks was the same  man  who  was after-
wards killed?
  A.  Yes.  I saw him fifteen minutes after he died;
he was on a cot in the Gait House.
  Q.  Did not Johnson  make use  of some strong
expression when you observed you were not a man
of that character?
  A.  He  observed, church, hell, or heaven, ought to
be laid aside to right a friend.  I told him he had bet-
ter not have any thing to do with these men.
  Q.  Was Meeks with Johnson at the time?
  A. No.
  Cross-examined:—Q. Did Johnson tell you a fight
was intended?
  A.  I judged it from the way he talked.   I told
him it was not my character to seek places of quarrel.
  Q,  What brought you into the shop*
  A. I went, because I heard loud talking. I heard
Johnson talking loud: the high words brought  me
into the shop.
  Q.  Why, on that occasion, were you induced to
go in, if your character was not of a fighting nature?
  A.  I had no reason but because I heard the loud
tall*—louder than common.
  Q.  Who was in the store when you went in?
  A. I saw Mr. Craig, Mr. Paris, Mr. Johnson and
Mr. Redding.  1 do not remember whether it was
Mr.  Craig or Mr. Redmond—Meeks was there too.
  Q.  And Johnson said, "Jack, just say the word,
and I'll go round and get my friend Holmes?"
  A.  To "give them hell."
  Q.  What did Redding say to that?
  A. He discouraged the idea.          »■
  Q.  Were you examined before in the examining
court.
  A  Yes.
  Q   Did you then tell of Johnson inviting you to
the Gait House?
  A.   I think I did.
  Q.  How long did you stay in the shop?
  A.  About five minutes.
  Q.  Did you particularly remark Meeks?
  A.  Yes; he appeared to be excited, and directed
his conversation to Mr. Redding.
  Q.  What part of the store was he in?
  A.  I don't think he was in the house.  He had
one foot on the step of the door.
  Q.  Which was it, Mr. Craig or Mr. Redmond, was
present?
  A.  I think it was Mr. Craig.
   Q.  Where did you next meet Mr. Johnson?
  A.  In about fifteen minutes after, 1 met-him go-
ing towards the market.
   Q.  In what direction?
  A.' From Mr. Redding's corner towards Market
Street in an opposite direction from the Gait House.
  Q.  Were there not boys in the shop?
  A.  I do not recollect seeing any.
  Q.  Did Mr. Redding agree to Mr. Johnson's pro-
position?
  A.  No.
  Q,  When in the shop Johnson said he would go
see Bill Holmes and his fr'end, and go up and give
them hell, what did Mr. Redding say to that?
   A.  Mr. Redding said, no.
   Q.  When you next met Johnson, in what direc-
tion with respect  tothe Galj; House was he going?
   A.   In a direction from the Gait House.  ■«
   [Allowed to retire.]
      MR. E. R. DEERING CALLED AND EXAMINED.
   Col. Robertson:—Mr. Deering, what did you see
of this affair.
   Mr. Deering:—I was passing down Market-street,
about sun-down, and near  the Market-house, I saw
Mr. Johnson, Holmes, and others, talking about Mis-
sissippi gentlemen who had treated Mr. Redding ve-
ry badly.  I went on, and returning again between
Fourth and Fifth streets, I met Mr.  Johnson, who
asked me about Mr. Turner. I asked him what was
the matter?  He  said he  wanted officers to assist
them, and I said he'd be late to get officers, for they
would be gone. He said there was enough gone there,
that if they came  down their liides would not hold
shucks.  Curiosity afterwards  brought me to the
Gait House to see what was going on; the first I
saw was Oldham.  Mr. Redding was in the bar-
room, with a piece of paper in his hand.  I went
away towards home,  and some time after returned,
and found a good many persons in the bar-room.  I
saw a gentleman with a drab coat coming in, and
heard Mr. Redding say, he was the gentleman that
drew his knife. He said, "if you say so, you arc a,
damned liar," and Meeks  came up and  said, "you
                       5 
(34)
ave the damned little rascal," and struck at Mur-
daugh with the whip two or three times.  I then left.
  Q.  When Johnson that evening asked you to go
to the Gait House, did you understand by him that
he was to take part in what was to be done there?
  A.  He did not so express himself.
  Q.  When you saw the talking at the  end of the
market, did Johnson seem much excited?
  A.  I think he did.
  Q.  Were those he talked to, excited?
  A.  Not that I could see.
  Q.  What did Johnson say?
  A.  He said the Mississippians ought to be taken
out and get a genteel flogging.
  Q.  Did you see Mr. Redding and Mr. Rothwell
at the Gait House?
  A.  Yrcs; and  I asked  Rothwell  what was  the
matter.   He said he was not so very well pleased.
  Q.  Is Mr. Holmes a very large and stout man?
  A.  He is a  very large and stout man; but I knew
him for five years when I was Captain of the watch,
and considered him a very peaceable man, though re-
puted one of the stoutest men in Louisville.
  Q.  Are not Mr. Halbert and Mr. Oldham also
very stout men?
  A.  Y'es; Mr. Oldham  is considered a  very stout
man.
  Cross-examined:—Q.  What time in the  evening
was it when you  saw Mr. Holmes and Mr. Johnson
talking?
  A.  It  was near sun-down.
  Q. How long were they talking?
  A.  I don't  know.  I left them taking there.
  Q,. When you next saw Johnson where was it?
  A. I think he was coming from the Mayor's office.
  Q. Where and how long did you see Oldham at
the Gait House?
  A.  I saw him  going in but did not see him again
that evening.
  Q. What time was it?
  A.  It  was  dark—about half an hour before  the
fight.
  Q.  Did you, after that, see him in the bar-room?
  A.  I Did not.
  [Allowed to retire.]
    MR. ALFRED HARRIS CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Col.  Robertson:—Mr.  Harris,  state what  you
know of this business.
  Mr. Harris:—I met Mr. Johnson near my own
house that evening.  He was accompanied by Mr
Shore.  He told me about three Mississippi gentle-
men who had insulted Mr. Redding, whose friends
should go to the Gait House.  He asked me to go.  I
said I would not.  He said, "are you a friend of Mr.
Redding's?"  I  said yes; there was no man I felt
more friendly to, but if he had been assaulted, as
Mr. Johnson stated, the law was at his side, and that
 the thing was so far past now that it was not worth
 while to go. He said, "then you won't go?" and I
 said, I would not.  I heard no more of it till next
 morning.
  [Allowed to retire.]
    MR. BENJAMIN OLIVER CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Col. Robertson:—Mr. Oliver, state what you know
 of this affair?
  Mr. Oliver—I was on Jefferson street, and on my
 way home, at Zanone's corner some one asked me if I
 had heard any thing of the fracus at the Gait House.
 I said, no.  I then  met Meeks.  He and  myself
 and Taylor  and Mr.  Johnson went from the Gait
 House to the opposite coffee house.  When  I heard
 Meeks proposing to go to the Gait House,  I thought
 to stop him and talked to him about it.  He had his
 knife out and I said to him, 'Mr. Meeks give me your
 knife to cut my nails.' He gave it to me. He said
 he must go to the Gait House for he was bound to
 have a fight that night, and by G— he'd have it. He
 went, and in some time came back and  asked for
 his knife, and I gave it to him and he went  over.—
 Some time after he came over again and wanting to
 get the knife, afraid he'd get into some scrape, I said,
 it was strange he would not lend me his knife to
pair my nails after so long  an  acquaintance.  He
said, my dear sir, I thought you had done, and he
gave me the knife.  He  then started  for the Gait
House, saying he was bound for the Gait House
that night and would go.  He went, and sometime
after I followed.   When I followed him and entered
the Gait House, shortly after, I heard the word that
Meeks was a dead man.  I went  into the bar-room
and saw that he was dead.  I put my hand on  him
and found life  was extinct.  I then retired to the
reading room and saw Mr. Holmes was wounded,
and a Doctor tying  up his arm.  I then saw some
fuss towards the stairs and a chair moving in the
air. After a while Mr. Throckmorton  asked if any
one knew him well, he asked me to help and put him
on a cot.  I did so.  Meeks  was a small man. He
had been keeping bar for Mr. Dewees on Wall street.
  [Allowed to retire.]
   MR.  WILLIAM MILLER  CALLED  AND EXAMINED.
  Col. Robertson—Mr. Miller, state what you know
of this affair.
  Mr. Miller—I was on third cross*street  in the
evening about 4 o'clock; and, between a tin shop and
the corner heard that an affray had taken place on
 the corner and being on the city grand jury I thought
 I would enquire about the matter.  I went into the
shop and asked for two names of those who had
seen the fray; and got those of Craig and Redmond.
 Mr. Halbert came in and said a good deal of what
he'd do. I went home and remained for some time
and then went to the Gait House to my supper.  As
 I entered the bar-room, I observed Mr. Redding say 
(35)
  to Judge Wilkinson, that if they'd come out into the
  streeet without  their weapons, he would fight the
  whole three; and the Judge said, he did not want to
  have any thing to do  with him.   Mr.  Redding re-
  peated his observation and the Judge made the same
  reply at  least  twice.  I sat in the corner and was
  chatting, when Marshall Halbert passed near me,
  and I advised  him to take his friend Redding away
  and I  said I was on the grand jury and had names
  down  which would enable me to take care of the
  matter.  Some one made some speech about steaks
  and passed on; the speech was as if I ought to leave
  the room, or I'd see beefsteaks served up.  I shortly
  after heard it proclaimed at the counter, "there they
  are—all three of them;'' and the crowd gathered to
  the counter.  I left the room and went out to one of
  the clothing stores. While there I heard a pistol fired
  and some time after returned and the affair was over
  and  Meeks was killed.
   Q_.  Do you know Johnson and that it was he
  talked about the steaks?
   A.  I have seen him, but cannot say he was the
  person talked about the steaks.
   Q. Do you  believe he was the man?
   A. I do, but could not affirm  it positively.
   Q.  What was the date of this transaction?
   A. I think  the 15th—it might be from a week
 to ten days before Christmas.
   Q.  Do not the boarders collect in the bar-room
 a short time before supper?
   A.  Yes; generally from ten to fifteen or twenty
 minutes.
   Q.  Was the navigation  of the river  open at the
 time?
   A.  I cannot now say.
   Q.  Was Mr. Marshall Halbert a  boarder in the
 house at the time?
   A.  He was.
   [Allowed to retire.]
   MR.  GEORGE  WAGGRY CALLED AND EXAMINED.
   Col.  Robertson—Mr  Waggry state  what you
 know of this transaction.
   Mr. Waggry—I was sitting in the bar-room of
 the Gait  House and  talking to Mr.  Miller  when
 some one  turned round and said "there is one of the
 men."  Some one said to Mr. Miller, "we'll have
 some steak after a while for  supper.*'   Another
person came along and  said, "we'll have a hell of a
fight here just now."   Mr. Miller advised Mr. Hal-
bert to take away  Mr. Redding.
   Q.  Do you know the person who spoke about
 the steak?
   A.  No, I would not know the person.
   Q.  Well, go on.
   A.  Shortly after, I saw the three men enter, and
 when the damned lie was given I saw Meeks strike
at the smallest and saw dirks and knives and canes
 in the fight.  Some time after, I saw Rothwell come
 round, and blood flowing from his wounds.
   Q.  How many did you see beating Murdaugh
 near the dining room door?.
   A.  I saw two men beating the small man who
 I suppose was Murdaugh.
   Q.  Who had the bowie knife?
   A.  One of the three that came in abreast.
   Q.  Did you know any of the parties?
   A.  They were strangers to me on both sides.
   Q.  Did you see any of the business in the pas-
 sage?
   A.  I saw one, said to be Mr. Wilkinson, going up
 the stairs and a  chair  thrown at  him.  I also saw
 a pistol fired.
   Q.  Where did you then observe Mr. Holmes?
   A.  In the reading room with his arm wounded.
   [Allowed to retire.]
     GENERAL CHAMBERS CALLED AND EXAMINED.
   Col. Robertson.—General Chambers, state what
 you saw at the Gait House,
   General Chambers—On going  into the bar-room
 of the Gait House, I  observed persons that I was
 not in the habit of seeing there, which created in
 my mind some suspicions.  I was at the fire place
 and made some enquiry of the cause.  Shortly after
 I observed Mr. Redding make use of very opprobri-
 ous language to Judge Wilkinson  and the Judge
 said, "if you lay  your  hands on me I'll kill you."
 Mr. Redding made some  remarks as  if he did not
 understand him, when the Judge faced round and
 repeated what he had said.  He then left the room.
 In ten or fifteen  minutes he  came back, and on hia
 return he began to walk backwards and  forwards.
 When he came in, he was followed by two persons.
 He had not walked roore^han twice when the crowd,
 got round those  two who had followed him in.  I
 then  heard some angry words and the fray com-
 menced.   One of the persons broke off and got to-
 wards the supper room  door followed by Mr. Roth-
 well beating him with a stick very  severely.  Mr.
 Rothwell partly lost hold of his stick and endeavor-
 ed to catch a fresh grip, and  on resuming his hold
 struck at the person again, when the Judge stepped
 up  and made a thrust  of his bowie knife at him.
 Rothwell turned  his face to see who had struck him.
 Just then  I saw  another man fall,  and observed,
 'there was one gone.'  I turned my attention to an-
 other corner, and  saw  one of the  gentlemen down,
and a large  man beating him very  severely.  My
attention  was next directed to  the other  corner
where  the first stab was made and I saw Meek9
lying dead.
  Q.  Are you sure whom it was you saw Rothwell
beating in the other corner?
  A.  I think it was the Doctor and that Rothwell
was beating him. 
(36.)
   Q.   Can you repeat any of the language used by
 Mr. Redding  to Judge  Wilkinson when he was
 abusing him?
   A.   I think part of the language was, "you are a
 damned1 rascal and a coward and a pretty Missis-
 sippi judge."
   Cross-Examined:—Q.   In what part of the room
 was it that you saw the Judge make the first thrust
 of his bowie knife at Rothwell?
   A.   It was near the dining room door; in the op-
 posite corner from  where Holmes had  the man
 down.
   Q.   How far might it be from the passage door
 into the bar-room?
   A.   It would be about 24 feet.
   Q.   Describe the relative places and distance  be-
 tween them?
   A.   It was in the left hand corner as you face the
fire place that Holmes had the man down;  Rothwell
was stabbed in the opposite corner—probably  the
two positions  were 20 feet apart.  Rothwell at  the
time was striking a man that I thought was Doctor
Wilkinson.
  Q.  Are you not now sure  that it was Mr. Mur-
daugh?
  A.  I am not now satisfied that it was.  How-
ever,  they were all  strangers to me except Judge
Wilkinson whom I had known a little.
  Rc-Examined:—Q. Did you observe  how the
Doctor had got to the left hand corner?
  A.  While he was  beaten he seemed to take a
circuit in that direction till he fell.
  Q.  Was your attention confined to that part of
the fray?
   A.  When they beat round to the corner where I
was, an opening was made and my attention was
immediately attracted to where Meeks  had fallen.
   [Witness allowed to retire]
     MR. F.  DONOGHUE CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Col. Robertson—Mr. Donoghue, state what you
 know of this business.
   Mr. Donoghue—1 was in the Gait House on  the
 evening of the affray a few minutes before the first
 supper bell rang, and saw Mr. Rothwell and other
 gentlemen at the fire in the bar-room.  One of them
 walked to the bar.   I started from the fire place to
 go to my supper, and as I went I heard Mr. Roth-
 well ask some one— I think it was Mr. Redding—
 if  they were there? He was answered, no.  He then
 said, "come, let us go up stairs and bring them down
 and give them hell!"
   Cross-Examined:—Q.  Did you board at the Gait
 House?
   A.   No,  I boartled at Mr. Green's, three squares
 from  that on Market street.
   Q.   Did  you see the fight?
   A.   I did not come back till all was ovci.
   Q.  Where was Rothwell when you returned ?
   A.  He was still lying in the bar-room.
   Q.  Did you frequent the Gait House much?
   A.  I  was there  frequently that week—I had
 some .acquaintances  there.
   Q.  What other persons besides Rothwell did you
 see in the bar-room at first?
   I did not know  any others of the men—but think
 it is likely! saw Mr. lohnson there.
   [Witness allowed to retire.]
   MR. WM. SUTHERLAND CALLED AND EXAMINED.
   Col.  Robertson—State to the court Mr Suther-
 land, what you saw of this transaction.
   Mr.  Sutherland—The first  thing that drew my
 attention was Mr. Redding abusing Judge  Wilk-
 inson.  The Judge was walking across the floor and
 Mr. Redding abusing him for some  little time and
 the Judge left the room.  The fuss was hushed up
 for a little while, and Mr. Miller observed to Mr.
 Redding that, that was not the way to do business
 and that he ought to get their names and bring them
 before the grand Jury.  Mr.  Redding said, he had
 got the names.  I had my  face towards where Mr.
 Miller was sitting.  Mr. Miller had his face turned
 towards the dining room door.   I heard a fuss in the
 direction  of the bar, and on turning, saw a crowd.
 Some one said, there would be some shooting; and I
 got out of the room  and  tried to see through the
 window what was doing, but could not see very dis-
 tinctly.  I remained  at the window till Mr. Mur-
 daugh came and got on the stair steps, when some
 one struck at him, and he sort of fell forward, but
 recovered and got up the steps, when some one fired
 a pistol up the stairs, and I very quick got over the
 banisters.
   [Allowed to retire.]
      JOSElfa EROWN CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Col Robertson—Mr. Brown, state what you know
concerning this affair and  whether you were exam-
 ined at the examining court?
  Mr. Brown—I was  not examined at the examin-
 ing court.  The evening of this affair I had been en-
 gaged at Louisville for some ten or twelve days and
 had, about supper time, come to the Gait House to
 supper.  When I entered, I saw General Chambers
 sitting at the fire.  Mr. Miller was there also.  The
 first  thing that attracted my attention  was, Mr.
 Redding abusing Judge Wilkinson.  Judge Wilk-
 inson was walking back and forward with his right
 hand in his coat pocket, when he said, if you touch
 me I'll certainly kill  you.  He  then left the  room,
 and what had taken place became the general sub-
ject of conversation.   Some time intervened, when
 the Judge returned to the room with Dr. Wilkinson
 and Mr. Murdaugh whom I did not then know.  I
 then remarked to General Chambers  that  there
 would be some difficulty.  Before this,  Mr. Miller 
(37)
had said  to Mr. Redding, "hush that stuff—it is
not the proper way—get the names and we'll  have
them before the grand jury,"—when a man stooped
down to Mr. Miller and said, "hush, you, Billy Mil-
ler, if it comes  to handy cuffs the boys will  settle
it."  I then determined to leave the room, and as the
gentlemen entered, I passed out and saw the crowd
gather round  them.  When I  got near the stairs 1
met Mr Everett going out. From the third or fourth
step I could see into the bar-room  through the win-
dow.  The crowd was moving about as if in a scuf-
fle in a kind of  circle round the room by the din-
ing-room door.   The first licks I had seen struck,
were by a large  man with a stick.   He laid on Mr.
Murdaugh.  The next  I saw in the fight was this
gentleman they call  Doctor Wilkinson,  falling at
the left hand side of the fire place.  The room began
to get clear, the rush being made into  the passage.
I retreated to my room and out on the porch and as
I made a turn I  saw Mr. Murdaugh was struck with
a chair as he ascended the stairs, and Judge Wilkin-
son also had  a chair thrown  at him  as some one
hallooed, shoot the damned rascai, and immediately
a pistol was fired.
  Q.  Where were you before the fight began?
  A.   In the bar-room.
  Q.  When  you were  on the stairs what portion
of the fight could you see?
  A.  I could see through the glass window all of
the fight opposite the window.
  Q.  How far  was it from where  you stood to
where the fight  was going on?
  A.   It might be about thirty feet.
  Q.  Did you  see  Dr.  Wilkinsdn when  he was
knocked down near the fire place?
  A.  Yes, and I thought when he fell that his head
struck the grate or fender.
  Cross-Examined:—Q.  How long were you at the
Gait House then?
  A.   About  ten days.
  Q.  During that time were strangers coming and
going?
  A.  Yes, continually.
  Q.  It was no uncommon  thing to 6ee strange
faces in the bar-room?
  A.  I always  saw many strange faces there.
  Q.  Did you  see  Judge Wilkinson inflict the
wound on Rothwell with the bowie knife?
  A.  I did not  see a bowie knife with Judge Wilk-
inson nor did  I seethe wound inflicted.  All I saw
distinctly was a big man striking with a stick.
  Re-examined:—Q. During the time you were at
the Gait House  was there much communication by
the river?
  A.  No, I think not.
  Q.  Did you notice as many strange faces before
 that evening of the fray in the bar-room as you used
 on former visits?
   A.  I did not think there were so many.
   Re-Cross-Examined:—Q. Have you not remark-
'ed that business men congregate in the bar-room
 about the time the stages arrive, to learn the news
 by them, and see the names entered on the register?
   A.  Yes, it is customary.
 '■ [Witness allowed to retire.]'
    MR. MARTIN RAILY CALLED  AND EXAMINED.
   Col. Robertson—State, Mr. Raily, what you know
 of this affair.
   M. Raily—I came into the Gait House between
 sun-down and dark.  When I got in, there were but
 few there.  Afterwards numbers crowded in.  I
 was at the fire place and a gentleman stood at the
 fire, I think it was Mr.  Reaugh, who said if there
 was any fighting to be done he should be in it. Mr.
 Miller said to Mr. Redding that it was not the way
 to settle the matter; that he ought to get a writ and
 have them taken.  Redding said he had applied for
 the names.  Shortly after I heard Judge Wilkinson
 tell Mr. Redding that if he meddled with  him he
 would kill him   Then Judge Wilkinson passed out
 of the  room into  the passage and Mr.  Redding
 shortly after left the room also.  After Judge Wilk-
 inson returned he had got nearly  across the room
 towards the dining room door,  when Mr. Redding
 entered the room and as the Judge whirled and re-
 turned, Redding crossed his path towards the coun-
 ter.  Mr.  Murdaugh and  Doctor  Wilkinson then
 cama in. Mr. Redding said, these are the three gen-
 tlemen who assaulted me in my own house.  When
 he said this, one of the three saM to him, "I under-
 stand you said  I am the  person who doubled teams
 on you this evening; if you say so, you are a damned
 liar." Another came up and, said he was, and struck
 at him. A big man also struck at him with a sword
 cane and as he was striking, the scabbard part flew
 off and he continued beating with the spear part.
 The crowd was getting up to the fire place and Mr.
 Rothwell came into the corner and was either assist-
 ing to beat, or to save, the Doctor, when I saw a per-
 son from  the folding door stab Rothwell.  Another
 person took up a chair and attempted to beat at the
 person  that stabbed, but finally laid it down and
 pursued him.   Shortly  afterwards I heard a pistol
 fired.
   Q.  Did you see Oldham with any weapons?
   A.  I saw him  with  a bowie knife wiping the
 blood  off it with his handkerchief.
   Q.  What time that evening  did you arrive at the
 Gait House?
   A.  Between sun-down and dark.  I got shaved
 at the barber's shop and then went  to the Gait
 House. 
(38)
   Q.  Arc you sure what kind of stick the big man
 used, when beating Murdaugh?
   A.  It was a sword cane.  I saw the cane part
 fall on the floor, and the spear part remain in his
 hand.
   Q.  Was Oldham in the room then?
   A.  No, I  saw Oldham, but not in the room when
 the fighting was going on.
   Q.  You are certain you saw him wipe the blood
 from his bowie knife?
   A.  I think it was, for certain, the man they call-
 ed Oldham.
   Q.  Who thrust the bowie knife  into Rothwell?
   A.  I did not know the person.  If  it had been
 even an intimate acquaintance I should not have
 known him.
   [Allowed to retire]
     MR. JOHN C  DAVIE CALLED AND EXAMINED.
   Col. Robertson—Mr. Davie, state what you know
 of the affair at the Gait House.
   Mr. Davie—I know nothiug of the affair at the
 Gait House.
   [Allowed  to retire.]
      MR. P. S BARBER CAJOLED AND EXAMINED
  Col. Robertson—Well, Mr.  Barber, will you state
 what you know about this hat, [handing a hat to
 Mr, Barber.]
  Mr. Barber—This is a hat I sold to Mr. Mur-
daugh.  It was the day before this affray took place.
It was then a sound  hat.  At present I see  defects
in it.  It must have been cut by some sharp instru-
ment—here in the side of the leaf  and also in the
side.
  [Allowed to retii*.]
            JOHN C  DAVIE RE-CALLED.
  Q.  How did you come into possession of the hat?
  A.  Judge  Wilkinson, Mr.- Murdaugh and the
Doctor sent for me to the jail and requested of me
to go to the Gait House and ask for  the key of the
room 35 and I did so.  A servant brought me to the
room, and I got a black satin vest with blood on it,
and the hat and drab coat, with other clothes, which,
according to directions I had got,  I packed up and
took to my store.  I observed the hat had some cuts
on it.  It was in my possession till brought to the
examining court, since which,with the other things,
it has been in possession of the clerk of the City
court.
  [Allowed to retire.]
           MR. EVERETT RE-CALLED.
  Q.  What room did these gentlemen occupy?
  A.  Room 35.
  Q.  Had any person access to that  room from the
time these gentlemen were arrested till Mr  Davie
went there by their directions?
  A.  No, not any person  It was locked up from
 8 or 9 o'clock that evening till Mr  Davie entered it.
 The servant had charge of the room.
    MR. JAMES E. TEARSON CALLED AND EXAMINED.
   Col. Robertson—Mr. Pearson,  detail what you
 kn«w of this business.
  Mr. Pearson—On the evening thisaffray took place,
 I was going up  street before  sun-down and at the
 corner opposite  Mr. Redding's store, three gentle-
 men were on  the pavement and left for the Gait
 House.  I went to  the Gait  House  before supper
 time and got behind the bar and stood at the fire.
 Captain Rogers remarked to me, that there would be
 a fight,  from the crowd he saw.  He asked, where
 Maj. Throckmorton was?  I turned out and thought
 I saw  the Major talking to Captain Rogers, when
 I came  back  into the bar.  Captain. Rogers asked
 me  did  I know  who the persons in the bar-room
 were?   I said I  knew Redding. But presently  I
 saw General Chambers and I thought I would go
 round  to talk with him. I  went to where General
 Chambers stood,and we feli into conversation.  Mr.
 Rothwell was there with a stick in his hand, and Mr.
 Reaugh, Mr. Halbert, and Mr. Holmes  were also
 there.  Judge Wilkinson by this time was walking
 up and down the  room, and Redding abusing him ve-
 ry much, saying, he was a pretty sort of Mississippi
 Judge; that  he was a rascal, swindler, and assassin.
 The judge said, " my friend, you may say what you
 please,  but  I do not fight men of your profession."
 Shortly after, the judge left the room, and staid away
 a little time.  When he returned, there must have
 been fifty men in the room, which induced me to go
 to the Judge, and ask  him to  leave the room. He
 made a step or two with me to retire,  when about
 twenty men were crowding in, and  we heard some
 angry  words,  and the affray began.   The Judge
 turning, and seeing this, said,  "sir, I cannot leave
 the room and my friends, till  I see how  this affair
 with these men  ends."  He did not get from me
 immediately.  I saw persons strike the man with the
 drab coat, but think it was Mr. Rothwell struck with
 the stick.  I observed some person catch at a chair,
 and first thought  he was taking up the chair to fight
 with, but soon perceived he was only leaning on it
 for support.  My  attention was attracted to another
corner, and I saw a person knocked down very sud-
denly.  I turned next to where the  other  man had
been struck,  and  saw Meeks attempting to stagger
towards the  counter, when about half way, he fell
forwards.
  Q.  Was he the man that had the cow-hide?
  A.  Yes, it was the person that  was killed that
had the cow-hide.
  Q.  Which was the person he was engaged with?'
  A.  Murdaugh; he was trying to press on Meeks,
who was  striking  him off with the cow-hide. 
(39)
  Q.  What part of the room did the person lay in I
whom you saw knocked  down?                   t
  A.  If you draw a line  from the passage  door
to the fire-place, the part where he lay would be on
that line.
  Q.  Did you see  Judge  Wilkinson make a stab
from the door-way towards Rothwell?
  A.  Yes; but I think that stab was past Rothwell
at Holmes, who was engaged with the Judge's bro-
ther.  Holme3 had his arm badly cut.   I heard him
say he was badly wonuded in the arm.
  Q.  Did you board at the Gait House?
  A  Yes, about that period.
  Q.  Which is it, before or after supper, the crowd
generally goes to  the bar-room to hear news and
look at the register?
  A.  Generally after supper.
  Q.  How long before  supper do the boarders as-
semble in the bar-room?
  A.  Generally twenty minutes before supper time:
sometimes less; I have often been late, and obliged
to go to the second table.
  Q.  When Holmes said he was badly wounded,
where was he, and  was he armed?
  A.  He was going out of the room into  the pas-
sage, and as I thought took out a bowie knife.
  Q.  Did you notice many strangers in particular
that evening in the bar-room?
  A.  I heard there were strangers  there, but did
not notice many.
  Q.  Was the river in a good  state of navigation?
  A.  I think the river was very low then, and navi-
gation not open.
  Q.  Were you acquainted with Mr. Holmes's per-
son?
  A.  I had never seen Mr. Holmes before.
  [Witness allowed to retire.]
      MR. MONTGOMERY CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Col. Robertson:—State, Mr.  Montgomery,  what
you know.
  Mr. Montgomery:—I was in the bar-room, sitting
near the fire, when the fuss began near the bar and
counter.  I heard the gentleman say, "there are the
three now."  I then heard  one of the  men say, to(
keep their hands off him, and not to touch  him, or
he'd kill them.  I saw a gentleman draw a  stick or
sword cane, I could not tell which, and I retreated
out, and was pretty near  the stairs when the pistol
was fired.  I heard either Doctor Wilkinson or Mr.
Murdaugh desire the crowd  to  keep off, and say
if they touched them  it  was at the risk of  their
lives.  I understood the reason  of their  giving that
warning was on  account of what had happened at
Redding's store.
  Q.  Did you not hear what passed between Judge
Wilkinson and Mr. Redding?
I   A.   I heard some words pass, but could not
i tell what they were.
   Cross-Examined:—Q   Where do you live?
   A.  I live at Greensburgh.
   Q.  How did you happen to be in Louisville?
   A.  I was there upon business.
   Q.  Are you well acquainted in Louisville?
   A.  I am a stranger there, but know some of the
 citizens.
   Q.  When you heard the first words spoken, did
 you see the speakers?
   A.  After the words had passed, I could see them.
 I heard one say, "don't you interrupt us, or it is at
 the risk of your lives."
   [Here the evening being far advanced, the proprie-
 ty of closing, for the day, was suggested, and the
 court adjourned to half past 8 o'clock next morning.]
THIRD DAY.
                  Wednesday, 15«A March, 1839.
  The court sat at half past 8 o'clock, and the Clerk
having read over the minutes of the previous day's
proceedings and called over the names of the jurors,
during a short delay waiting for the appearance of
the gentlemen on trial, Mr. Hardin rose to ask the
court for instructions to the court-keeper, not to keep
such strong fires in the stoves: [one, at each end of
the Attorney's bar, Mr. H's seat being  between the
two stoves.]  The Court facetiously remarked, that
as the gentleman did not like  to be placed between
two fires, there could be no objection  to acceding to
his wishes.  This was a happy hit, as Mr. S. S. Pren-
tiss sat rather to Mr. H's. left hand, and  Judge Row-
an to his right; and it was understood both were
preparing a battery of eloquence to fire off at him in
the arguments to evidence.  Mr. Davis, one  of the
town Attorneys for the  defence, hoped the court
would allow the stove to remain lit  next the end of
the bar appropriated for the gentlemen on  the de-
fence.  The court observed that the gentleman, [Mr.
Hardin]  would not of course impose a greater degree
of coldness on the opposite gentleman than they
could bear; if they/efr chilly, they too  ought to be
indulged.
  By this time the three gentlemen on trial  and
their counsel  came into court,  and the examination
of witnesses was taken up.
  MR. PEARSON WAS THEN RE-CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Col. Robertson:—State  the fact you informed me
of last evening.
  A.  On coming back into the bar-room, the  first
person I met at the bar-room door was Mr. Marshall
Halbert:  I requested  he  would have the business
stopped.  Mr. Halbert said, no,  let it go on.   The
next person I met was Mr. Reaugh, to whom I  said
th« same.   He concurred  with me, and thought it 
(40)
ought to be stopped.  Mr. Halbert's feelings appear-
ed to be entirely on the other side.
  [Allowed to retire.]
       HENRY BANKS CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Mr. Banks:—I was walking from Market to Main
street, when  I discovered a little difficulty at Red-
ding's shop.  I made some enquiry about the fuss,
and was told by a young man, named Hill, about the
Mississippians.  I then turned to Mr. Redding, and
asked if he was hurt.  He said, not.  I asked him
who they were.  He said they were three Mississip-
pians, and that he'd have satisfaction.  He said he'd
whip all three in a room.  I went on to  the Stage
Office, and was sitting there.  In about an hour and
a quarter a young man came in and said there would
be the damn'dest  work at the Gait House in short
that ever I did see.  [Objected to.]  In about fifteen
or twenty minutes the affray in  the Gait-House be-
gan.  All I saw in the Gait House was, Murdaugh
knocked down on the steps, and  afterwards fired at.
There were two balls discharged  by the shot at him;
one struck in  the casing, and the other in the wall
at the left hand side.
  Q.  Who fired the pistol?
  A.  Oldham.  The young man said something
about a pistol, going up the steps;  Oldham said, there
it is, damn you—you  have  it, and fired at the same
time.
  Q.  Who knocked Murdaugh down on the stairs?
  A.  1 do not know.
  Cross-Examined:—Q.  What answer did Redding
make to your  first enquiries of him that evening?
  A.  That he was not hurt.
  Q.  What sort of satisfaction did he say he would
have?
  A.  He did  not say what kind.
  Q.  Then it might be by law as well as any thing
else?                   ^
  A.  He did not say whether by law or otherwise.
  Q.  Do you keep the Stage Office?
  A.  No;  I do not.
  Q.  What passed in the bar-room  of the Gait
House?
  A.  I did not see what passed there.  I only came
into  the Gait  House as the Mississippians went up
the stairs.
  Q.  Did you go up the stairs?
  A.  I went up when these gentlemen were arrest-
ed?
  [Allowed to retire.]
        DR. GKAHAM CALLED AND  EXAMINED.
  Col. Robertson:—Doctor, state what you saw of
this business.
  Dr. Graham:—The  first  I recollect of  the affair
was in the bar-room of the Gait  House.  Mr. Red-
ding was abusing Judge Wilkinson.   The  Judge
made no remark for some considerable time.  I went
 away  upon some  business,  and in about  twenty
 minutes returned again to the Gait House.   I saw
 the servants peeping into the bar, and guessed there
 was something like an exhibition going on.  I went
 in and saw the Judge and Redding moving a little
 backwards and forwards, abusing  and calling hard
 names, such as coward, liar, villain and scoundrel,
 and  saying, "he should like to know in the name of
 God, who made him a judge, and that he must have
 taken the title on himself; and that he was too big a
 coward to do any thing right."  He continued so
 long that I got tired, and  turned  to speak to some
 one.  Judee Wilkinson paced the room, pulled his
 cap  over his face, and, as I  thought, assumed the
 philosopher, or tried to do  it.   He walked  to the
 counter and put his cap before his  face, one hand in
 his pocket, and walked along the counter. Mr. Red-
 ding going  to the extreme of exasperation all  the
 time.  Redding at last pulled his hand out  of his
 pocket, and said he'd whip the whole three if they'd
 go into the street.  The judge said, he did not wish
 to fight or quarrel with a man of his profession.   I
 turned round and in a short time Judge Wilkinson
 passed out of the room.  Some one observed, "the
 damned rascal has run." I don't think it come from
 Mr. Redding,  I walked into the passage to go to
 the bar for the purpose of enquiring the cause of the
 quarrel; when in the bar I heard the word lie, and
 damned lie, in succession.   I saw a small man, with*
 a drab coat, holding a knife in this position, [show-
 ing position.] with his back to the writing desk.   I
 recognised  him only as a small man with a drab
 coat. He had a small knife, held that way, and he
 spoke in a threatening manner.   He hallooed out,
 "stand back and don't crowd on me, or  I'll kill the
 first  man that rushes upon me." I thought he looked
 like a rattling viper that  would say,  don't step on
 me or I'll bite you.  I  heard other voices cry out,
 stand back, G—d damn you,  or I'll kill you!  At
 that  word, I saw a cane strike at his head, and most
 probably hit on the left shoulder.   As he uttered the
 exclamation, the blow came.  He held his knife, and
 from the violent manner in which he shook  it, and
 the manner in which he spoke, I conceived he felt
 danger.  I did not see any one touch his hand; but I
 think before he lowered his hand, I saw a cane of tho
size and appearance of a sword cane, strike him.  A
crowd and general row commenced  and chairs were
 raised—some rushing in and some rushing out, and
such confusion ensued, that I saw  no more of that'
part  of the affair.  After a little, I saw Doctor Wil»
 kinson, or a man, lying on the floor, making an ef-
 fort to get up, but every effort, he was beat down by
 the person leaning over him; I then saw the same
 person take him by the collar  with  one  hand, and
beat him with the other; I hallooed across the coun-
ter, to part them—that it was a shame. 
(41)
  Q.   Did you see Meeks killed?
  A. Towards the dining room door I saw a man fall
forward.  I saw him first leaning on a chair, and
then fall, leaning on his elbow.  I saw an arm from
behind him make, as I  thought, a stab; but it may
have been some person supporting him, judging from
the rattling of the chairs.
  Q.   Then what made you think  it was a stab?
  A.   The quickness of the  stroke made i.-i-%think
it was a stab.  I just saw the arm round the falling
man.  This I did not state at the examining court.
  Q.   Did you know Rothwell?
  A.   I did not.
  Q..   Who was beating Doctor Wilkinson?
  A.   I cannot say; it was a very large man.
  Q.   When the Doctor fell, did it seem to be by a
trip, or how?
  A.   I never saw a man knocked down as sudden-
ly by a blow.
  Q.   When the fight first occurred, what was the
first serious occurrence you observed?
  A.   After a while I saw a man fall on the floor,
and Mr. McGrath observed, there  is one gone, can
you do any thing for him?  I then got over the coun-
ter and went to the person  lying on the floor. I dis-
covered a small opening in the abdomen and taking
off his waistcoat found his bowels were protruding.
I saw that the blood vessel supplying the lower sys-
tem was severed.  I commenced  trying to put in
the bowels but  found the man was dying and I de-
sisted, saying,it was no use. Several persons asked
about  his name,  but no one appeared  to recognize
him.   I then passed on  and  saw Rothwell lying
in  the other corner on his right  side and Doctor
*Johnson dressing his wounds.
  Q.   Did you observe a cowhide with Meeks when
you went to him?
  A.  Yes,  it was  lying near  his hand.  It had a
small whip end tied in a knot.  I took it up, saying,
it might be a letter in  the alphabet; and I had it
handed into the bar to be locked up.
  Cross-Examined:—Q. Did you hear the lie given
when the blows began?
  A.   Yes, I heard the lie and the  damned lie, more
than once.
  Q.   By whom were they given?
  A.  I cannot tell by whom.
  Q.   Who warned the opposing party to stand
back?
  A.  I think it was Mr.  Murdaugh used the ad-
monition to stand back or he'd kill them.  I was at
the time asking about  the persons so excited.  I
was in the bar, and the counter and some distance
were between me and them.
  Q.   Was it a white handled knife Murdaugh held
in his hand?
  A.  I only saw the blade of the  knife.   It was a
 knife like that, [pointing to one on the table,] and
                      6
judging from the glistening of the blade which wa?
highly polished, I thought it must be a new knife.
  Q.  What were the exact words used?
  A.   I think they  were, "stand back or I'll kill
you "
  Q.  Might it not  have been from some one oppo-
sed to Mr. Murdaugh?
  A.  It was in a loud voice and I did not then think
it was Mr. Murdaugh.
  Q.  Are  you not now satisfied it was not  Mr
Ttlurdaugh?
  A.   I am of opinion myself that it was Mr. Mur-
daugh.
  Q.  What occurred when the word dammed ras-
cal, or, it's a damned lie, was uttered?
  A.   I saw a stick come at Mr. Murdaugh, as  it
was uttered.
  Q.  How far off were  you?
  A.   I was about as far off as yon stove.
  Q_.  Did  not  Mr. Halbert know  and recognise
Meeks as he was dying?
  A.   Several came up  to ask who knew the man
as I was trying  to put in the bowels, but I did not
notice whether Mr. Halbert came up or not.  One
or two of my friends and some  strangers came  up
to ask.
  Re-E.\amined—Q.  State what Mr. Halbert said
when the affray was all  over.
  A.   Marshall Halbert came up to the counter im-
mediately after the 'fray, before the room was clear-
ed and asked me to drink.   He seemed disposed to
communicate freely, and said, "by G—d I howed a
wide  row  this  evening—we took it with a rush;
Dr. Wilkinson, the  first man that entered^ I down-
ed with a chair and Bill Holmes mounted him and
rode him round the room.  The Doctor's back was
to me when I downed him, it was rather bad, but by
G—d, I could not help it.  Bill then pounded him eo
that he fell quite limber on the floor and I thought
he was dead; but the Judge came round and Bill.
took a chair, when the  Judge throwing up his arm
with his bowie knife in his hand, struck Bill, and by
G—d, I thought his arm was cut off."
  Q.  When the crowd closed upon the little man in
the drab coat did he advance?
  A.   No, he kept rather backing.
  Q.  Were they large men  that were in the crowds
  A.   Yes—and very large men.
  Re-Cross-Examined:—Q.  Were you not exam-
ined in the examining court?
  A.   Yes.
  Q.   Was Mr. Halbert there?
  A.   He sat beside me in the court.
  Q.   Did you state the same there as here?
  A.   I stated the same there as here.
  Q.   Did you  see Halbert performing  those great
actions he boasted of?
   A.   I did not see him at  all during  the  action 
42)
My attention had been attracted fro..i  .hat quarter
of the room.  I  myself think Halbeti was bragging
of more than he did.'
  Q.  Which was it; you or Halbert, first invited to
drink?
  A.  I am not sure which.  It is probable I asked
him, but I am not certain.
  [Witness allowed to retire.]
   THE HON. S. S. PRENTISS CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Judge Rowan—Mr. Prentiss, please to state what
you know of these gentlemen's character and stand-
ing in society.
  Mr. Prentiss—I have been acquainted with Judge
Wilkinson intimately in Mississippi for six or seven
years.  My profession has brought me into inter-
course with him as a practising  lawyer.  I believe
there is no man in the  state of  Mississippi whose
character stands higher than that of Judge Wilkin-
son,  particularly to a  marked extent for a modest
and retiring disposition.  I know this to be his cha-
racter as a legislator and a public man.
  I know his brother Doctor Wilkinson, and as far
as I  have known,  his character  is of  a very  high
standing in the  state of Mississippi.
  The first time I saw Mr. Murdaugh was in the
winter of  '33 or '36;  he  was introduced to me by
Judge Wilkinson as a protege of his.   The Judge
has acted for some time as his friend and guardian.
I know  the Judge and he have been very intimate,
and that Mr. Murdaugh accompanied Judge Wilk-
inson as his friend on the occasion of his marriage.
It is three or four years since I got acquainted with
Mr  Murdaugh at Jackson in Mississippi; his gene-
ral character is very good and stands high in every
respect   I have never heard of  his being engaged
in any difficulty.
  Of Judge Wilkinson I can speak with the utmost
confidence.   As a  circuit Judge,  a distinguished
member  of the Legislature,  a  commissioner  ap-
pointed by the state to go to New York on state bu-
siness, and a public man, I know  that no man  ever
stood higher in  the estimation of the south.  In his
public capacity he has  been particularly noticed for
being free from  any thing like a controversial dis-
position.  His general character is for  being more
retired and unwilling to meddle in controversy than
others.
  Q. How long  have you been acquainted with
him?
  A. About seven years.    I became acquainted
with Judge Wilkinson then commencing  practice
in the law in Yazoo.  During my  professional bu-
siness in Mississippi we have  been thrown together
very much, and I have had opportunities of knowing
his friends  and  acquaintances and  can form a fair
estimate of his general character.
  Cross-Examihed:—Q.  You say you got acquaint-
ed with Mr. Murd.a.gh three years ago?
   •\.   Yes, about that time.
  Q.   When did he  receive license as a  practising
lawyer?
  A.   I think it was last winter.
  Q.   Had he been qualified as such, before, any
where else?
  A.   I do not know whether he had been  in Vir-
ginia, or not.
  Q.   Was he not in the navy?
'  A.   I know nothing of that.  In fact I know no-
thing of his early history; nor would  I have known
of his family  had not  enquiry grown out of this
transaction.
  Q.   Did not  you hear Judge Wilkinson make a
certain speech at the election  in Mississippi?      *
  A.   I did not hear  that speech delivered.
  Q.   Did not that speech render him unpopular?
  A.   The speech was talked of as being unpopular,
notwithstanding which  he was elected.
  [Allowed to retire.]
       MR. DAWSON CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Judge Rowan—Mr. Dawson, state what you know
of these gentlemen's character.
  Mr.  Dawson—I formed  an acquaintance  with
Judge  Wilkinson a year ago.  I live in Vicksburg.
I have known  him from general character since I
have lived in  Mississippi—for seven or eight years.
There is  no man stands higher in his state  in the
affections  and esteem of its inhabitants.  I have
never heard any thing  improper imputed to him.
  Cross-Examined:—Q.   What part of the State do
you live in?
  A.   I live in Vicksburg.
  Q.   How far from Vicksburg does Judge Wilkin-
son live?
  A.   About seventy miles.
  Q.   How long have you resided in Mississippi.
  A.   About eight years.
  [Allowed to retire.]
      MR.  ROWAN,  JR. CALLED AND EXAMINED.
  Judge Rowan—State  what condition you found
these gentlemen in on visiting them in jail, the night
of this affray.
  Mr.  Rowan—I  visited  these  gentlemen in jail
shortly after the affair occurred.  I was therein an
hour after it had happened.  I saw that  they were
very much bruised and  that they had wounds and
blood on them.  The Doctor particularly  was very
much  bruised and cut.  Mr. Murdaugh  also  wad
very much cut and there was a good  deal of blood
about him.
  Q.   Do you know upon what occasion Mr. Mur.
daugh  then had accompanied Judge Wilkinson from
Mississippi?
  A.   I know that he accompanied him on the oc-
casion of the Judge's expected marriage.
  Q,  Had Judge Wilkinson vir-ited Bardstown sonic
time before? 
(43)
   A.  Yes, ten or twelve months before his mar-
 riage?
   Q.  Was his engagement wkh the lady whom he
 since married made at the time of this affair?
   A.  Yes, and I think  the marriage was to take
 place about a week before this affair.'
   Q.  Recollect if it  was the Thursday after, that
 the marriage was to take  place?
   A.  I think upon recollection it is probable that it
 was.
   Q.  Have you  not been in the state of Mississippi
 and  heard these gentlemen's general character?
   A.  I have, and know that they are  spoken of as
 testified by Mr. Prentiss and Mr. Dawson.
   [Allowed to retire.]
            MR.  EVERETT RE-CALLED.
   Q.  Mr. Everett, when did these gentlemen arrive
 at the Gait House?
   A.  They all arrived together at the Gait House
 about a week before this affair.  They occupied the
 same room as Mr. Wickliffe.
   Q. When was the Judge's marriage to take place?
   A.  I only  know from the information of my
 family and neighbors that the marriage was to take
 place the Tuesday succeeding the 'fray at Louisville.
 The  preparatipns for the wedding as  I understood
 had  been made.
   Q.  What is the general character of Judge Wilk-
 inson?
   A.  So far as my information or knowledge of
Judge Wilkinson goes, I have never heard any thing
 of him but a fair character.
   [Here it was announced by Defendant's counsel
 that  they were through with the evidence for the
 defence.
   Mr. Hardin  stated that it would be necessary to
 recall some witnesses for  the prosecution.]
             MR. OLIVER RE-CALLED.
   Q.  What did  you state in your evidence about
 seeing Holmes in the  reading room?
   A.  I said in my examination that  when I came
 back to the Gait House I saw some one dressing Mr.
Holmes'arm in the reading room, and after  that I
saw  the fighting at the foot of the stairs with the
chair and heard the pistol fired.
   Col. Roberts here rose and addressed the court for
leave to introduce one more witness for the defence-
Mr.  Franklin Roberts—which was granted by the
court.
  MR. FRANKLIN ROBERTS OALLED AND  EXAMINED.
  Col. Robertson—Mr. Roberts, state what you know
of the matter.
   Mr. Roberts—All I know is that I  happened to
enter a coffee house on Christmas morning and Heard
gentlemen talking of this affair. Mr. Henry Oldham
was  one.  I heard him say that Mr. Holmes came
out with a chair; Oldham following the Judge; and
that he, Oldham, took a pistol out of his pocket and
fired at the Judge.  Some one asked  if it was his
pistol, he said, "no, it was my pistol, and I find it,
and I wonder it did not hit him for it had two balls
in it"
FOR  PROSECUTION—THOMAS A. M'GRATH RE-CALLED.
  Q.   Was the fight over before Mr. Holmes'  arm
was dressed?
  A.   Yes, it was  entirely over.
  Q.   Was the pistol fired before Holmes' arm was
dressed?
  A.   Yes, the fight was over five minutes at least
before  his  arm was dressed.
  Q.   Did'you help to take off Holmes' coat?
  A.   No, I did not help to do so.
  Q»   Do  you know Mr. Oliver?
  A.   I do not.
  Q.   Have you not heard of his character and re-
putation?
  A.   I did not hear any thing about his reputation
till I heard it here.
  Q.  Do  you  know Mr. Deering*  and hi3 [charac-
ter?
  A.   I know  Mr. Deering. I never heard  any
thing against his character.
            MR REDDING RE-CALLED.
  Q.   Was Mr- Johnson at your shop that evening?
  A.   I do not recollect seeing him at my shop that
evening at all.
             MR.  CRAIG -HE-CALLED.
  Q.   Did you see  Jackson in Redding's- shop 'that
evening?
  A.   1 did not know Jackson at  that time.  I did
not that I can say, see such  a man in the shop that
evening.
  Q.   (For defence.)  Did you hear Johnson say he
would go for Bill Holmes and give the Mississippians
hell?
  A.   I heard nothing of the kind  from Johnson?
          WILLIAM JOHNSON RE-CALLED.
  Q.   Did you see Jackson at Redding's that even-
ing?
  A.   I do not remember seeing Jackson that even-
ing.  He might have? been at  my stall in the morn-
ing.
           MR. J. W. GRAHAM HE-CALLED.
  Q.  State what you know of Jackson.
  A.  I know Jackson.  I was a carpenter and he
served three years of his  time to me.  From what I
know of his general character, I would say he is a
man of middling character.
  Q.  Would you place confidence  in his statement
upon oath?
  A.  I have no confidence  in  a  man's  veracity
whose  integrity  I  have  no confidence in.   I  have
had some dealings with him—[objected to.]
  Q.  State from his general character among his
neighbors and acquaintances what  credibility is due
to him as a witness. 
(44)
   A.  From that general character, I would say that
 jthere are a great many men I would believe in pre-
 ference to him.  That is, probably, owing to my opi-
 nion of the man, as I have mentioned.  Mr.  Jack-
 son has made statements to me, that I—[objected to.]
   Q.  What  do  you know of Mr.  Oliver's general
 character.
   A.  I have known  Mr.  Oliver a  long time, and
 have heard his character spoken of.   It was not ve-
 ry good—it was very bad—and I know it would not
 be entitled to any credit in the city of Louisville.
   Q.  Say if you know Mr. Redding and his cha-
 racter.
   A.  I know Mr. Redding.  His character  for in-
 tegrity, industry, and, veracity stands as high as that
 of any man in the community.
   Cross-Examined by Judge Rowan:—Q.  Did Mr.
 Jaokson serve his time to you?
   A.  He served part of his time to  me.
   Q.  You are a sort of steam-doctor?
   A.  Not exactly: do you know me, judge?
   Q.  Did Jackson serve all his time to you?
   A.  He just finished out his time with me.
  Q.  Is he not a hard working man?
   A. Yes, when he does work.
   Q.   Have not you and he had differences?
   A.  Yes, but not of late.
  Q.  Are you not still acquainted with him?
   A.   I am, and have at different times advised him
 to change  his habits—of late particularly.
   Q.   Is he not a member of the church?
   A. He  was that  six years ago;  I do  not  know
 that  he is now a member of the church.
   Q   Is he not, in fact, a hard-working, industrious
 man?
   A.  I would not  call him industrious, though at
 times he works hard by spells.
   Q.  Had not you and he a fight some time ago?
  A.  Eight or nine years  ago, Mr. Jackson and I
 had a fight.
   Q.  Is he not a man of family?
  A.  He has a wife, but I do not know whether he
 has children, or not.
   A.   Is it not your own opinion, more than his ge-
 neral character, you give?
   A.  I have  beard a good many people speak very
hardly of him. 1 have no unkind feelings towards
him  myself.  He knows that I have within the last
year advised  him to change  his habits, and  have
pointed out how he would prosper if he did so.  His
habits are, that when he  has a job, he works hard,
and then any sport carries him off to the neglect of
his business.
  Q.  Why do you, from that, doubt his veracity?
  A.  I doubt his veracity from what I have heard
his acquaintances, and men with whom he has been
 dealing, say of him.
   Q.  Did not Mr Jackson in the fight with you,
 prove rather the strongest?
   A.  I should say not.
   Q.  Did you not keep up this opinion of him from
 the examination at the Louisville Police Court?
   A.  No, for I  was not there.  I know nothing of
 what he proved; I  did not even  know that he had
 been a witness there, or was to be one here.
   Q-  Were you not greatly exqfted against these
 gentlemen when the affair occurred?
   A.  I did then think it a most outrageous affair,
 but I took no part about  it.  I spoke of it on several
 occasions as an outrageous act that ought to be pun-
 ished severely.  I was then  living in Louisville; I
 now live in the country.
   Q.   Did you not so lately as yesterday express
 yourself in violent  language about this trial?
   A.   I spoke of the outrage of being dragged  oft'
 here.
   Q.   Did you not make use of violent expressions
 about our Legislature?
   A.   I said if they were in hell, and I a fireman, I
 would give them a good warming; because I felt ag-
 grieved at being brought this distance from home.
   Q.   What do you know of the Gait House affair?
   A.   Nothing.  I did not hear of it till next morn-
 ing.
  Q.  Did you not go about in an exasperated man-
 ner, talking of it?
  A.  My excited feelings were  not expressed  till
 after the affair was over; but whenever it was spoken
 of in my presence, I expressed my opinion freely.
             MR. REAUGH RE-CALLED.
  Q.  State what you know of Mr. Oliver and his
 character.
  A.  I only know Mr. Oliver  by sight.  I have no
 personal acquaintance with him.   His reputed cha-
racter in  Louisville is not very good.  1 know  no-
 thing of him myself.
  Q..  (For Defence.) Was it not since this affair
that you heard him spoken of?
  A.  I do not recollect having heard of him before.
            MR. TRABUE RE-CALLED.
  Q.  Mr. Trabue, describe as particularly as you
can, the appearance of Judge  Wilkinson when  he
entered the  bar-room.
  A.  He walked two, three, or four times across  the
room.  He had his hand behind, and stopped in  the
middle of the room,  a little nearer the dining room
door, and seemed to face the corner where Mr. Red-
ding was standing.  He threw his head up, and cast
his eye at Mr. Redding, and then at  the door, as if
on the  look-out, and greatly  excited.  About tha^
time, Mr. Redding being  standing with his back  to
the counter, Mr. Murdaugh spoke to Mr. Redding.
  Q.  What did you see Mr. Halbert do?
  A.  1 saw .Mr. Halbert do nothing but tell Holmes 
(45)
«o had beaten the Doctor enough.  He was wanting
to take Holmes off the Doctor.
  Q.  Well, after that, did he do nothing?
  A. He  or Holmes—one or both,  took up a chair,
following the Doctor to the door.
  Q.  Did you hear Halbert say he had knocked
down the Doctor?
  A.  I  heard Halbert say such things, and that
when . he had knocked  down  the  Doctor, Holmes
jumped on him, but I am satisfied Halbert was only
bragging, and that he did not do it.
  Q.  Could Mr.  Pearson have got hold of Judge
Wilkinson's arm without your observation?
  A.  He could,  when  my attention was attracted
to Mr. Redding and Murdaugh; Mr. Pearson may
have been nearer the Judge, and probably spoke to
him in a whisper.  I might not in that case have
heard him, as  there was a noise, and we were all
under a  little  anxiety, expecting something would
take place.
  Q.  (By  Col. Robertson.) Was Mr. Redding out
of the room when the Judge entered the second
time?
  A.  Yes; the  Judge entered first, and in a few
moments Mr. Redding, who, when he entered, cross-
ed the Judge's path.
  Q.  Did not a crowd rush  in at Mr.  Redding's
heels?
  A.  I could not say a crowd followed Mr. Red-
 ding in, but, as I thought, seven  or eight men did.
            MR. HENRY OLDHAM CALLED.
  Q_.  Were you in the bar-room when the fighting
was going on?
   A.  No; I  was going in through  the bar-room
door, when I think it was Doctor Wilkinson was
rushing out, and cut me in the arm, and 1 knocked
him down. Mr. Holmes then came to the passage
 with a raised chair, and struck at  the Judge, break-
ing the chair against the door. The Judge ran to
 the stairs.   Mr. Holmes struck Mr.  Murdaugh at
 the stairs with the chair.   Mr. Murdaugh got up to-
 wards the  head  of the stairs, and hallooed for his
 pistol.   That put me in  mind of my  pistol, and I
 took it out and fired it at him.
   Q.  Where did you say, you were cut?
   A.  In  the arm, as I attempted to  enter the bar
 room door.
   Q.  Was there any  concert for you to go to the
 Gait House that evening?
   A.  None at all.
   Q.  Why did you knock the Doctor down?
   A.  Because he had cut me in the arm-
   Q.  Was there  any provocation on your part to
  induce him to cut you?
   A.  No.  I knew none of the  gentlemen.  Why
  he cut rac in the arm I am unable to tell.  I am con-
  fident he never  saw rac before.
  Cross-Examined:—Q.  How long had you been in
the Gait House then?
  A.  Three or four minutes—but I had been in
the bar-room at first before it began.
  Q,.  I^ame such of the persons as you saw there
then?
  A.  I saw Mr. Holmes, Mr. Rothwell, and Mr.
Halbert in the bar-room. When they came, in they
asked me to take some liquor,  which I did.  A gen-
tleman came and asked to see me, and I went away
with him, we  staid out some time, talking about
boats which he said he had lying at the mouth of the
Kentucky river.' We were talking outside, when I
could hear chairs rattling, and then on trying to go
into the bar-room,  I got the cut in the arm.
   Cross-Examined:—Q. When were you first in
the bar-room that evening.
   A.  Before any fuss began at all there.
   Q.  Did you not remain to see the fuss?
   A.  I went out at the time of the fuss.
   Q. Were there not many people there, and in the
 passages?
   A-  There appeared to be a good- many, and some
 fuss in the passage.
   Q_.  What sort of knife was you cut with?
   A.  I was cut with a dirk knife.
   Q.  Can you be positive who cut you?
   A.  Doctor Wilkinson was the man that cut me,
 and I knocked him down for it.
   Q.  Had you given him  by word or gesture, no
 cause for doing it?
   A.  I had not.
   Q.  Did you not go there to have a fight?
   A.  No.  I went there  accidentally—it  was on
 my way home.  I fought on my own hook.
   Q.  You shot at Murdaugh on your own hook?
   A.  At the head of the stairs, when he hallooed
 out  for his pistol, I took the advantage to get out
 mine, and Ifired it at him.
   Q.  When the Doctor was coming out of the dooi
 was he not cut and bruised and disabled?
   A.  I could not see by him, whether he was or not
   Q.  Did you tell all this at the Examining Court
   A.  I stated the same there as here.
   Q.  What coloured handle had the  knife whicl
  the Doctor cut you with?
   A.  I think it was a white handled knife.
   Q.  Did you fire before you were stabbed?
    A.  No, I  was  stabbed first.
    Q.  And you had  your pistol  prepared with twi
  bullets?
    A. No; there were 2 bullets; but there was 1 bulle
  cut in 3 pieces. It had been two or three days loadec
    Q.  Well,  you had other weapons?
    A.  I had a Bowie knife.
    Q.  Was the pistol a rifled barreled pistol?
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  How came  you to arm yourself thus? 
(40)
  A.  I usually carry a Bowie knife and pistol about
me since I belonged to the City Guard last summer.
  Q.  Of course you used your Bowie knife with ef-
fect that evening?
  A.  I did not use it on that occasion.
  Q.  You certainly displayed it?
  A.  The button on the scabbard came off, and it
slipped through my pantaloons.
  Q.  Was there not blood on it?    '
  A.  Tjaere could be no blood on  it, but it  had a
red scabbard which may have been mistaken.
  Q,.  Did you not wipe blood off with your  hand-
kerchief.
  A.  I am confident I did not, for there could be
none on it.
  Q.  Do you say you made no exhibition of it?
  A. A gentleman at Zanonc's Coffee-House  asked
me to show him a Bowie knife, and I  showed him
mine—that is the only exhibition could be talked of.
  Q.  Did you hear of the affair at Redding's?
  A.  'Not till I went, to the Gait House.   I did not
even hear of it  rill  the Gait House affair commenced.
I did not hear of it before I went into the bar-room.
            MR. PEARSON RE-OALLED.
  Q.  (For  Defence.)  What is Mr. Jackson's ge-
neral character?
  A.  I have known Mr. Jackson as a carpenter for
many years.  He is in the habit of making  boxes
and cases for  the dry-goods  merchants.   I  have
formed a favorable opinion of him, and I know that
is the opinion of several other merchants.   What
his private associates may be I do not know.
  Q.  Have you ever heard of his veracity  being
called in question?
  A.  I have not?
  Q.  (For Prosecution.) Have you heard his cha-
racter spoken of?
  A.  I don't know that I have, except as to his ca-
pacity as a good workman.
  Q.  (For Defence.)  From what you know of him,
would you credit hirn upon oath?
  A.  I could—I believe I could have confidence in
his word.
  Q.  What do you know of Mr. Oliver?
  A.  I have no acemaintance with Mr. Oliver, and
have not heard his character spoken of.
             MR. MILLER RE-OALLED.
  Q.  (For Defence.)  State what you  know of Mr.
Jackson's character.
   A.  I am very little acquainted with Mr. Jackson.
As far as I know,  I have considered him an indus-
trious mechanic.  I really have been favorably im-
pressed with his general  character, and am a good
deal surprised  to hear it doubted.
   Q,. (For Prosecution.)  How  has your opinion
been formed?
   A.  Upon appearances.
          MR. JAMIS  M'DO.NALD CALLED.
  Q.  What is Mr. Jackson's general character?
  A.  I have  known Mr. Jackson for a few years—
tliat is 1 know him  wnen I  see him.  So far as I
know he is sober.  I never heard his veracity ques-
tioned.  I have  merely known Mr.  Jackson as J
know other men passing to and fro.
  Q.  (For Prosecution.) Do you know much ubout
Mr. Jackson?
  A.  I know very little about him.
  Q.  (For defence.)  If he had been a man ol Ioobq
habits would  you not have heard it?
  A.  I should think so.
  Q.  Do you know Mr. Oliver?
  A.  I have  known him tor ten  or twelve years,
but I know# very little about him.  I never heard
any thing against his veracity that I can think of.
  Q.  Do you not know hini to be a door keeper at
the theatre?
  A.  I seldom go to the theatre.  I do not recollect
ever seeing him there as a doorkeeper.
         MR.  ALFRED HARRIS RECALLED.
  Q.  State what you know of Mr. Jackson's gene-
ral character.
  A.  I»am acquainted with Mr. Jackson.  lean-
not say a great deal about his general character. As
far  as concerned  with me, it has been fair.
  Q.  How is he  spoken of by his neighbors?
  A.  I have  heard him spoken of in this way—that
he is fond of conversation and as a person that says
more than he ought.
  Q.  Would you credit him on his oath?
  A.  I cannot say that I would not.  I know very
little about him.
  [It was understood that the evidence on both sides
here closed.
  It was then half past eleven, and the court decided
that a recess till after dinner should be taken, and
upon the re-sitting of the court the arguments should
commence in  the order prescribed.
  By one o'clock  the court-house became crowded to
excess, not less  than a thousand well dressed and
respectable persons being present. The gallery upon
which the bench is situated  was appropriated to la-
dies.  There  were, probably, from one to two hun-
dred ladies present, of whom three fourths were dis-
tinguished for great beauty.   Judge Bridges having
arrived  at the appointed hour, Judge Rowan sug-
gested to the Court the desire of many citizens, that
the hearing of the arguments might be adjourned to
the adjacent church;  to which, if the court  approved,
the jury, no doubt would consent, for the accommo-
dation of the public and the ladies  in particular.
The Court conceived  that  no judicial proceeding
would be proper  any where, under present circum-
stances, but in the ordinary tribunal of the country,
and although  the mere delivery of arguments from
the counsel was  not necessarily in the nature of a 
(47)
judicial act, yet some proceeding, or recalling of evi-
dence, might be requisite,  which would embarrass
such a departure from the usual course. To accommo-
date the ladies, the Court would order the gallery to
be appropriated exclusively to their uso. The gal-
lery was accordingly cleared of gentlemen, and the
ladies provided with seats.  The jurors being called
over and order commanded, the prosecuting Attor-
ney, Mr. Bullock, opened the argument in the fol-
lowing address:—
  Gentlemen of  the  Jury.—You have gratified me
by  the attention you have bestowed upon.the exami-
nation of evidence in this  cause; and I feel assured
from  that, of your honest intention to do your duty
in  weighing that evidence an<i deciding upon it as
becomes you.  Yours  is, indeed, no ordinary duty,
and I know you  are  aware of your obligation.   I
would not  have your feelings  excited on the one
hand  or the other of this prosecution; but  I  would
have you impressed with a proper conviction of the
facts to enable  you to do  your duty between the
commonwealth and the accused.
  I, also, occupy a public situation here, to which the
laws  have assigned duties of no ordinary trust.   I
am required not alone to   see that the laws be vin-
dicated, but that  the innocent should be separated
from  the guilty and protected from persecution.
  If guilt  exist,  it is my  duty to present the evi-
dence of it to you, together with the law applicable
to the case;  and if that evidence is so satisfactory as
to bring conviction to your  minds, you are required
to decide according to the law and the facts.
  You, gentlemen, have taken an oath that you have
no interest, feeling, or prejudice, one way or anoth-
er; and it behooves you, as honest and impartial ju-
rors, to weigh  well not only the evidence but the
arguments for the commonwealth as well as for the
accused, and according  to  your solemn oath a true
verdict give.
  In the opening  of this argument I shall not enter
into the depths of the case.  I  shall merely lay be-
fore you the law  in relation to the alledged offence,
that  you may be  enabled  to  judge of its violation
from  the evidence of the facts.
  There are three individuals arraigned before you
for separate and distinct offences.  Edward C. Wil-
kinson  is now upon  trial  for  the murder of John
Rothwell;  and John  Murdaugh and Benjamin R.
Wilkinson for aiding, assisting and abetting.  John
Murdaugh is upon trial on another  indictment for
the murder of John Meeks; and the other  two for
aiding, assisting and abetting.  You are to try both
rases—for the evidence  is  applicable to ^both, and
your  verdict will apply to both.  So far as your find-
ing and verdict reach, it is immaterial  whether you
find one guilty of the killing and the others  as ac-
complices, or the  three together guilty, because  if
you Kleve but one did the act, and that the others
were accomplices, the guilt is the same in  all, and
it is immaterial which struck the blow that produced
the death.  It is also necessary to mention,  that if
you believe one or two out of the three guilty, and
the other innocent, you have the right to find your
verdict against the guilty and to acquit the innocent.
  I make these  observations that your attention
may not be drawn from the main point—the vindi-
cation of the law and the application of the evidence.
  It has been proved to you that two men were killed
in the city of Louisville;  that blows were inflicted
on-them  with deadly weapons; and that they died
front the effects of those wounds.  The laws of Ken-
tucky afford protection to all her citizens.  Two of
these citizens have been slain, and your first enquiry
is, who committed this crime against  our laws.—
Three gentlemen, now before you, are charged with
this murder.  I  need not  lose time in  endeavoring
to prove to you that one or more of these gentlemen
inflicted the blows which caused these deaths, be-
cause from the evidence  you are bound to believe
that the Judge or Mr. Murdaugh inflicted them and
that each participated  in the act of the other.   The
question is, haye they been guilty of any crime which
the laws of the land will reach; and if they have,
what  th/it crime is designated.  It is in the eye of
the law homicide; and homicide is  either justifiable
or punishable by law.  The killing constitutes the
homicide, and that has been proved; but it is for you
to say whether that killing has  been murder, man-
slaughter,  or justifiable homicide.  Although these
gentlemen, are indicted for the major offence, mur-
der, you  may,  if the evidence justify you,  find
them guilty of the minor offence, manslaughter; or,
even  it the excusable homicide is proven, you  may
acquit them.  But  as they are charged  with the
commission of the crime of murder, it is necessary
you should hear  the law read as it  exists in cases of
homicide.  In defining the law I shall endeavor not
 to set down aught in malice, neither shall  I on the
 other hand aught extenuate.
   Murder is one of the highest crimes known to our
laws.   It  is defined  by Sir  William Blackstone,
page 142: "When a person of sound memory and dis-
cretion, unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature
in being, and under the King's peace (oras-in this
case in  the  peace  of the Commonwealth of Ken-
 tucky) with malice aforethought,  either express or
 implied."
   That a killing has been committed  it would now
be a  warts of your time  to prove; you have it al-
 ready established by the evidence, and it is not deni-
ed; the only question  you have  to  decide, in addi-
 tion to that fact, is, whether this killing was or was
 not the result of malice.   Malice aforethought does
 not only mean "a spirit of hatred or malevolence to
 the deceased in particular, such as arises from former
 frrudge or previous quarrels, and which is evidenced 
(48)
by lying in wait, &c.;" this ■»  express malice;  but
it  i3 not the only kind of malice.  "For the  law
meaneth by the term  malice that the fact hath been
attended with  such circumstances as  are the ordi-
nary symptoms of a wicked, depraved and malignant
spirit, and which carry in them plain indications  of a
heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent upon
mischief.','—See Foster, page 256, and Blackstone,
page 199.  The constitution makes you, gentlemen
of the jury, the arbiters of life and death.   You are
to make a solemn enquiry into the causes which
deprive by violence  your  country of the life  apd
services of one or more of its citizens.
  In all cases of death by violence the law implies
that it is done by malice until the contrary  is proved
Such is the shield thrown by the law round human
life that  it raises a  presumption  of malice in the
consummation  of violence.  Should I succeed; in
satisfying you that a killing has been done  where
malice is proved by  the evidence, of that amount
known to the law, it is murder; and unless you can
find in  the circumstances proved to you that there
are extenuating circumstances, you cannot compro-
mise the law by doing less than the duty  which it
demands of you.   Sir Michael Foster,  page  255,
lays down the rule: "That in every charge of mur-
der, the fact of killing being first proved, all the cir-
cumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity, are
to be satisfactorily proved by the prisoner; unless
they arise out of the  evidence produced against him,
for the law presumeth the fact to have been foun-
ded in malice, until the contrary appears."   The
law does not  require in proof of malice that there
should have been a previous grudge, for it may arise
at the moment of inflicting the deadly violence, or
be inflicted upon persons previous to the act, un-
known to the slayer.   On  this occasion it  is not ne-
cessary to prove that Judge Wilkinson or  Mr. Mur-
daugh had ever known their unfortunate victims; if
their act springs from hearts regardless  of social
duty and fatally bent upon mischief—and this is
manifested in different ways, from the manner of
the assault, the weapon used,  and the probability
 that death would result from the blow.   For in all
cases of homicide upon provocation, if it may be
 reasonably collected  from the weapon used, or from
 any other circumstances, that  the party intended to
 kill, or to do some great bodily harm, such homicide
 is murder.  And right it should be.  For he  who
 carries a weapon calculated to  take life, shows that
 he broods over blood, and that he thinks with levity
 of taking the life of a fellow being.  Nature itself
 revolts at the idea of death, and  a thrill  of horror
 runs through every nerve at the thought of imbruing
 our hand in the life's blood of a fellow being; and
 he, therefore, who,  with  the  impending glittering
 blade over an unarmed man, can strike with a delib-
 erate intent to kill,  is a monster—dead to the social
ties, dead to the sympathies of our nature, and  nc
longer worthy of human regard or to the protection
of human laws.  You see then, gentlemen, that it
is not essential to the crime  of murder that  there
should have been any previous grudge or quarrel, or
even a previous acquaintance. But  if you  believe
that the killing was done with a heart fatally bent
upon  mischief and fraught  with malice, and you
must judge of this from the manner of the blow,
the nature of the  weapon and all the other circum-
stances of the case—then is it murder—and you must
so find. Let your feelings be how they may—yea,
even though you wrote your verdict in tears.
  As I h:'vesaid before, if you believe these  gentle-
men have been guilty of this crime,you are to consider
whether any extenuating circumstances are in proof,
and in mercy you are bound to regard those exten-
uating circumstances; but if you believe those cir-
cumstances are not of that weight which  the law
says is necessary to justify the taking of human
life, you are not to be swayed from your duty by
your feelings.
  Gentlemen, I am sorry to say that there has been
thrown into this case a quantity of trash and chaff
not recognized by the  laws of evidence; and this
has been done, no doubt, with a view of preventing
you from readily discovering in this trashy chaff,  the
grains of wheat, the facts upon which your decision
must be made.  I did not interrupt this course,  be-
cause the counsel for the defence had the right to  in-
troduce their own testimony  in the method which
suited them, and I could not tell until the testimony
for the accused was closed whether those declarations
and opinions  of others would be  connected  with
other facts and circumstances so as  to make  them
relevant and proper.   Many  of the witnesses have
detailed to you what they  thought—what others
said—if not what others thought.   This surely is
not evidence;  yet I found that I could not arrest
such an improper course.   All I can now do is to tell
you that you have no right to give the least weight
to that kind of evidence;  for you are sworn to de-
cide this cause not by the vague  conjectures and
opinions of others, nor even  by your own, but by
the lights of truth and sober reason.
   The counsel on the opposite side will endeavor to
show you that there  was a mob, or a concert of a
mob, got up by Redding  and  his friends to assault
these gentlemen at the Gait House.   You will have
the opinions of counsel on this point; but you must
keep in mind that opinions are not evidence.   As-
certain the facts from  the proof, and consult your
own consciences to make up your judgment.  Re-
collect that you are here to try the law and the facts;
and that you are not to mingle up with them that
which is not legitimate testimony.  I can compare
 the defence in this  case to  nothing but a boiling
 cauldron,  into  which  a vast quantity  of angry 
(40)
feelings and fermenting passions have been thrown;
and it must be your business, gentleteinen, to filter
the truth from the dregs and  scum with which it is
intermixed.  You are to ascertain whether, when
the affray commenced and the fatal blows were given,
there was danger  to these gentlemen of their  own
lives.   That there was not, seems ,o me clearly es-
tablished.    The  witnesses tell you, one and all, |
that there were   strange  faces in the bar-room «f j
the Gait House.  Wei'! what of that?  Is it an un-
common circumstance that there should be  strange
faces in the bar-room of a public hotel, the most ex-
tensive and most frequented in the western country?
Almost on all  occasions,  at  every moment of the
day, there are strange faces to be met with there.
That bar-room is the resort of every  stranger at-
tracted  by the celebrity of the  house  and having
business to transact in Louisville or its  vicinity   It
any thing can be based upon this circumstance, I
should be glad  i o know what supposition the gentle-:
men for the defence can raise upon it.  When Red-j
ding was in that bar-room  getting the names  oi |
these  Mississippi gentlemen, what  demonstration i
was there  of a contemplated assault by others'— :
None!   There is nothing in the whole case to war-
rant the assertion except the mere conjecture  of j
some few individuals.  Not a man produced here to j
testify the facts, not a man who heard and  saw the ;
whole  transaction, has sworn  that Rothwell,;
Holmes, or Halbert, then said a word to Judge  Wil- j
kinson.  How then could he infer that they were ,
to be engaged in any concert?  When J udge Wilkin-;
son went off after what passed  between Redding i
and him, was  he not suffered to go his  way  in
peace?   Wliat reason could he have had to consider
there was an individual except Redding who could
have a particle of ill-will against him?  Well, he
left the bar-room, was met at the door into the pas-
sage by Mr. Everett, and retired to his own room.
In doing so he  passed  unmolested, unobstructed,
and o* reaching his apartment had time to detail to
his companions, Mr. Murdaugh and Dr. Wilkinson,
all that had occurred  between him and Redding in
the bar-room.   Without waiting for  their com-
ments  or reply, he demands pistols  from Mr. Eve-
rett.   What did he want with pistols if not for
attack?  If he wanted them for defence, why did
he not wait for them?   No, gentlemen, Judge  Wil-
kinson and his companions did not need pistols for
their defence,  or they would not have come down
armed  wuh their knives alone.  They could not
restrain themselves, so eager were they for the at-
tack.   They came down, and of what passed you
are to be the judges.
  I have satisfied you that there had been no con-
cert—no scheme to assault these gentlemen. There
is no proof of it, and it can only be inferred from con-
                       7
jecture: but are you to conjecture?  You are forbid-
den by the law
  When Judge Wilkinson returned to thebar-roora
he had no right to suppose that he would be even
addressed, much  less assaulted, by  any other person
than Redding. In the absence of all proof that there
was any one desiring  to attack him, who is  there
that even says he (Judge Wilkinson) was told that
Redding's friends had any design of that kind?  Did
any witness tor the defence prodigal of loag stories
of his  thinking,  tell him there was such a design?
Not  one.  There is nothing in the whole case to
justify the supposition.  That some may have been
there from curiosity is possible; but certainly none
from design  to assault.
  Well, after coming down Judge Wilkinson en-
tered the bar-room accompanied by Mr. Murdaugh
and  Dr. Wilkinson.   The Judge,  after  pacing the
room,  stood firmly and fixed his eye on Redding,
while Murdaugh approached the latter, and, accord-
ing to some of the witnesses, addressed him insult-
ingly, at the moment throwing his knife open in a
menacing manner.  What immediately followed is
known io you from  the evidence.  All have seen
the subsequent transactions differently, yet  they
occurred in one way only.  It is necessary to remark
these conflicting  accounts in order to arrive at the
facts; and it will also be necessary for you to select
from the  mass of evidence the  testimony of such
men as you think have given their evidence without
intent to pervert the  truih:  those who witnessed
the transaction with  the greatest quantity of self-
possession and the clearest  observation.  Not such
men as those who started and got  away to the out-
side of the windows, though  they may be honest,
yet evidently having acted under alarm and trepida-
tion sufficient to render them incapable  of seeing
calmly and dispassionately what occurred.  It  is
natural to conclude that the excitement and alarm
caused the different views taken of the transaction
by different individuals.  Some of these individuals,
who remained and retained  their self-command, I
know to be men  who could look on and take in what
occurred without  much danger  of misconception.
I know Trabue and Montgomery to be such men.and
I feel satisfied that Mr. Robert Pope, though not as
well known to me, i3of this number, if I may form
an opinion from his manner of giving his testimony.
I  admit that most men are incapable of viewing
coolly and deliberately the shedding of human blood;
but  that some men are more self-possessed  under
such circumstances than others will not be denied.
It is surely mote consonant to human sense to pre-
dicate our conviction  upon the testimony cf those
who evince the  most coolness and  self-possession
when  their veracity  is  questioned.   An additional
reason why I attach great weight  to  Mr. Trabue's 
(51
tO)
testimony is, that he expected the-:.fi"; ay and was
prepared to watch narrowly what waj about to take
place.  He tells  you that he had his  eye fixed on
Judge Wilkinson and Mr. Redding, at the moment
his ear caught the words passed from a third person.
He was watching  these two that he might observe
which would commence the expected conflict.  Mr.
Trabue's  is the most  consistent  and rational ac-
count  of  what  then occurred, and I  adopt his
view of it in preference to others, because I want
a clear view only of the facts.  Gentlemen, I seek
not these men's conviction if they are innocent.  It
would be at variance with the trust reposed in me
as the organ of government placed between the com-
monwealth and  the  accused.   But  if your  verdict
must be against  them, though you write it in tears,
justice demands that it  should be rendered faith-
fully.  What are the rational conclusions you ought
to come to?  I will tell you my conviction  on that
point,  grounded on  the  evidence of  Trabue and
Montgomery and  corroborated by others.  When
Judge Wilkinson had arrived in his bed-room; had
told his brother and Mr. Murdaugh what  had occur-
red between himself and Redding; and Mr.  Everett
had left them—these gentlemen deliberately agreed
to come down and see the contest out.  They were
Mississippians—they had shown their  knives,  at
least two of them, and a third, a large bowie knife,
had been added—and they descended for the work of
death.  They knew of no hostile foes  below but
Redding,  for they could not  know of any other;
there was no reason to believe they could meet with
any others in the bar-room, over whom they could
crow and triumph, but  Redding: and they did crow
and triumph over him; for it is  in proof that  he
truckled under, when Murdaugh said, "I understand
sir, you say, or it is reported,  that I assaulted you
in your own house with a bowie knife.   If you say
so, you are a damned liar."  Redding did not stand
up to this like a man.  He backed out by saying,
"I do not say it was you, but one of the three did
it."   Is it like what a man backed  by a mob would
say?   Is this like what a man surrounded by a com-
pany of friends  would say?  Gentlemen, it is im-
 possible to believe it.
   It is immaterial what part Redding took in the
affray.  The question is, what excuse these  gentle-
 men  had for taking the life  of a fellow creature.
 It is my duty to show you what the law says in re-
ference to  killing  and excuses for killing.  I shall
come to that presently.  Murdaugh had his knife
in his hand before any attempt at assault had been
 made on him.  When Meeks approached him,  what
would any man expect but a blow?  What  kind of
blow did Murdaugh receive  from Meeks?  Why,
nothing but a blow of a short cow-hide over the
 head; and,  unfortunately for Murdaugh, the law
will not excuse him for resenting a blow that could
not have threatened his life, by taking a life for that
blow.  I promised to show  you what the law says
on this point: "He that would excuse himself upon
the foot of self-defence must show that before a mor-
tal stroke was given he had  declined farther combat
and had retreated as far as he could with safety, and
also that he  killed  his  adversary through mere ne-
cessity and to avoid immediate death or great bodily
harm."—Foster, page 277.   This is the law; and it
is not now necessary for me to go farther than to
show you it is founded upon natural and immutable
principles of justice.  "A, being assaulted by B, re-
turneth  the blow,  and  a fight ensueth.  A before a
mortal wound given, declineth any farther conflict,
and retreateth as far as he can with safety; and then,
in his own defence killeth B;  this is excusable self-
defence, though A had given several blows, not
mortal, before his retreat. But if the mortal stroke
had been first given  it would have been manslaugh-
ter."—Foster, page 277.  He must show that at the
moment of the  mortal blow, he gave it from neces-
sity, to avoid his own  death  or great bodily  harm.
Here is another case: "The prisoner was  indicted
for the murder of his brother; and the case upon evi-
dence appeared to be, that the prisoner on the night
the fact was committed came home  drunk. His
father ordered him to go to bed, which he refused to
do, whereupon a scuffle ensued between the father
and son.  The deceased, who was then in bed, hear-
ing the disturbance, got up and fell upon the prison-
er, threw him down, and beat  him upon the ground;
and there kept him down, so that he could not es-
cape, nor avoid the blows; and as they  were so stri-
ving the prisoner gave the deceased a wound, with a
penknife, of  which he  died.  This, upon a special
verdict,  was, at a conference of all the Judges of
England, ruled manslaughter—-for there  did not
appear to be  any inevitable  necessity so as to excuse
the hilling in this manner."—Foster, page 278. ' In
all cases where a blow is given to produce death, un-
less to avoid death or great bodily harm, it  is either
murder or manslaughter.
  Now, unless  there was  absolute  necessity that
Murdaugh, to avoid  death or great  bodily  harm
from the blow inflicted by Meeks, gave that deadly
blow which killed Meeks, after he had changed the
knife from his right to his left  hand; and unless you
believe that  he  could not himself escape death but
by killing Meeks, you must believe him guilty of
manslaughter at least, according to  the law.   The
law discountenances the idea that because a man is
a mechanic you  are not in an unavoidable scuffle to
resort to fisty cuffs,on account of any presumed supe*
riority of station; but when  your adversary assaults
in that way,  that you may draw a deadly  weapon
and kill your opponent; because the law cannot 
(51)
 excuse such  unequal odds.  What is there in this
 case  to justify Murdaugh?  Montgomery,  whose
 breast  was sprinkled with the spouting  blood  of
 Meeks, though at several feet distance, tells you
 there was no blow  when Meeks was stabbed.  If
 Murdaugh was struck with a stick or cane after-
 wards, he is not to say that because of that sub-
 sequent blow or blows he i3 justified in having pre-
 viously  inflicted  death.   As  to what transpired
 when  Rothwell was stabbed;  you  will  recollect
 that Rothwell had three wounds.  We are able to
 account for two of them by direct evidence; for the
 other we account by circumstantial evidence.  Two
 witnesses  who saw  the  Judge's  bowie knife enter
 him, say the first stab was given in the right hand
 corner of the bar-room as you face  the  fire  place.
 These two are Trabue and General Chambers. They
 say that when Rothwell  was in the north-west cor-
 ner, Judge Wilkinson rushed  up and plunged his
 murderous knife into his back, towards the left side,
 at a time too  when Rothwell was not offending him,
 and  could not offend him,  because his  back  was
 turned.  A second time  Judge Wilkinson stabbed
 Rothwell  in nearly the same place, when Rothwell
 was in another part  of the room. So that it is at
 least certain that two of the wounds inflicted upon
 Rothwell were inflicted by Judge Wilkinson.  Let
 them say what they will about  Meeks having struck
 Murdaugh, and  that at the time any one  else was
offending Judge Wilkinson's brother,  I  say, and I
 say it here in the presence of His Honor, who will
 set me right if I am  in error,  that a man has no
 right to take a life in defence of his brother because
 merely he is his brother, though a right might exist
 if in defence of his child  or wife.  There is no con-
 clusive testimony that Rothwell was assaulting Dr.
 Wilkinson when stabbed by Judge Wilkinson; on
 the contrary, it is proved  that Rothwell was endea-
 voring  to rescue Dr. Wilkinson  from  Holmes.
 Now, as to the law of self-defence, we find it in page
 273, under the head of  "justifiable self-defence,"
 &c.   When a man comes with evident intent to
commit felony, which he  must be engaged in  at the
 time.
  The other case is when in self-defence an adver-
sary is killed. But there is no law to justify Judge
Wilkinson in doing what he did on the plea of saving
his brother.
  In the slaying of Meeks by Murdaugh  I will ask,
 was there that absolute necessity for the taking of
life,  because  he  was struck over the head with a
whip, which  is recognized bv the law?  They can-
 not produce any law  of England to show it, and  I
defy them to show me any Statute of Kentucky that
wa rrants it.
  In order to justify  you, gentlemen of the jury, in
finding the three persons indicted, guilty of the of-
 fences charged, though only one or two committed.
 the act, it must appear that there was an aiding or'
 abetting—a concert of action.   What did these
 three gentlemen come down to the bar-room  for, if
 not to countenance each other, and aid each other in
 striking terror into those with whom they meditated
 a conflict?  Why did they arm themselves with their
 knives and enter together, if they did not mean to
 stand by each other?  It was to show that they were
 united,  unanimous,  and mutually willing to aid and
 abet each other in their design.
  I did  not intend to occupy so much of your time—
 depending upon a further development of this argu-
 ment by Mr. Hardin,  to show how the prosecution
 will reconcile the events detailed in evidence.  You
 will hear from the gentlemen opposite their view of
 the  case for the defence.  You will weigh the facts
 with the arguments on both sides, and I trust—1
 know—you will hold the scales of justice impartial-
 ly.   It is useless to  talk of Statutes for suppressing
 the use  of Bowie knives or concealed weapons, un-
 less  jurors execute  the laws fairly and fearlessly.
 If, in this instance, there has been a violation ot that
 security for life guaranteed by our Constitution,
 execute your duties, gentlemen, as law-abiding citi-
 zens. That you will do so conscientiously, fearless-
 ly, and  becomingly, I have every confidence; and
 with this conviction,  I confide the case to your
 hands.

  Colonel Robertson  then rose  and addressed the
 court and jury as follows:—
  It has fallen to my lot, Gentlemen of the Jury, to
 follow the Attorney for the Commonwealth, and to
 open the defence, on the part of the accused.  In doing
 this, I take pleasure in according to the gentleman
 my profound acknowledgments, for the just, fair and
 liberal ground on which he has placed the law that
 must control, as well the prosecution, as the defence
 in this-case, whilst at  the  same time, I have to ex-
 press my regret, that  he has permitted himself to
 draw deductions from the evidence, which I think
 cannot be maintained.   I do not know that I shall
 be able to present this case to you, in the aspect which
 properly belongs to  it, nor  do I know that my fee-
 ble state of health, will allow me to proceed far with
 the argument which I propose to offer; should I find
 myself unable to go on with the discussion,  I will
 resume  my seat, and leave the case in the hands of
 the distinguished gentlemen who are associated
 with me in the defence, and who, under any cir-
 cumstances, would be able to do far more justice to
 the accused than would fall within the range of my
 powers.   For three months past,  I have been pre-
 vented by  a local disease,  from  engaging  in  argu-
ment at the bar, and this is the first occasion, du-
ring that time, in which I have attempted toengacs
in forensic strife 
(52)
  Gentlemen, I feel very sensibly, the weight of res
ponsibility which rests upon me, not because  there
is any thing alarming in the case itself, but because
the charge is a solemn one, presented in the most
solemn form, and which, if true, might produce the
most solemn consequences. The case, too, has been
made to wear the most aggravated form; not only
by an abuse of public feeling, -o: a time, about the
city of Louisvil'e, but by the indiscretion of the pub-
lic prints; two of which in the c: :y • not only departed
from invariable usage upon such occasions, but un-
fortunate's for the accused, thei.3 papers permitted
themselves  o Tall in  o .hegrossed euors, operating
against the ti-uili o" 1 <ie c-iie. and against the accus-
ed, and wnich, to th'sd./y, hove -'o^ been cor/octed,
or in any way. tuoi'sd /or; other puoersata distance
copied from them, and thus has there been a most
extensive circulation of facts, which never existed,
to the great injury of u'e accused.  Under these c»'-
cumstances, though  the uub'ic mind has, in p great
degree, corrected  itself,  by the  lighis which weie
thrown open, before the  er.amini\>.g Court; yet v.e
deemed it better (o b, ing the cause o the considera-
tion of twelve meu.  not on'y equal in all other res-
pects to a jury w be selected in Louisville; "01U who
should be entirely untainted oy preji'r,ice.s»'nti wou'e'
be certain to render a verdict according to law,  and  j
to evidence.   Such a jury, gentlemen, we think we
have found in the county or Mercer, such a jury now
sits before us, and to you is committed the fa<eof
our clients.
   If I were left  to  the  e::ercise of my own  judg-
ment, I would willingly submit this  ca'use to your
determination, without an  argument;  but gentle-
men, we have thought, upon consultation, that too
much was at stake, and  that duty requires  ai our
hands a discussion, such as may not  only convince
your minds, but which shall correct the errors  that
 may have taken root in the public mind abroad and
at home; forwewish, noo'ilv toacquu the accused,
but that the acquittal shall res'ioie that high charac-
 ter which belonged to them before this unfortunate
 occurrence, and which,  as we conceive, has been,
 in no degree, darkened by any part of their conduc.
 It is true that they regret, most sincerely, that  they
 were placed in a condition which requiied them to
 take the live3 of their fellow 111 en. o.-  si'b.ir t to their
 own eternal disgrace,  and perhaps the loss of their
 own lives; out having been placed ;n that situation,
 but one course was left to them, and they did not he-
 sitate ;n taking that course.
   Gent'emen of the Jury, I feel the mo<-t unqualified
 confidence in our abil'iy to show  yoo in t(;e  cou-^e
 of this discussion, one of the clearest cates of self-
 defence that was ever presented *o a  court ;imt jury
  to decide, and'if, in doing so, 1 shall  be compelled to
 speak harshly of some of the witnesses on the part
of the Commonwealth, it must be remembered that
these witnesses have placed themselves in a situa-
tion which makes it my duty to animadvert freely
upon  what they have said,  and to dist. ipoint them
in that conviction which their very manner shows
they are so eager to piocure.
  Our clients stand before you, gentlemen, charged
with ro mean, ignoole crime- they su.nd belore you
in the highest and noblest attiiude >n which  man
can  exhibit,  himself before his  fellow man,  l!>ey
stand before you, uponproof, that they invaded pot
the rights of others, whilst, <u the same lime,  un-
derstanding their  own  righib, i1,e>' c'°'enoed  the.i
against the  assault of their abuiiLivs, even  unto
b'oodshed and det)ih; as, by law, ihey had i> right to
tlo.  In presenting - 0 you the view which I enter-
tain of the case now before you,  I shaH noi go  nio
any laborious, detailed  analysis of die tesihnony.—
Even if rny  state of health woi'ld a|(ow me  to do
this,  T should reveiv'eless decline ii,  because my
honorable associates m the defeoca w'H  do air»o!o
justice to that and every oi(ier bi.tncho-' i''esi'ojecl.
My object will be to present the case-to you, in
somevvivil of a general aspect,  ior overall, it will
be found that the great prine-n'p ■ involved are but
lew, and these few are of well &en!ed law.  I know
thai the able counsel, on  the part of the prosecution,
will endeavor to perplex you with  almost countless
cases fiom high authorities; but when these cases are
well examined, i„ will be found 1 hat they are  per-
verted and misapplied; fid, in no degree, do they
affect the right of self-defence,  possessed by every
individual ii this country; and upon which we shall
rest this cause.
   In the humble view which I  shall endeavor to
present to you of this case, I shall call  your atten-
tion  to the  authorities which seem >o ir?e to govern
and control it, to state the evidence in a fair and can-
did manner; and  then by a just application  of the
law to the testimony, endeavor to conduct you to ra-
tional and just conclusions.
   I have said that we shall  rest this cause upon the
great principles of self-defence; and I shall endeavor
 to confine myself to this ground as far  as I can, or
as far as may be consistent with a general and some-
 what systematic  view of the law and the evidence;
 yet, in doing this,  1 shall unavoidably be led into
 some necessary views of the law of homicide; notic-
 ing  the degrees i n .0 which it has been divided, and
 explaining, wherever explanations m.>y be required^
 In the case  before you, gentlemen of the jury, the
 self-defence on which 1 shall  rely,  was not only
 against the attack of individuals, but these individu-
 als, as I shall shew by the evidence, had previously
 agreed to associate themselves together as a baud of
 lawless  conspirators for the purpose  of meeting at
 the Gait House in  the  course of the evuiiii". and 
(33)
there to take revenge of the accused,  by inflicting
upon (hem the ignominious punishment of a public
cow-hiding; or, in the event of resistance, then, to
use the weapons of death, with which the testimony
shows they were provided.  As I feel that I have no
occasion to mis-state the evidence, I shall  not only
endeavor io present it fairly, but should f not (<oso, I
will be obliged co "he counsel lor the prosecution to
set me right, as soon  as they may think me wrong
upon this point.
  Intending to place the defence upon grounds o"
celf-defence, and that self-defence being against the
altack o-c a band oi conspirators against the honor j
and perhaps the I'vesof the accused; I will, for my '
Oi/" conve 'e  e?  air1 for the benefit of the  counsel
w-'o may reoly ..o me, state the authorities on which '
I sh. " mainly rely.  They are fe»v, but I think they
aresrong.
  ")? iv/o o;- mo;e come together to do an unlawful |
"act against the Jv-in-'a peace, of which theorobable I
"conseonence 'ni^ht oe bloodshed^us io beat a man,:
"ioco»/f..iiiV a rio', or to rob a. pari,: and one of them |
"k;<;- a  man: ii • ■ mttrtlc' 'n them »!i, because of the j
  u.iL'wful act, the mail 'o■ praecogilala, or evil in-'
".ended  be-ovehand."  4th Blackstone, page 201J
Chitty's edition.                                 j
   'But if several attack a person nt oncewith  dead-1
"ly weanons, as may be supposed to  have hap- '■
"pened in Ford's case, though they wait till  he be,
"upon his guard;  ye- it seems, (there being no com- j
"pact to fight) that he would be justifiable in killing i
"any of the assailants in his own defence; because I
"so unequal an attack resembles mo e  a  desire of |
"assassination than of combat."   East's  pleas of
the Crown, vol. 1, page 276.
  "For no man is required by law to remain defence-
less and suffer  another to beat him as long as he
"pleases without  resistance, although it be evident
"that the other did not aim at his life,  but he may
"lawfully exert so much force as is necessary to com-
"pel him to desist."   Same book, page 286.
  But who is lo judge of the degree of force neces-
sary to be applied to make the man who attacks de- J
sist?  I answer,  in the very nature of things, he j
who is attacked must be the judge, and so the law j
intended, and  so it has  been ruled,  as may be seen j
from the  following authority:— "Yet  still," (says
East, speaking upon this very point) "if the  party .
"killing, had reasonable grounds for believing that I
"the person slain had a felonious design against him. I
"and under that supposition, kill  hint; though it |
"should afterwards appear  that there was no  such
"design; it will be only man-slaughter, oreyen mis-
adventure, according to the degree of caution used,
"and the  probable ground of such belief."    Same
book, page 173.
  "For,"  (says the same author, speaking of unlaw-
ful combinations) "if the act or design be unlawful
"or premeditated, and death happen from any thing
"done in the prosecution of it, it is clearly murder in
"all who took  part in the same  transaction."—
Same book, page 259.
  "He who voluntarily, knowingly and unlawfully,
"intends hurt to the person of another, (as Redding
and his party intended  to the accused,)  though he
"intend not death, yet if death ensue, is guilty of
"murder, or man-slaughter,  according to circum-
"stances.  As if A. intending to beat B., happen to
"kill him, if done from pre-conceived malice, or in
"cool blood upon revenge, it will be no alleviation
''that he did not intend all the mischief that follow-
"ed."   Samebook, page 266.
  The learned author, in continuation of his illus-
trations, by rules laid down, says,
  "The above rules govern all the cases where di-
"vers persons resolve generally to resist all opposers
"in the commission of any breach of the peace, and
"to execute it with violence, or in such a manner as
"naturally tends to raise tumults and affrays: as by
"a violent disseisin, with great numbers, or to beat a
"man, or rob a  park, or standing in opposition to
"the sheriff's posse: for they must at their peril abide
"the merit of their actions who wilfully engage in
"such  bold  disturbances of the public peace.   In
"such cases the  law adopts the presumption of fact
"that they came with intent to oppose all who should
"hinder them  in their  design."    Same book,
page 257.
  As Judge Wilkinson's case differs somewhat from
the others, and as some authorities may be applica-
ble to his case, which may not apply to the others, I
will at  this time  introduce the following general
principle, immediately following the last quotation,
and in the same book.
  "And in all such instances, whether the breach of
"the peace, were sudden or premeditated, not only
"officers, but even private persons may interfere to
"suppress the riot, giving notice of such their interv-
"tion;  and much more may they defend themselves:
"and if in so doing they kill any of the rioters, if
"they could not otherwise accomplish their purpose,
uit willue justifiable; and the killing any person to
"interfering by any of the rioters would be murder
 'in all who took part in  the fact or abetted thereto.*
Same book, page 257.
  As Judge Wilkinson's case will turn somewhat
upon the right of third persons to interfere and pre-
vent a felony, such, for instance, as the killing of an-
other, I will continue my authorities, that I may be
saved trouble  hereafter.   Lord Hale, in speaking
upon this right of third  persons to interfere, for the
purpose of preventing a felony, puts this case, viz:
  "If A. B. and  C. be walkiDg in company together,
"and C. assault B., who flies, and is in danger of be- 
(54)
 "ing killed from C's pursuit,  unless present help be
 'afforded; and A. thereupon kill C, in defence of the
 "life of B.; it seems that in this case of such inevi-
 table danger of the life of B., the killing of C. by
 "A. is in the nature of self-defence, butit murf plain-
 "ly appear by the circumstances of the case as  the
 "manner of assault, the weapons with which it was
 "made, &c, that B'slife was in imminent danger;"
 Lord Hale, page 484.
  I will continue my authorities—Blackstone, speak-
 ing of crimes committed by violence, says, "For the
 "one  uniform principle that runs through  our own,
 "and all other laws, seems  to be this, that where a
 "crime, in itself capital, is  endeavored to be com-
 "mitted by force, it is lawful to repel that force, by
 "the death of the  pafty attempting."  4th Black-
 stone, Chitty's edition, page 134.
  "Homicide in self-defence, or, se defindendo, upon
 "a sudden affray, is also excusable, rather than jus-
 tifiable, by the English law.  This species of self-
 "defence, must  be distinguished from that just now
 "mentioned, as calculated to hinder the perpetration
 "of a  capital crime, which is not only a  matter  of
 "excuse, but of justification.   But  the self-defence of
 "which we are now speaking, is that whereby a man
 "may protect himself from an assault or the like, in
 "the course of a sudden broil, or quarrel,  by killing
 "him  who assaults him; and this is what the law ex-
 "presse tby the word chance-medley, or as some  ra-
 "ther choose to write it) chaud-medley, the former of
"which in its etymology signifies a  casual affray,
 "the latter an affray in the heat of blood or passion;
"both  of them of pretty much  the same  import."
 Blackstone, ,page 135, Chitty's edition.
  "Homicide, or the killing of any human creature,
"is of three kinds, justifiable, excusable and feloni-
"ok*.   The first has no share  of guilt at all; the se-
"cond, very little: but the third is  the highest crime
"against the law of nature, that man is capable of
"committing."  4th vol. Blackstone, page  178, Chit-
ty's edi'ion.
 'Murder is  described  or defined by Sir Edward
Coke  to be "when a person of sound memory and
"discretion, unlawfully  killeth any reasonable crea-
ture in being, and under the king's peace,  with ma-1
"lice aforethought,  either express or implied."  4th
 Blackstone, page 195, Chitty's edition.
  The statute of Kentucky which prescribes the pun-
ishment of persons convicted of man-slaughter, con-
tains this proviso: "Provided always,  That nothing1
"in this act contained, shall  extend to any person
 "who shall kill another  in self-defence, nor extend to
"any other who shall kill another by chance, in keep-
 ing or preserving the peace, so as the said man-
 slaughter, be not committed willingly, and under
 "color  of keeping the  peace."    Morehead   &
 Brown's Digest, page 1294.
1   Gentlemen of the jury, I believe you now have all
 the authorities to which I shall have occasion to ad-
 vert in the course of the remarks  I shall address to
 you, and I have given them to you drawn  together
 in one view, under the hope that you will bear them
 in mind, and know how to apply  them  to every
 branch of the case, as such branch  maybe presented
 in the argument.
   Let us now see what i? the testimony before you;
 and by a short process of analysis, you will be ena-
 bled to make such an application of the law to the
 testimony as cannot fail to conduct you  to just and
 rational conclusions.   I  repeat, gentlemen, that  I
 do not propose to go into any strict and rigid exami-
 nation of the testimony, the labor will be more than
 my feeble condition will bear;  I shall take little more
 than a passing view of its general character, for  I
 verily believe that you already understand the whole
 case, as well as you will be able to do, after discus-
 sion; at least so far as my argument will go.
   I do not intend^o trouble you with any argument
 upon the scenes which have been described as having
 happened at Redding's own house, in the afternoon
 of the day on which this tragedy was played at the
 Gait House, because they are separate and distinct
 matters;  occurring at different times, at different
 places, and with different men. Rothwell and Meeks,
 for the killing of whom the accused are now  arraign-
 ed before you,were neither of them at Redding's when
 the difficulty about the coat  took place, and what
 occurred there cannot have any legal connexion with
 the Gait House affair.  We might, indeed, have pre-
 vented the evidence  relating to what happened at
 Redding's from going to your consideration, and
 with that  view might have submitted a successful
 motion to the Court; but we had  other objects in
 view,  we  wished  nothing to be concealed which
 might affect the characters of our  clients,  and we
 wished moreover, to show the malice which  animat-
 ed and moved the lawless band of conspirators with
 which  the accused afterwards had to contend.  So
 far as it  may be necessary to shew this violent and
 malicious feeling on  the part of Redding  and his
 company, I may probably have occasion to refer to
 portions of the testimony showing the things which
happened at Redding's house, because the  danger
which surrounded the accused at the Gait House, can
only be  known by first  showing in what state of
feeling this lawless band entered the house in which
the tragical scenes were afterwards exhibited.
  Gentlemen of the Jury,  whether you  shall view
this case as an individual conflict between the slay-
ers and the slain; whether you view it as an affray
of the moment, without previous concert, or whe-
ther you  view it as a  previously and  deliberately
formed conspiracy, maliciously entered into by Red-
ding and his part'-, for the unlawful purpose  of beat- 
(55)
ing and disgracing the  accused; they (the accused)
stand equally justified or excused: viesv  it as you
may, place it in every varied aspect, and it is still a
case of self-defence; strictly so, by  the most rigid
construction of law.
  This right of self-defence, is not a  right  derived
from municipal law, it  is not a thing that has been
taught us, we have not  learned it from books;  it is a
principle of our nature,  born with us, and has grown
with us, in feeling and  in strength.   It is the most
important right which belongs to man by the law of
nature; it is his birth-right, of which human power
cannot deprive him, and which man, when he enter-
ed into the social compact, reserved to himself and
to posterity—municipal  law is  a consequence, and
not a cause, of  the social compact.  Before man en-
tered into a state of society, each one judged of the
wrongs which he supposed he had sustained, and he
took redress in that mode and manner which  incli-
nation and strength enabled him to do: this state of
things could not long endure, for the strong would
soon gain possession of  all that might belong to the
weak; and thus,  all the principles of right and jus-
tice  were broken  down  and destroyed.  To remedy
this, a plan was conceived by individuals of forming
what is called the social compact.   This social com-
pact was an agreement amongst all, that the general
affairs of mankind should  be regulated by lawma-
kers, chosen or appointed  in  such mode as might
be from time to time prescribed by supreme authori-
ty.  The great  object in view, at the time of agree-
ing to this social compact was, to secure individuals
in the exercise of certain great and inalienable rights
which belong  to  man  as  his  birth-right,  and of
which posterity could not be deprived.  Amongst
these inalienable rights  will be found the right of ev-
ery man to defend his person, his property, and his
habitation.  Hence we find  that municipal law, in
all civilized countries, is constantly throwing new
guard's around  these rights. You will be told, no
doubt  by  the learned counsel  for  the prosecution,
that when an individual is unlawfully assaulted, he
must only apply as much force, in resistance, as will
prevent the contemplated injury.  This authority 1
shall not deny,  but insist that, in this resistance, the
party assaulted is the only judge  of  the degree to
which it shall be carried, and if he has good reason
to believe  that nothing but killing his assailant will
save him from being wounded,  maimed, or killed,
then is he authorised to slay his  assailant,  and in
this position I think I am  well sustained by  some
of the authorities already read to you.  You will be
told  that it was the duty of the accused to retreat to
the wall, as the books call it, before a mortal  blow
could be lawfully given.  Gentlemen of the Jury,
all this is true as a general proposition, but it has its
limitations and exceptions.  If  a man is already
 against a wall, he can retreat no further;  this is one
 exception; if he is in his own house, and is assaulted
 with a felonious design, he need not retreat;  this ia
 another exception; and if he is so fiercely attacked that
 the delay in retreating would place him in imminent
 danger, then he need not retreat; and this is ano-
 ther  exception.  Whilst, therefore, the general rule
 may be very good, it is  liable to, at least,  these three
 exceptions.
   In approaching the testimony in this case, we are
 struck with the remarkable fact that, every witness
 on both  sides, who speaks upon this point,  proves
 clearly that the first blows were given by Meeks and
 Rothwell,  and that these blows  were  inflicted by
' them upon Murdaugh.   Strange enough,  but per-
 haps just enough; that  they who raised the tempest,
i should be the first victims of its fury. Johnson,  (a
 witness for he Commonwealth,) is the only witness
 on either side, who does not distinctly state that the
 first  blows were given by Meeks and Rothwell, and
 Johnson goes no further than to say that  he believes
 mutual blows were  given  about the same time,  by
 Murdaugh and his assailants:  As I shall have oc-
 casion to notice the testimony of this witness (John-
 son)  in the  course of my remarks,  I will let him
 alone for the present, and proceed with the evidence
 somewhat in the order  in which it was introduced,
 beginning  with that of Mr. Redding, and before I
 shall have  done  with  him,  I think you will agree
 with me that, upon this occasion, he is totally with-
 out credit as a witness,  whatever may be his  claims
 to general good character.  One of the rules  of evi-
 dence, gentlemen, isthata witness must stand indif-
 ferent between the parties to entitle him  to credit
 with a jury; another rule is, that he must be  consis-
 tent in his statement, and another  is, that if his tes-
 timony shall be falsified in any material part, the fal-
 sification shall attach to the whole, and destroy the
 whole; and I propose to show that these rules all
 rest heavily upon this witness, and that he is not en-
 titled to credit in any thing that had he stated to you
 In the first place, what is his position?  Why, he
 tells us himself, that he is under contract to the coun-
 sel he has employed, (Mr. Hardin,) to pay him  one
 thousand dollars for his services in this cause, and
 although  the witness does  not state it himself, yet
 this  contract  must have been made under circum-
 stances which amounted  to a declaration on the
 part of Redding, that he wished the accused capital-
 ly punished, if Mr.  Hardin could procure it to be
 done, whether they wereguilty, or not, when judged
 by the principles of law.  Now, gentlemen, look at
 the witness and  his situation, and say if you can,
 that  he stands indifferent between the  Common-
 wealth and the accused.  If the witness  has so far
 become the avenger of  blood, as tog;w  to counsel
 distinguished for talents, the large tec of one thou- 
(56)
sand dollars, do you not believe that he will, when
called on to give testimony in the same case, either
say things, or suppress things, which go to stifle
truth, and make out a  verdict of guilty against the
accused?  None can doubt the truth%of this proposi-
tion, and I will not impeach  your  understandings,
gentlemen, by  supposing that any one  can doubt
for a moment, upon the point.  He is then, for
this reason, unworthy of credit.  But he  is liable to
successful impeachment as a witness  upon another
ground, still more fatal to his credibility:  he has sta-
ted that he had no acquaintance with Meeks at the
time of this unfortunate tragedy, and that he had
never seen him until their meeting at the Gait House
on the evening of the affray: he was cautioned, and
put upon his guard  upon cross examination, and was
plainly told that there existed testimony upon this
point,  which would be introduced;  still  he obsti-
nately persisted in  this statement, notwithstanding
the solemn oath which he had taken to tell the whole
truth.  The motive  in this departure from truth was
plain and clear;  he  knew that a deliberate conspira-
cy, formed in the evening of the fatal night, between
himself, Meeks and others; would be attempted to
be proven, and he hoped to escape from the proof of
this deliberately formed conspiracy, by establishing
the fact that he was a stranger to Meeks.   Now, let
us see whether he was a stranger to Meeks or not.
Nathaniel Jackson, a witness for the accused, states
that sometime after the affair at Redding's shop, he
was going by, and hearing an unusually  loud talk-
ing, he went in  to see who they were, and what was
the matter. When he got  into the room he fonud
Redding, Johnson,  Meeks and others,  talking about
the Wilkinsons and their conduct.   Propositions
were made by Johnson, and perhaps Meeks also, to
go and take satisfaction, to this Redding did not rea-
dily assent, updn which Meeks said, "I will take
satisfaction any how."
  Here then is proof conclusive and complete, that
Redding did know  Meeks before their meeting at the
Gait House on the night of the affray: according to
Jackson, Meeks was in Redding's house, where it
is not likely he would have been, if he and Redding
were strangers to each other; Meeks seemed to take
a deep inrerest in the concerns of Redding, which a
stranger would  not be likely to do, and they spoke
and conversed with each other freely and familiarly,
which, it seems to me, strangers would not be likely
to do.  Another witness, whose name I cannot now
call, also spoke of seeing Meeks and Redding to-
gether before  the  Gait House affray; but this is
enough for my purpose; it is sufficient to  show that
Redding departed  from the truth, when  he stated
that he was a stranger to Meeks, and that the conse-
quence is, destruction of his whole testimony.  This,
however, is not the only palpable mis-statement
 which he has made.   You will remember, gentle.
 men, how unwilling the witness was to state what
 time intervened between the fight at his own house,
 and the affray at  the Gait House.   He evaded  the
 question as long as he could, and in every way that
 l)e could; at length, being compelled to answer, he
 said the time was about half an hour. In making this
 statement, the witness plainly acted in obedience to
 a corrupt moiive,he had heard counsel and others say
 something about time enough intervening  between
 fighting and killing, to  allow the blood io coot and
 the passions to subside; he thought that if he  could
 make it appear  that he and his  party  weni to take
 revenge before the passions had time to cool, that
 then he would be excused  for the violation of law
 which  he committed.   But what  says Redman,
 Montgomery and others, who are witnesses for the
 Commonwealth?  Why, they all say, that the fight at
 Redding's took place between three and four o'clock,
 and Everett, another  witness  for  the  Common-
 wealth, states that it was six o'clock, and after,
 when the affray at the Gait House took place. Thus,
 does the witness stand falsified upon another impor-
 tant part of his testimony, and under the influence
 of motives that cannot be  misunderstood.  Having
placed him in such an aitituoe, I have noi thought it
necessary to combo t any thing more that he has said;
before I dismiss him, however, I will take a  little
further notice of him.  Bear in mind,  gentlemen,
that this witness is the life and soul of this prosecu-
tion, that ii was he who marshalled his forces, and
brought on the battle, after which he was seen  no
more  till the battle was over.   He no ?.ooner saw
the fight begin than he called reflection to  his aid;
he discovered, all  at once,  that "discretion  was the
better part of valor;" and,  agreeing with the  poet,
he said to himself,—
      "He who is in battle slain,
      Will never rise to fight again;
      But he who fights and runs away,
      May live to fight another day."
  So, off he moves, gets out of the way of danger,
and no witness who  has testified,  knows where he
was, until all danger tiad passed.  So much for Jno.
W. Redding, the most important  witness on the
part of the Commonwealth, whose testimony  Tarn
sure you will cast to the winds as utterly unworthy
of the slightest degree of credit.
  The next witness for  the prosecution, deemed by
the counsel as of any value, is the celebrated  Wil-
liam Johnson. The witness's proven to be one of the
conspirators, and whose feelings must be uresumed
to be against the accused.   He is a butcher by trade,
and, in his testimony, has dealt so much in techni-
calities, that he has surprised us all.  Enough has
been shown by his manner and language to demon-
strate his total unworthiness.   This is the witness 
'57)
who thinks that simultaneous blows were given by
Murdaugh and Meeks; and he stands  contradicted
by the whole of the witnesses on the same side; this
is the witness who thinks that Murdaugh returned
the blows which he received from Meeks and from
Rothwell, although it is admitted that  Murdaugh
had nothing with which such blows could have been
returned.  It is true that a  knife is proven to have
been in one of his hands, and with this knife he in-
flicted upon Meeks,  no doubt, the  mortal wound  i
which caused  his death; and in doing this, he did
nothing more than he was justified in doing, as well
by  natural as by municipal law. He did not retreat,  \
because it is in proof that he already stood with  his
back against a counter: he did not retreat, because
the blows  came  so  fiercely upon him,  that  delay
might have cost him his life; he did not retreat, be-
cause he was in a Hotel as a boarder, the proprietors
of  which were bound to protect him, as much as he
might have protected himself in his own house, and
in truth, he was  substantially in  his own house in
the eye of the law, at full liberty  to defend himself
against  the felonious attack  of  all the world.   If
 these things be true, and they are all  proven before
 you, then Murdaugh's  case  stands protected and
fortified  by all those exceptions against the necessity
 of  retreating  which I have already brought to your
 view from high authorities.   But even if the testi-
 mony for the Commonwealth had not  made out the
 points which I have here stated; the evidence on  the
 part of the accused would far  more than supply the
 deficiency.   Raily,  Pearson, Brown, Sutherland,
 Chambers, and many others, all state that they saw
 Meeks strike Murdaugh twice with a cow-hide,  and
 most of them state  that they saw Rothwell strike
 twice with a stick, and  surely this is enough to put
 to flight all doubts which Johnson's statement may
 have= caused.   In  such  a  situation,  what was
 Murdaugh to do?   The counsel  on the other side
 will tell you, perhaps, that Murdaugh ought  to have
 opposed as much force as might be necessary to  pre-
 vent  the contemplated  injury.   Gentlemen of the
 Jury, Murdaugh is a man weighing rather more
 than an hundred pounds, and Rothwell  is proven
 to have weighed more than one hundred and eighty
  pounds, whilst  Meeks  is admitted to have been a
  much larger.man than Murdaugh;  and now  I  will
  ask you to tell me what degree of force could Mur-
  daugh have applied, short of death,  to prevent the
 contemplated injury?  He could apply none, as  eve-
  ry one must admit.  What then  ought to have been
  done?  Would you have him stand  and receive in
  humble  submission,  the  disgraceful  infliction  of
  stripes  with a  whip?  No, gentlemen, when  such
  an exigency arises,  a Jury of Kentucky  will Dot
  stop to  enquire into the provisions of law, they  will,
  with one voice, command the assaulted man to pre-
                             8
serve his honor and his character, by slaying, if ne-
cessary, him who seeks to degrade him.  Gentlemen,
the best way to test this thing, is to put yourselves
in Murdaugh's place,, and decide, each  of you  for
yourself, what you would do: and as you would an-
swer for yourself, so you will answer for Murdaugh
Imagine to yourselves a son who should submit to
be publicly horsewhipped and then  return  to you
and make an humble complaint against the  wrong
doer, how would you receive him?  I know  that  I
speak as  well the sentiments of the father  as  the
mother, when I say that such a son  would find no
favor at home from father, mother, brother nor sister.
His disgrace would  be eternal, he would be loathed
and scorned by his fellow men, and a foot ball to all
who might choose to make him so.  Murdaugh vio-
lated no law, he was assailed by a lawless band, he
had already a counter at his back and could  retreat
no further, and he was in his own house, his castle
of defence.  In this situation he relieved himself by
slaying his enemy.  The alternative was kill or be
killed; he chose to kill, and  in that choice he stands
justified by every  principle of divine,  natural, and
 municipal law.  The witness, Johnson, also states
 that he saw Judge Wilkinson stab Meeks, and in this
 he stands unsupported by every other witness  in
 the cause.  The whole testimony shows that whilst
 Murdaugh stabbed  Meeks in one part of the room,
 Judge Wilkinson was in another part of the room,
 and could not have given the stab of which Johnson
 speaks.  Let  this  witness then be viewed in his
 manner, his conduct, and his position  as one of the
 lawless band; and I take it for granted that you will
 consider him as entitled to no credit whatever: be-
 sides all  this,  he stands contradicted by  Nathaniel
 Jackson, who states that he saw Meeks, Redding,
 and Johnson, together in Redding's coffee house  on
 the evening,  (before this affray at the Gait House
 took place,) which statement is denied by Johnson,
 and the motive of denial is too plain to be concealed.
 Jackson stands as fair as any witness  ever did, anil
 can have no possible motive for stating any ihingr
 but the truth.  So much for Johnson and his testi-
  mony; let him then sink into everlasting oblivion
  The next witness whom I shall notice is Henry Old-
  ham, another of the conspirators,'whose testimony
  is stamped with  falsehood upon every part of it.
  He states that he happened accidentally at  the Gait
  House that evening; that he knew nothing of any
  contemplated affray; and that he was armed with a
  pair of pistols and a Bowie knife; that whilst in  the
  passage, some body cut his arm with a knife, that it
  was too  dark to distinguish clearly, but he thinks
  that the person who cut him was Doct. Wilkinson,
  who held in his hand a white handled knife; that  no-
  thing else occurred to him, and that when Murdaugh
  or Judge Wilkinson was t?oing up stairs, he, (the \vj>. 
(58)
ness) deliberately pulled out a pistol, loaded with a
ball, which was cut into three pieces,  and fired  at
the person going up stairs; and Everett, as well  as
other witnesses  prove, that two holes were after-
wards found at the  head of the stairs,  in the door-
case, in the direction which he fired.  Now, gentle-
men, I ask you to look at this testimony, and reflect
upon it, and when you have done so, tell me what you
think of an individual who boldly acknowledges be-
fore a court and jury,  that he  went  to the  Gait
House on the evening of the affray, a.med, as I  have
stated, without a motive, and that he endeavored  to
take the life of an honorable man who  had done
him no wrong, by firing a loaded pistol deliberately
at him.  Tell me,  gentlemen,  what you  think of
such an animal?  For, really, I cannot  class  him
with human beings. The witness who will make such
an  acknowledgement, would not hesitate to swear
to any thing which might, in his judgment, induce
you to find a verdict of guilty, and I feel well assur-
ed., that his whole statement will be disregarded by
you.
  The witnesses, Craig and Redman, who have  been
examined by the Commonwealth, are proven to  be
the workmen  of Redding, and at the time of the
affray at Redding's house, were living with him.  I
take it for granted that, even if their testimony was
material,  you would  consider, and  decide upon it
with great care and caution; neither of them, howe-
ver, has  said any thing  worthy of notice, and I
therefore, pass them over.   Thomas A.  McGrath.
also, has been examined on the part of the Common-
wealth.  This witness is of very high respectability,
and has made his statement, I have no doubt,  with
strict regard to truth.  His statement, when  exa-
mined,  will be found very beneficial to the accused.
He proves the abusive language used by Redding to
Judge Wilkinson, and which was soon followed by
a general fight.  This abusive language, on the part
of Redding, was, no doubt, agreed upon by  the con-
spirators, as a signal,  when the attack  was to be
made, and we accordingly  find that an attack upon
Murdaugh was made nearly about the time of this
abuse of the Judge by Redding. But, gentlemen, I do
not mean to make any further remark upon the testi-
mony of McGrath;  I know him well; I am satisfied
that he is entitled to the highest credit; I hope, there-
fore, that you will believe  every word that he has
said, and when you look at his statement, you will
find that he has said much more in favor  of the ac-
cused,  than against them.  As to  the remaining
witnesses, examined  on the part of  the prosecu-
tion,  I deem  it  unnecessary to  consume  your
time in noticing what  they have said;  not, in-
deed, because they are not  entitled, (many  of
them,) to high credit, but because they have not said
any thing  which materially affects the  case, either
on the one side, or the other.  The seeming discre-
pancy between the statements of most  of the wit-
nesses, and the statements of Robert Pope, and Da-
niel Trabue, will be examined when I come  to the
case of Judge Wilkinson; and you will then see that
in truth the difference between the witnesses, is easi-
ly explained and reconciled.
  I come now to the case of Doctor Wilkinson, who
really is presented before you under vory extraordi-
nary circumstances.  He has been  arraigned  before
this court, gentlemen, upon two bills of indictment,
found against him for murder, by  a Grand Jury of
Jefferson county;  and I am justified in saying that
this finding on the part of the Jefferson Grand Jury
was without any evidence whatever, and as I am in-
formed, without even the statement which has been
made to you by the witness, Henry Oldham.  It was
this most extraordinary finding,  gentlemen, that
caused you  to be troubled with this cause, and by
looking well at this fact, together with other things
which have come to your knowledge, you will  be
able to decide how far we have acted prudently, in
taking the case out of the hands of a Louisville Jury.
Conviction, We did not fear,  but a  divided Jury was
what we deprecated.   The testimony against Doot.
Wilkinson, which has been given before  you, is not
entitled to a moment's consideration.  It is given
by Oldham, who, from his own showing, is entitled
to no credit, and  who unblushingly states that he
aimed a  deliberate shot at an unoffending individual.
Why, Gentlemen, such a man deserved to be cut
down by all  who came near him; for, according to
his own account of himself, he was an enemy to the
human race, and went to the Gait House armed, pre-
pared to kill whomsoever he might choose. But
even this witness, bad as he is, does not state posi-
tively that he was cut by Doct. Wilkinson; at first,
he stated that the passage was so dark that he could
not 'distinguish who it was; but, being more closely
examined by the counsel for the prosecution, he
took the track very kindly, and was not only able to
distinguish  features,  but was also able to discover
that the man held in his hand a knife, with a white
handle, although the handle of the  knife must have
been covered by the hand that held it; and the whole
testimony, as to time, must convince you that it was
nearly dark. But the most remarkable fact about
this witness  is, that no body has proven where he
was cut, of what character the wound was, nor whe-
ther blood was drawn, or not.  Certain it is, that he
appeared before the examining Court  in Louisville,
two days after he states the cut to have been receiv-
ed by him, as a witness, apparently as well as any
body, and never pretended to exhibit the wound.   I
dismiss him, without further comment, at this stage
of the argument; intending to take further notice of
him by  and  by,  when  I shall come to speak more
fully than I  have dpne, of the conspiracy that wai 
(59)
formed by this band of lawless men.   As no other
witness has said one word to inculpate Doct. Wilkin-
son; as all have proven how badly and how  cause-
lessly he was beaten; I cannot think it necessary to
say one word more in his defence.  There cannot be
a living man, who will doubt his perfect innocence.
  Having disposed of the cases  of Murdaugh and
Doctor Wilkinson, I now come to the case of Judge
Wilkinson,  and candor requires me to say, that it
differs somewhat from the other two.   It involves
new principles of law, and though these principles
are somewhat different  from those on which I have
heretofore relied, yet, they are not more  difficult to
understand, explain, and apply.   The case of Judge
Wilkinson, as one of the individuals against whom
the conspirators proceeded with  their unlawful de-
sign, is controlled  and governed  by the same  law
which control and govern the cases of Murdaugh
and his brother, in its general aspect; but has a new
and additional feature, not to be found in the other
cases, and which new feature, involves the enquiry,
how far third persons are  authorized to interfere to
prevent a felony.  The Attorney  for the Common-
wealth has read to you from Foster, authority, show-
ing, as he contends, in what degrees of natural  and
artificial relations in life, third  persons may inter-
fere, and he quotes the only  passage to be found in
the book directly upon the point.  That  passage de-
clares that  third  persons may interfere to prevent
the killing,of those who bear the relations to each
other of husband and wife, father and son, and ser-
vant and master; and these being all the degrees of
relationship  Which are given by the  author,  it is
contended by the Attorney, that  no others are allow-
able. Upon this point I join issue with  my worthy
adversary.
   To the authority itself,  I yield all the obligation
that can be desired; the difference between the Attor-
ney and myself, is this; he contends that the cases
put by Foster are a limitation of the principle, whilst
I insist that they are given by way of illustration of
the principle. I contend that those cases belong to
a numerous class  of cases, of which,  the cases put
by Foster are but examples.  Why should not the
brother be permitted to save  the life of his brother,
against an attempt to kill him, as well as that, the
6on may save the life of his  father, or the husband
the wife, or the servant the master?  Does not the
same reasoning apply?  In a diminished degree, I
admit,  but is it not the same principle, resting upon
the same reasoning, and  springing from the same
feeling?  Surely these views are sound, and when
the authority is well examined,  in connection with
 the context, I think  that but one opinion ought to
prevail.  If I am  wrong in this view,  gentlemen,
then I must say that the interpretation given to this
authority, by the  Attorney for the Commonwealth,
will prove in its practical operation, that such a law
is against public opinion, and the laws of nature, and
consequently, cannot and ought not to be enforced. Is
it seriously contended, gentlemen of the jury, that a
brother must stand by, and witness a ruffian attack
upon his brother and do nothing to relieve him? Must
a brother permit his brother to be killed, when he has
it amply in his power to prevent it?   Shall a brother
hesitate to take the life of one, who makes an unpro-
voked, and felonious attack upon his brother?  God
forbid that a jury of our country  should ever be
found, willing  to render a verdict of guilty against a
brother, who kills the violent assailant of a brother,
under circumstances  portending death, or great bo-
dily harm to such brother.  I cannot agree,  gentle-
men, that such is the law, and if I could so agree, I
should not hesitate to denounce such doctrines, and
implore you to do  the same  thing;  rather  then
break down the walls of society, and scatter to the
winds the cement which binds us together.  But, if
there were doubts upon this subject, the authority
before read to  you from Lord Hale, will put to flight
those doubts; for, in that case, a stranger is autho-
rized and justified in killing one who attempts to
commit a felony upon a stranger; and the reasoning
is, that since the Commonwealth must lose one of
her citizens, it is better to lose the bad citizen than
the good  one;  for, the felonious attack, proves the
one to be bad,  whilst the other  must be considered
as a good citizen. With this exposition of the law,
let us enquire into the case of Judge Wilkinson, who
stands indicted for the killing  of Rothwell, and I
think you will agree with me in saying that he stands
justified or excused,  by every  principle of natural
and municipal law: and here, gentlemen, I shall as-
sume,, as true, what I shall presently  demonstrate
by the evidence; that Judge Wilkinson, whilst in
the bar-room of the Hotel at which he was boarding,
found himself in the same room with a band of law-
less conspirators, who had associated themselves to-
gether for the purpose of seeking out  himself and,
his companions,  Murdaugh and Doctor Wilkinson,
and after finding them, to degrade and disgrace them
by a public horsewhipping,  and in the  event  of re-
 sistance, to take their lives, with weapons which
 they carried with them for the purpose, and in con-
 templation of  that resistance, which they expected to
 find.  Gentlemen of the Jury, I have now reached
 the point, at which  I  consider the  most important
 developements in this whole transaction are to be
 made, as far as they can be made, by a  comparison
 of the law and the evidence, one with  the  other: I
 have reached a point in the argument, where I shall
 endeavor to unveil to you, from the evidence, one of
 the  boldest combinations of lawless men, for the
 purpose of uprooting all the great principles of soci-
 ety, that ever attempted to execute their plans iu 
(60j
 the face of any civilized community and from the con-
 summation of which, they were prevented only by
 the firm and chivalric spirit which animated and sus-
 tained the accused in then ^termination of self-
 defence.  In forming their plans,  the conspirators
 acted with great caution, they were very sensible of
 the outrage which they had determined to perpetrate,
 and evidently feared the consequences which might
 arise, and  they prepared themselves with deadly
 weapons to rush into extremes.  They formed a
 combination, consisting of seven men, most of whom
 are distinguished for their athletic power.  These
 seven men we have identified with the conspiracy,
 by testimony not to  be questioned.  Their names
 are,  John W. Redding, William Johnson, Meeks,
 Marshall  Halbert, Henry Oldham, Bill Holmes and
 John Rothwell; four of whom have been proven to
 be very stout ahd powerful men.  Their object was
 to attack, beat,  disgrace or kill, the three weak and
 feeble men who stand indicted before you, and whose
 strength you can now judge of by your own view.
 The history is this—Redding supposed, by an affray
 which had taken place at his shop, between three and
 four o'clock of  Saturday, the  15th December last,
 that he had been injured and aggrieved; whether  he
 judged rightly or not, I shall not pretend to decide,
 because for this supposed wrong, he has indicted the
 accused in a separate proceeding,and instituted a civil
 action to recover damages; these indictments, and
 civil suits are now depending and undetermined, and
 have no connection whatever,  with the caso before
 you.  After the supposed injury at his shop had ta-
 ken  place, Redding called around him his advisers,
 and after consultation,  it was determined  that Bill
 Holmes, and others, should  be applied to,  that a
 strong band of desperadoes Bhould  be formed, and
 that they would proceed to the  Gait House that
 night, and take revenge of  the "Mississippians,"
 to use the language of some of the witnesses. They,
 accordingly met at the Gait House just before dark,
 and  proceeded  to execute their unlawful  design; in
 what way, and  with what success, you are informed
 by the testimoViy.  But it may be said, that I have
 stated the conspiracy,  withont proving  the  facts:
 Gentlemen, I know  I have, but I mean to take up
 the testimony, and prove that <what I have stated is
 true; and, in doing this, I shall consume as little of
  your time as possible, because I feel very sure that
t 3rou see this branch of  the cause in the same aspect
  that I  do.
  The first witness to wiiose statement upon  this
point I shall call your attention  is that of Nathaniel
Jackson.  He states that he was passing by Red-
ding's shop soon after the fight there, and that the
loud talking inside of the house induced him to go
in and see what  was the matter.  I'pon entering the
house, amongst other? who were there, he found the
unfortunate Monks, Johnson and Redding.  Propo-
sitions to recruit and enlist men to do the very thing
attempted, were made by Johnson  ahd  Meeks  to
Redding, in presence of the witness, which was not
agreed upon  whilst the witness remained in the
house, but he left them in the house talking the mat-
ter over.  In the course of the same evening the wit-
ness met William Johnson on the street, when John-
son unhesitatingly proposed to the witness  that he
should join a party who were going to the Gait House
that night to.see Redding righted.  The witness de-
clined it, and with other things said that he belonged
to the church, and such conduct would not be pro-
per in him; whereupon Johnson said, "Church, Hell
or Heaven," he ought to go. The witness and John-
son separated at thispbint.  Jackson also states that
whilst he was at Redding's shop, William Johnson
said  to those around him "if Jack (meaning John W.
Redding) will only say the word, we will go and get
Bill Holmes and others, and give them Hell," mean-
ing the accused.  This is the first link in one chain
of testimony upon the formation of the conspiracy,
and  I beg gentlemen that you will bear it in mind.
Our  next witness is E. R. Deering,  who states that
in the evening of the day before the meeting at the
Gait House he met  with William  Johnson at the
end of the market house and Johnson either propos-
ed to the witness "to go along with the party, or that
he was going after Bill Holmes and others to go to
the Gait House."   No matter which, either will an-
swer my  purpose.  The witness said to  Johnson
that if the Mississippians had heard of their design,
they would be gone before the party could get to the
Gait House; whereupon Johnson replied thaf'enough
were already gone to  the Gait  House to take care
of the Mississippians, and that if they attempted to
go away, their hides would not hold shucks."  The
witness then separated from Johnson. This is the
second link in a chain of testimony upon this point.
Our next and last witness upon this point is Alfred
Harris; he states that, "in  the  course of the same
evening, Johnson applied to him to make one of the
party who were going to the Gait House to see Red-
ding righted."  Redding himself acknowledges that
he had gone.to the jail that night just before  dark,
and as he returned, he called at John Rothwell's,
and procured Rothwell to go with him to the Gait
 House, and that they did go there  together.  Now
 gentlemen I ask you to put these facts together, and
 decide for yourselves whether this man William
 Johnson was not the active man who, (under a pre-
 vious arrangement no doubt) was busily  engaged in
 getting as many individuals to engage in this law-
 less and bloody affair as he could procure? Continue
 your view, and  see  who were at the Gait House.
 Why, you will find the very nanie= that I have men-
 tioned nil ready to do the  ble»ody work.   Are von 
(to)
riot satisfied gentlemen that Johnson and Redding
succeeded in enlisting these men, for the very pur-
pose which I have  mentioned, and have I  not re-
deemed my promise, to make good the  statement I
made from the testimony?  But these  conspirators
seem to think that they w6uld be able to deceive the
public  by proving, as they have proven, that they
arrived at the Gait Hou ■* separately and at differ-
ent  times, and by  different routes.  Wh/, gentle-
men, this is precisely what they  would do under
such circumstances, and the fact of their seizing upon
this point is proof that they had Tooked at it before,
and that they meant to use it if necessary, upon any
trial that might t ike place.  It  is the very  thing
which satisfies my mind that ail things had been
talked in due season, and this arrangement had been
agreed upon between  them for the very purpose
which they now attempted to use it. They no doubt
agreed to meet  at the Gait House by a particular
hour, but that they must go  separately at different
times, and by different streets, so as to  keep down
suspicion; but they did not succeed even in this, for
their own witness (Everett)  a very observing and
intelligent man, and one of the occupiers of the Gait
House tells you amongst other things that as soon
as he saw these strange faces at the Gait House in
such numbers,  be became alarmed, and knew that
something rash would happen; and further  states
that, "he was satisfied that if the affair at Redding's
 had not taken place, the men whose presence alarm-
 ed him would not have been there."  Now gentle-
 men look at these words, and  the  witnp-s from
 whom they came.   The witness is an intelligent
'and honorable man, and he appears for the prosecu-
 tion.* From his own statement, what was his opin-
 ion of what he saw at the time he was looking at
 these  men?  Why,  clearly and  obviously that  he
 believed these  men  had assembled the.mselves toJ
 gether at the Gait House to beat and take revenge
 for what had happened at Redding's shop.  He saw
 it in  their very' look, manner, and language, and
 this cannot be doubted. Well, gentlemen, if Everett
 saw this by merc'.y looking at the men, could not
 the accused also see the same things?  And if they
 did, ought they hot to put themselves  in a proper
 attitude of defence?   Surely  you will agree  with
 me in saying they  ought, and accordingly when
 Judge Wilkinson came down stairs after having left
 the bar-room, he brought with him an  efficient weap-
  on of defence.  We have had much difficulty in prov-
 ing what arms these conspirators had  with  them,
  and,  all things considered, it is wonderful that  we
  have been able to prove so much on that point; yet
  we have proven  that Redding had a bowie or dirk
  knife, which he  borrowed  that evening from Mr.
  Fulton.  W e have also proven that Oldham  had a
  pair of pistols and a bowir knife: and we have proven
that nearly all had knives .and whips,' and that one
of them had a sword cane.  Thus gentlemen have I
shown to you that this unlawful combination was
deliberately formed, and that they proceeded to exe-
cute their unlawful purpose with malice aforethought;
though, according to law, it would be entirely im-
material  whether the conspiracy was entered into,
before or after they arrived at the Gait House. Their
guilt is as bad in one case as the orther.  I will now
return to the point from  which I digressed in order
to prove  the conspiracy.  Judge Wilkinson found
himself and his comrades  in the same room with
seven strong stout men, who, he could not doubt,
had come there  to beat, disgrace, and  kill himself
and his companions, and perilous as was his situa-
tion,  he remained in a cool, collepted state of mind
and feeling. To use the language  of one witness,
he looked like a  philosopher.  He had been grossly
abused by Redding, but  all he said was, keep your
hands off me, or I will kill you.  He remained in the
room whilst blood and death were dealing out around
him.   One man was already dead, and his eye was
 attracted to a part of the room where some man
 was  down and several  large men beating him, a-
 mongst  whom  was the  unfortunate Rothwell.  He
 soon discovered that the man who was  down was
 his brother, and his death seemed inevitable.  In a
 situation so full of difficulty what was Judge Wilk-
 inson to do? He himself was wounded in the shoul-
 der and scarcely able to  continue the fight.  But
 what was he to do?  Must he look on and see his
 brother beaten to death, or  must he interfere, and
 save him by using the weapon which he held in his
 hand.   Say, gentlemen, what was he to do?  What
 would you and each of  you have done, if placed in
 the same situation?  Gentlemen,  I know what you
 would have done, because I know what you ought
 io have done; you would have done as Judge Wilk-
 inson did, slay the man who was feloniously engag-
 ed  in slaying your brother.  This is what every
 brave and gallant tnan  ought to do under such cir-
  cumstances, and  his justification will be  found in
  the  law of nature, in the case from Hale, as well as
  the  general principles of municipal law, as already
  stated, in the approbation of his own conscienceand
  in the plaudits of mankind, in  every civilized com-
  munity.  I am now very nearly done with  the evi-
  dence; but the testimony of Daniel Trabue and Ro-
  bert Pope, very respectable gentlemen, and  witness-
  es for the Commonwealth,.differing somewhat from
  others  in relation to the place in the room where
  Rothwell was stabbed. I think it proper to make a
  single remark upon their statements, merely to show
  that the fsct is not material, be it one way or the
  other.  These witnesses state that they saw Judge
  Wilkinson !=tab Rothwell  in a place in the room
  different  from that stated by  the other witnesses* 
(63)
be it so, but remember that General Chambers states
that when the attack was made on Doctor Wilkin-
son, the fighting went around the room until Doc-
tor Wilkinson fell in a particular corner, and there-
fore it is not material at what place in the room the
fatal stab was given, so that it was given whilst the
Doctor was suffering a course of alarming and ap-
parently  felonious beating.   But  these witnesses
must be mistaken, because General Chambers who
was a very deliberate observer, and has given his
testimony with great clearness and composure, says
that he saw Rothwell beating Doctor Wilkinson at
the time with a large stick, that the stick had some-
what lost the firm grip of his hand, and whilst he
was adjusting it, in order to recover his grip, and
aim a more efficient blow, Judge Wilkinson gave
him his stabs, which perhaps caused his death, ac-
cording  to the opinions of some, but according to
the opinions of Doctors Knight and  McDowell did
not cause the death of Rothwell, but that his death
was produced by a small wound in the breast, which
penetrated the lungs, and which was given by an
instrument very different from the bowie knife held
by Judge Wilkinson.  These two doctors were call-
ed on after death to make post mortem examination.
Besides, the  whole  current  of testimony sustains
General Chambers in his  statement, and therefore
his statement ought  to preponderate.
  Gentlemen of the Jury, I am approaching the close
of my argument, and shall have but  little  occasion
to refer again to  the testimony.  If Judge Wilkin-
son  had  not  relieved  his brother  as  he  did,
better would it have been for him, if he never had
been born.  He could not again have looked society
in the face, nor would he afterwards have received
the countenance of any  honorable man.  In this
country public opinion controls and governs the con-
duct of all men,  and we are  forced to act in obedi-
ence to it, whatever law to the  contrary may exist.
We wish not only to acquit these honorable  men,
but we wish, by the aid of your  verdict, to return
them to their state and to their friends brightened
by  the  severe crucible through  which they shall
have passed: we wish them to carry back with them
the pure and spotless characters by which their in-
tegrity and morality were shielded when they left
their homes in December last.
   To John W. Redding may be ascribed the bloody
tragedy which has  been discussed; to him belongs
the death of Rothwell and of Meeks,  and if he is a
man of feeling, the residue of his days will be dark
and gloomy.  The  ghost of Banquo did not  more
terribly haunt the imagination of Macbeth, than will
the ghost of Rothwell haunt and follow him through
the remaining part of his life; nor will he be able to
say to the bloody ghost of Rothwell what Macbeth
eaid to the bloody ghost of Banquo, "You cannot
Bhakeyour gory looks at me, you cannot say 'twas
I that did it."   The ghost of Rothwell will shake
its gory locks at him, and will say that, though you
did not do it with your own hands, you caused it to
be done by the hands of others.  Upon Redding's
head rests the blood of the murdered Meeks and
Rothwell, and  the water of oceans will  never  bo
able  to wash out the deadly stain: let him  repose
under this mighty weight, with the best grace that
he can; I shall  never again disturb him with its re-
cital.
  Gentlemen of the jury, I have endeavored to show
to you that this unlawful attack upon the  accused,
made by  the conspirators at the G^lt House on the
night of the 15th December  last,  was the fruit of a
deliberate and malicious combination formed for the
purpose, some three or four hours before it was at-
tempted to be  executed, and if I  have succeeded in
this, then I ask you to apply the law which I have
already read from the highest authority.  This law
declares that, an attack made by one of an unlawful
combination of many, is an attack by all, and that
if any one be killed, that all who were combined,
though some might be in another room of  the same
house, shall be  equally guilty of murder; and conse-
quently if one or more of the conspirators be killed,
such killing shall be excusable according to English
law, and justifiable as I conceive, according to the
proviso from the law of  Kentucky, which  I have
also read to you. Nor is this the only view which
you are to take of this branch of the subject. The
attack of one of the unlawful combination being an
attack by all, it follows  irresistably that all of those
who shall be attacked, may resist it at the moment
the attack is made; and that therefore, as soon  as
Murdaugh and  Doctor  Wilkinson were assaulted.
Judge Wilkinson, though he himself might not have
been struck, might interfere, and prevent  the felo-
ny which was contemplated,  by killing such of the
conspirators as were engaged in the unequal combat.
This is the law according to the authorities read,
and that  Murdaugh and  Doctor Wilkinson were
violently  assaulted  in the beginning of the  affray,
is clearly proven to you by  the  Commonwealth's
own testimony.  But Judge Wilkinson had also
been attacked before he gave the mortal wound  to
Rothwell, for it is proven by  the testimony that he
had a wound in the shoulder two and half  inches
long and  of dangerous  direction, and therefore he
was doubly justified in killing those who were en-
gaged in this violent and unlawful combination.
  It is due to the accused, gentlemen of the jury,
that I should say something more of them before I
close.  I have  known  these gentlemen and their
fathers before them, almost from their infancy.  I
knew them in our mother state, Virginia.   They
grew up into manhood without a blemish upon their 
(63)
 characters; they carried with them to their adopted
 state, (Mississippi) the fairest and best reputations,
 and they have maintained their standing there with-
 out a blemish as you are told by the testimony.  A
 regard for peace,  a profound respect for the laws,
 a determination to conduct themselves towards all
 as  good members  of society should  do, seem to be
 traits of  character strongly  stamped upon their
 whole course of life, as  the best members of society
 could desire.  To believe, therefore, with all  this
 evidence of good character and moral  integrity be-
 fore us, that they would wantonly have attacked  a
 set of strangers whom  they never had seen before,
 would be to reverse the qualities of all human nature;
 and knowing them as well as I do, I would not be-
 lieve it, though witnesses from heaven should come
 and testify to the facts.  But the facts proven even
 by  mortals, do not show  them guilty of any thing
 but a determination  to defend themselves.   Judge
 Wilkinson had  come to Kentucky at the time tor
 the purpose of'executing and consummating the
 most important and holy contract which man can
 enter into.  On the Tuesday of this bloody tragedy,
 he  was to take to his bosom as his wife, one of the
 most lovely girls of Kentucky; and all the consider-
 ations which spring from such a prospect  naturally
 prompted  him to avoid all personal dangers.  His
 natural disposition and his delicate situation at the
 time, united in keeping him thoughtful of his own
 safety; and it would be one of the most violent of
 all  presumptions to suppose that at such a time and
 under such circumstances,  he would be found vio-
 lating the law,  and hazarding his own existence.—
 No, gentlemen, such an opinion cannot for a moment
 be entertained; necessity alone prompted him to ac-
 tion, and however tragical may have been the con-
 sequences, that necessity is the only thing which he
 deplores.   A necessity forced upon him by  a band
 of violent, athletic and lawless men, who  sought
 him in his own house, to degrade and disgrace him
 by  public chastisement.  There is no part  of the
 United States where a man would be punished for
 such conduct, and  least of all, is it to be expected at
the hands  of a  Kentucky jury, composed of men
whose fathers fought, themselves, into their homes,
 and were distinguished by a spirit of chivalry which
enabled them to subdue every foe,  and surmount
every danger.  With you, the descendants  of such
gallant sires, may safely be entrusted, this, and every
other cause, which  involves the sacred principles of
 honor.
  Before I take my seat, I beg leave to say one word
 to the distinguished gentleman who has  been em-
 ployed to aid in this prosecution.   I regret, most
 sincerely regret, to see the practice of hired counsel,
 in criminal cases, gaining ground in this common-
wealth. Under its influence the heart becomes cor-
roded and steeled against all the sympathies of our
nature.  The learned gentleman who is aiding in
this prosecution, is to receive one thousand dollars
for his services, and from the very nature of his bar-
gain, as it has been proven, he must have undertaken
to convict, if he can, Whether the accused be innocent
or guilty.  Three times  have  we met him; first at
the examining court, next at the circuit court of
Jefferson, and  now before this court.   Here the ge-
nerous and gallant Hector takes his last, his final
stand, and his fate is, victory or death.  Three times
has he been  pursued  around the walls of Troy, and
as he cannot now speak  for himself, I will speak for
him, and will use his own words:
   Too long,  oh son of Peleus, Troy has viewed,
   Her walls thrice circled, and her chief pursued.
   But now, some god within me, bids me  try
   Thine or my fate, I kill thee, or I die.
   Come then, the glorious conflict let us try,
   Let the steel sparkle, and the javelin fly.
   But the gentleman will  probably  say that  the
beautiful quotation which  I  have  made from the
still more beautiful Illiad, is neither an apt, nor an
appropriate illustration, since, in the combat between
Hector and  Achilles, Hector  was vanquished and
slain: in answer to which I say, that, in these an-
cient days, the Gods were supposed to hold in their
hands the fate of men and of nations, and that they
invariably  decided according to the  principles of
right and justice: in more modern times,  gentlemen
of the jury, you have been substituted for the gods;
you hold in your hands the fate of my gallant and
much  injured friends; and, not less just than the
gods, you, too,  will decide according to right and
justice.  Do this, as I know you will, and we shall
be content.
   The distinguished  gentleman, who aids in this
prosecution, has furnished  us with some proof of
the corroding  influence  upon the human heart,
caused by a long indulgence  in prosecution for  al-
ledged crimes:  I am sure that nature gave  him a
kind  and generous disposition, and that he is still
possessed of those amiable qualities.  I do not doubt
but he has so  long lent his aid in prosecutions of
this kind, that he has brqught himself "to look  on
blood and carnage witn composure." He will doubt-
less  make, as he has heretofore made,  a bold and
mighty effort to convict  the accused, though in my
judgment, such  conviction  would be  against both
the law and the evidence.  Neither the shrieks nor
the tears of  the lovely Andromache, nor  the groans
and lamentations of the aged Priam, can stay him in
his fierce pursuit;  the wife and the father sink into
nothingness  when compared with the glittering fe«
that awaits his efforts; he has  bargained  for convic-
tion, and he goes for his bond;  give it to him gentle-
men; tell him to take his  pound of flesh, but tell him 
(tti)
at the same time, that if in cutting it, he spills one
drop of blood, Shylock himself shall be the only vic-
tim of the law.
  You have now heajd this bloody histon-, gentle-
men, in the best form permitted by my feeble health;
and  whether you take  it  into  consideration upon,
the exclusive testimony ©f the  commonwealth; or
whether you view the testimony on both sides, youf >
minds must arrive at the samcconclusion. In either
case, I know that your verdict will he, not guilty.
  Gentlemen of the jury,  in conclusion, I will say
that, if it were necessary, I would invoke the lovely.
beauty by which we'are surrounded,* to aid  me in
a cause sojust and holy; I would ask them  to indi-
cate to you their feelings in favor, (as I know they.
are) of my persecuted and much injured friends; for
after all,  we exercise our energies, and are  stimu-
lated to generous and noble deeds, for the  sake of
woman, and when she  commands, we are bound to
obey: take woman from the world,  and the dark
planet is left, without a sun.
  Gentlemen, I have done; so far as I am concerned
the case is with you; and if law, justice and evidence,
can favor us in  the cause we dread not your verdict,
for we have all on our side.
  * About two hundred ladies were present.
  [An unexpected delay in endeavoring to get the
succeeding speech authenticated,  rendering it ne-
cessary to fill up this half and the next whole co-
lumn, in order to put this form to press,  it is pre-
sumed the following sketches will possess sufficient
interest to render the insertion of them  here excus-
able.
  The Prosecuting  Attorney, Mr. Bullock, who
opened the argument, is  a young man,  not appa-
rently thirty years  of age, and much respected for
his private worth,  as  well as his promising pro-
fessional abilities.  It will be observed in his speech
that he is  more remarkable for a plain and common
sense  method of statement than for any ambitious
^training after display.   The matter  in hand, and
the honest enforcement of the law, as he conceives
its  bearing, principally occupy his thoughts,  and
nerve his discourse.   His manner  is not deficient of
ardour,  but an ill-controlled diffidence,  and some
little affectation to conceal its awkward effects in
delivery, with an occasional hesitation in choosing
an expression exactly suitable to his meaning, too
often check that flow of language which is essential
to graceful oratory.  Considerable allowance, should,
however,  be made for a young lawyer of limited ex
perience  in such weighty causes as that now in pro-
gress, and especially in the presence of distinguished
orators, such  as seldom  can be  congregated on  a
trial of this  kind.
  Col. Robertson is, perhaps, over sixty years of age,
 and but lor the effects of feeble health, would pro-
 bably look muob younger.  His appearance in per-
 son and manners is that of a polished gentleman of
,'the old school, when, amongst the shining lights of
 the Old Dominion, for the Colonel is a native of
 Virginia^ ruffled  shirts, - gold headed canes,  and
 starched frills, so appropriately graced the studied
 suavity of  court manners.  The  Colonel's oratory
 partakes of the same gentlemanly and studied  pro-
 priety,  consequently it savors more* of cold decla-
 mation, than  fervid  eloquence.   But it is by no
 means deficient of flowing language, point, perspi-
 cuity,  and  strength of argument.  In matters  of
 law and research, the Colonel displays considerable
 industry, as it will be observed, that in his speech of
 scarcely an  hour, he touched all the points of argu-
 ment subsequently adverted toby his coadjutors.
   At the conclusion- of Col.  Robertson's  speech,
 which occupied nearly an hour in  the  delivery,-the
 Hon. S S. Prentiss rose, as express-ed  by the wri-
 ter in his correspondence from Harrodsburgh  du-
 ring  the trial, "greeted by aspirations  from  the
 sweetest lips  in  the world—the fair enchantresses
 who hold the magic wand over man's  happiness in
 this sublunary sphere.   He would,  indeed, be less
 than mortal,  if he could plead the cause  of mercy
 before that gallery of lovely beings without impas-
 sioned eloquence; and  gloriously did Mr. Prentiss
 redeem the  anticipations of many  a throbbing bo-
 som in that  galaxy of beauty;  where, to be enshrin-
 ed*nd  cherished, but  for  a  moment, even by the*.
 electric spark  of eloquent  communion, were a  rich
 reward."
   As this passage from the correspondence  alluded
 to,  and th.it  which .follows,  have both  gone the
 rounds of the press, from  one corner of the Union
 to the  other,  it may fairly be inferred the estimate
 given of the 'observed  of all observers,' is appreciat-
 ed as it was meant, and they  may  with propriety b» *
 placed  on permanent record here.
   "Those who have seen and heard Mr. Prentiss,
 will not be easily satisfied with any faint attempt to
 depict his merits.  Those who have not, will hardly
 have their anticipations realised by any thing short
 of the  opportunity of judging for themselves.  I
 must content myself with giving a mere outline of
 my own impressions.  His height  is under the mid-
 dle size, and  person not remarkable for any thing
 particularly striking; and although his countenance
 is pleasing and intellectual, and the formation of his
 head favorable to  the belief that he  possesses a
 phrenological developement of every superior mental
 organ,  yet  wanting that  elevation which  a com-
 manding figure alone can  give, he would probably
 pass without  exciting more than ordinary attention,
 if no occasion  presented itself of calling his power*
 of eloquence  into  action.  When he  speaks, if he
 always speaks as he did yesterday,  it is indeed no 
(63)
wonder if he demonstrates ifl his own person, that
the highest order of human genius, is  that which is
gifted with transcendent eloquence.  He spoke with
all the ardor of unconquerable friendship under va-
ried excitements; and with a depth of feeling  and
power of expression, which it would take eloquence
scarcely less than his own to describe.  When he
spoke of the  undoubting faithfulness with  which
his heart clung  to his friend,  Judge Wilkinson,
through good report and evil report; of the bright
land  which gave them birth; of the beloved State
of their adoption, and of the sad fatality  which
had induced that unhapppy  deed, that placed him
at the bar, a pleader, and his friend before that tri-
bunal as an  imputed  criminal—his  whole  frame
thrilled with an emotion which radiated like animal
magnetism to every bosom in that vast assembly.
Mr. Prentiss's style of oratory appears to me, im-
passioned, glowing, and occasionally highly  figura-
tive; always lofty and refined, yet nervous,  manly
and powerful.  He sometimes sports gracefully  with
sarcasm, but seems to delight more in  the extremes
of eulogy or denunciation than in the consecutive
impressment of argument."
  In three or four minutes after Col. Robertson
bad concluded, the Hon. S. S. Prentiss rose and
addressed the jury as follows:—
  May it please your honor, and you gentlemen
of the jury:—I rise to address you with mingled
feelings of regret and pleasure.
  I regret the occasion which has caused me
thus accidentally and unexpectedly to appear be-
fore you, and has compelled you to abandon, for
a time, the peaceful and quiet avocations of pri-
vate life, for the purpose of performing the most
important  and solemn duty  which, in the rela-
tions of civilized society,  devolves upon the
citizen.
  I regret to behold a valued and cherished
friend passing through one of the  most terrible
ordeals ever invented to try the human feelings
or test the human character;  an ordeal through
which, I do not doubt, he will pass triumphant-
ly and honorably, without leaving one blot or
stain upon the fair fame that has  been so long
his rightful portion; but through which he can-
not pass unscathed in his sensibilities and feel-
ings  The lightning scar will remain upon his
heart; and public justice herself  cannot,  even
though  by acclamation through  your mouths
ghe  proclaims his  innocence, ever heal  the
wounds inflicted by  this fierce and unrelenting
prosecution, urged on as it has been, by the de-
mons of revenge and avarice
  Most of all do I regret the public excitement
which  has prevailed  in relation to those defend-
ants; the uncharitable pre-judgment which has
forestalled the action of law; the inhospitable
prejudice aroused against  them  because they
are strangers, and the attempt which has been,
and is still  making, to mingle with the pure
stream of justice, the  foul, bitter, and turbid
torrent of private vengeance.
  But  I am also gratified; gratified that the per-
secution, under which my friends have labored,
is about to cease; that  their characters as  well
as the cause of public justice, will soon be vin-
dicated;  that the murky cloud  which has en-
veloped them will be dissipated, and the voice
of  slander and prejudice sink into silence before
the clear, stern, truthful response of this solemn
tribunal.     *                    t
   The defendants are particularly fortunate in
being  tried before such a tribunal.  The bear-
ing and character of his  honor  who  presides
with so much dignity, give ample assurance that
the law will be  correctly and impartially laid
down; and,  I trust, I may  be  permitted to re-
mark, that I have never seen a jury in whose
hands I would sooner  entrust the cause of my
clients,  while, at  the  same time,  I  am satis-
fied you will do  full justice to the Common-
wealth.
   I came before  you an utter stranger, and yet
 I feel not  as  a stranger  towards you; I have
watched during the course of the examination
the various emotions which the evidence was so
well calculated to arouse in your bosoms,  both
as  men and as Kentuckians;  and when I beheld
the flush of honorable shame upon your cheeks,
the sparkle of indignation in your eyes, or the
curl of scorn upon your lips,  as the foul con-
spiracy was developed, I felt that years could
not make us better acquainted.  I saw  upon
your  faces the mystic  sign  which constitutes
the bond of union among honest and honorable
men; and I knew that I was about to address
those  whose feelings would respond to my  own.
I rejoiced that my clients were, in the fullest
sense  of the term, to be tried by a jury of their
peers.
   Gentlemen of  the jury, this is a case of no
ordinary character,  and possesses no ordinary
interest.  Three  of the most respectable citizens
of  the State of Mississippi  stand  before you, in- 
(06)
dieted for the crimo of  murder, the  highest of-
fence known to the laws of the land.
  The crime is charged to have been committed
not in your own county but in the city of Lou-
isville, and there the indictment  was found.—
The defendants during the past winter, applied
to the Legislature for a change of venue, and
elected your  county  as  the  place  at  which
they would prefer lo have the question of their
innocence or guilt investigated.
  This course, at first blush, may be calculated
to raise in your minds some unfavorable impres-
sions.  You may naturally  enquire why  it was
taken; why they did not await their trial  in the
county in  which the offence was  charged to
have been committed;  in fine,  why  they came
here?  I  feel  it my  duty  before  entering into
the  merits of this case, to  answer  these ques-
tions, and to obviate such impressions as I have
alluded to, which, without explanation,  might
very naturally exist.
  In  doing  so it will be necessary to advert
briefly to the history of the case.
  My clients have come before you for justice.
They have fled to you, even as to the horns of
the altar, for protection.
  It is not unknown  to you; that upon the oc-
currence of the events, the character of which
you are about to-try,  great tumult  and excite-
ment prevailed in the city  of Louisville.   Pas-
sion and  prejudice  poured  poison into the pub-
lic ear.  Popular feeling was roused  into mad-
ness.   It was with the utmost  difficulty that
the strong arm  of  the constituted authorities,
wienched the  victims from the hands of an infu-
riated mob.  Even the thick walls of the prison
hardly afforded protection to the accused. Crouch-
ed and shivering upon the cold floor oftheir gloo-
my dungeon, they listened to the footsteps of the
gathering crowds; and ever and anon, the win-
ter wind that played melancholy music through
the rusty  grates, was  drowned  by the  fierce
howling ,of the human wolves, who prowled and
bayed around  their place of refuge,  greedy and
thirsting for blood.
  Every  breeze that swept  over the city bore
away  slander and falsehood upon its wings.—
Even the public press, though  I  doubt not un-
wittingly, joined in the work of injustice.   The
misrepresentations  of  the  prosecutor and his
friends became the public history  of the  trans-
action; and from one end of the union to the
other, these defendants were held up to public
 gaze and public execration as foul,  unmanly
 murderers, and  that too before any judicial in-
 vestigation  whatever had occurred, or any op-
 portunity been afforded them for saying a single
 word in their defence.
   I recollect well, when I received the first in-
 formation of the affair.   It was in some respec«
 table newspaper, which professed  to give a full
 account of the transaction, and set forth  with
 horrible  minuteness,  a  column of disgusting
 particulars.
   Instantly, openly, and unhesitatingly, I pro-
 nounced the paragraph false, and tramped it un-
 der my heels: when rumor  seemed to endorse
 and  sustain ihe assertions of the public prints,
 I laughed her to scorn.   I  had known  Judge
 Wilkinson long and well.  I knew him to be in-
 capable of the acts attributed to him, or of  the
 crime  with  which he was charged.   Not an in-
 stant did I falter or waver in my belief.  I hurled
 back the charge  as readily as if it had been
 made against myself.   What!  a  man whom I
 had known for years as the  very soul of honor
and integrity, to be guilty, suddenly and with-
out provocation,  of a base and  cowardly assas-
sination!   One whose whole  course of  life  had
been governed and shaped by the highest moral
principle;  whose feelings were familiar to me;
whose breast over had a window in  it for my in-
spection,and yet had never exhibited a cowardlj
thought or a  dishonorable sentiment; that such
a one,  and at such an era in his life too, should
have  leaped  at a  single  bound the wide gulf
which  separates  vice  from virtue, and  have
plunged at once  into tho  depths of crime  and
infamy!  Why,  it  was too  monstrous for cre-
dence. It was too gross for credulity  itself.
Had  I believed it,  I should have lost all confi-
dence  in  my kind.  I would no  longer  have
trusted myself  in  society where so slender a
barrier divided good from evil.  I should  have
become a man hater, and Timon-like, gone forth
into the desert, that I  might rail with freedom
against my race.   You may judge of my grati-
fication in finding the  real state of  facts in the
case  bo responsive to my own opinion.
  I am told,  gentlemen, that during this popu-
lar excitement, there were some, whose standing
and character might have authorized the expec-
tation  of  a  different  course of conduct,  who
seemed to think  it  not amiss to exert their tal-
ents  and  influence in  aggravating instead of
 assuaging the violent passions of the multitude.
*N- 
(67)
I am told that when the examination took place
before the magistrates, every bad passion, every
ungenerous  prejudice was appealed  to.  The
argument was addressed not to the court, but
to the populace.
   It was said that the unfortunate individuals
who fell  in the affray were mechanics; while the
defendants  were   Mississippians,  aristocratic
slave-holders, who looked upon a poor man as no
better than a negro.  They were called gentle-
men, in derision and  contempt.   Every instance
of violence  which  has occurred  in  Mississippi
for years past was brought up and arrayed with
malignant pleasure, and these defendants made
answerable  for all  the crimes  which, however
much to be regretted, are so common in a new
and rapidly populating  country.  It was this
course  of  conduct  and  this  state  of feeling
which induced the  change  of venue.  I have
made these remarks, because I fear that a simi-
lar spirit still actuates that portion  of this pro-
secution, which is conducted, not by the state,
but private individuals.
   I am  not  aware  that  the Commonwealth of
 Kentucky is incapable of vindicating her viola-
 ted laws or unwilling to prosecute  and punish
the perpetrators of crime.  The district attor-
ney has  given ample proof that  she is provided
.with  officers  fully  capable   of  asserting  her
 rights and protecting her citizens; and with the
 exception of one  or two remarks, which  fell
 from him inadvertently, I accord to his observa-
 tions my most unqualified  approbation: he has
 done equal  justice to the state and the  defend-
 ants; he has acquitted himself ably, honorably,
 and impartially.   But,  gentlemen, though  the
 state is  satisfied,  the prosecutor is not.  Your
 laws have  spoken  through   their  constituted
 agent; now private  vengeance  and vindictive
 malice   will claim  to  be heard.  One of the
 ablest lawyers of your country, or of any coun-
 try, has been employed  to conduct the private
part of  this prosecution;  employed, not by the
 commonwealth, but by  the real  murderer;  him
 whose forehead I  intend, before I am done,  to
 brand with the mark of Cain—that in after life
 all may know and all may shun him.  The money
 of the prosecutor has purchased the  talent  of
 the advocate; and  the  contract is,  that blood
 shall be exchanged for gold.   The learned and
 distinguished gentleman to whom I allr-ac, and
 who sits before me, may well excite the appre-
 hension of the most innocent.   If rumor speak
truth, he has character sufficient, even  though
without ability, and ability sufficient, even with-
out character, to crush the victims  of his pur-
chased wrath.
  I said that, with the exception of one or two
remarks, I was pleased with the manly and hon-
orable  course of the  commonwealth's attorney.
Those  remarks seemed to be more in the spirit
of his  colleague  than in accordance with his
own feelings.
  I was sorry to hear him mention so pointedly,
and dwell  so long upon the fact, that the de-
fendants were  Mississippians,  as  if that  con-
stituted an ingredienl in their crime or furnished
a proof of their guilt.  If to be a Mississippian
is an  offence in my clients, I cannot defend
them;  I  am myself particeps criminis.  We are
all guilty; with  malice aforethought,  we have
left our own  bright and beautiful homes, and
sought that land, the name of which  seems to
arouse in the minds of the opposing counsel only
images of horror.  Truly the  learned gentle-
men are mistaken in us; we  are no cannibals,
nor savages.  I would that they would visit us,
and disabuse their minds of  these unkind preju-
dices.   They would find in that far  country
thousands  of their own Kentuckians, who have
cast their lot by the  monarch stream, in the en-
joyment of  whose rich gifts, though they forget
not, they hardly regret the bright river upon
 whose banks they  strayed in childhood.  No
 state has contributed more of her cons to Missis-
 sippi than Kentucky; nor do they suffer by be-
 ing transplanted to that genial soil./ Their na-
 tive stats may well  be proud of them, as  they
 ever are of her.
   But I do injustice to  you and to myself by
 dwelling upon this matter.  Here  in the  heart
 of Kentucky  my clients have sought and ob-
 tained an  unprejudiced, impartial jury.   You
 hold in your hands  the  balance of justice; and
 I ask and expect that you  will not permit the
 prosecution to  cast extraneous  and  improper
 weights into the scale, against the lives of the
 defendants.  You constitute the mirror, whose
 office it is to reflect, in your verdict, the law and
 the evidence which  have been submitted to you.
 Let no foul breath dim its pure surface and cause
 it to render back a  broken and distorted image.
 Through you now  flows the stream  of public
 justice; let it not become turbid by the trampling
 of unholy feet.  Let not  the learned counsel
 who conducts the private part of this  proseeu-
• 
(68)
tion act the necromancer with you, as he did
with the populace in the city of Louisville,when
he raised a tempest which even his own  wizard
hand could not have controled.
  Well may he exclaim, in reference to that act,
like the foul spirit in Manfred:
          I am the rider of the wind,
            The stirrer of the storm;
          The hurricane I left behind
           Is yet with lightning warm.
  Aye, so it is stilt "with lightning warm."  But
you,  gentlemen,  will  perform  the  humane
office of a conductor, and convey  this  electric
fluid safely to the  earth.
  You will excuse these prefatory  observations:
they are instigated by no  doubt of you, but by
a sense of duly to the defendants.  I  wish to
obviate, in advance, the attempts which I know
will be made to excite  against them improper
and ungenerous prejudices. You have seen in the
examination  of one of the witnesses, Mr. Gra-
ham, this very day, a  specimen of the kind of
feeling, which has existed  elsewhere, and which
I so earnestly deprecate. So enraged was he,
because the defendants  had  obtained an  impar-
tial jury,  that he wished the whole Legislature
in that place  not to be mentioned to ears po-
lite, and that  he might be the fireman;  and all
on account of the passage of the law changing
the venue.  Now, though I doubt much whether
this worthy  gentleman will be gratified in his
benevolent wishes, in relation to the final destiny
of the Senate and  House  of Representatives of
this good commonwealth;  yet  I cannot but be-
lieve that his desires  in regard to himself  will
bo accomplished, and his  ambitious aspirations
fully realized in the ultimate enjoyment of that
singular office which he so warmly covets.
  Gentlemen of the Jury—I ask  for these de-
fendants no sympathy;  nor  do they wish it.  I
ask for them only justice—such justice alone as
you would demand if yon occupied their situa-
tion and they your.1).  They scorn to solicit that
from your pity which  they challenge from your
sense of right.  I  should  illy  perform towards
them the  double duty which  I have assumed,
hoth of friend  and advocate,  did  I treat their
participation in this unfortunate transaction oth-
erwise than candidly and frankly;  did I attempt
to avoid responsibility by exciting commisera-
tion.  I know that sooner than permit deception
and concealment in relation  to their  conduct,
they would baro  their necks  to the loathsome
 fingers of the hangman; for to  them  the infa.
 mous cord has less of terror than falsehood and
 self-degradation.
   That these defendants took away the lives of
 the  two individuals whose deaths are charged
 in the indictment, they do not deny.  But they
 assert that they did not so voluntarily or mali-
 ciously; that they committed the act from stern
 and imperative necessity; from the promptings
 of the common instincts of nature; by virtue of
 the broad and universal law of self-defence; and
 they deny  that they  have violated thereby the
 ordinances either of God  or man.  They  admit
 the act and justify it.
   The ground of their defence is simple,  and I
 will state it, so that  it cannot be misapprehen-
 ded.  They assert, and I shall attempt from the
 evidence submitted  to convince you, that a con>
 spiracy was formed  by Mr. Redding,  the prose-
 cutor, and various other persons, among whom
 were the deceased,  to inflict personal violence
 upon them; that the conspirators, by  pre-con-
 certed agreement, assembled at the Gait House,
 in the city of Louisville,  and  attempted to ac-
 complish their object;  and that, in the necessa-
 ry, proper and legal defence of their lives and
 porsons  from  such   attempt,  the defendants
 caused the deaths  of two of the conspirators.
 After discussing this proposition, I shall submit
 another, which is, that even though a conspiracy
 on the part of the deceased and their  compan-
 ions, to inflict personal violence and bodily injury
 upon  the  defendants,  did not exist; yet the de-
 fendants  had reasonable ground to suppose tho
 existence of such  a  conspiracy,  and to appre-
 hend  great bodily  harm  therefrom;  and that
 upon  such reasonable apprehension they wore
 justified in their action, upon  the principle of
 self-defence, equally as if such conspiracy had
 in point of fact existed.
   The law applicable to these  two propositions
 is simple,  being in  fact nothing  more than a
 transcript from  the law of nature.  The princi-
 ples governing and regulating the right of self-
 defence are substantially the same in  the  juria-
 prudeicc of all countries—at least all civilized
 ones.  These principles  have been read to you
 from  the  books,  by my learned and  excellent
 friend, Col. Robertson, and  require no repeti*
 tion.
   That  a  man has a right to  defend himself
 from great bodily harm, and to resist a conspiracy
t to inflict upon him personal violence, if there is 
(69)
reasonable danger,  even to the death  of \he
assailant, will not,  I presume,   be disputed.
That reasonable,  well-grounded  apprehension,
arising from the actions of others, of immediate
violence and injury, is a good and legal  excuse
for defensive action,  proportionate to the appa-
rent impending violence, and sufficient to pre-
vent it, I take to be  equally indisputable.
  By thess plain rules, and  upon these simple
principles, let us proceed to test the guilt or in-
nocence of the defendants.
  First, then, as to the existence of the con-
spiracy.  Before examining the direct evidence
to this  point,  you will  naturally inquire, was
there any cause for this alledged conspiracy?
Motive  always precedes action.  Wastht-re any
motive  for it?   If we establish the existence of
the seed, we shall feel  less  hesitation in being
convinced of the production of  the plant.  Was
there then  any motive on the  part of Mr. Red-
ding and his friends  for forming a combination
to inflict personal violence upon the defendants?
In answering this question, it will be necessary
to take  notice of the evidence  which has been
given in  relation to events that transpired at ;
the shop  of Mr. Redding at a period anterior to ;
the transaction at the Gait House,  and which,
except for the clue they afferd to the  motive j
and consequently to the subsequent  action of
the parties, would have no  bearing upon the case
before you.   You will  take heed to remember,
that, whateverof impropriety you may consider
as attaching to the  conduct of Judge Wilkin-
son  and  his friends  during this part of the af-
fair, must not be permitted  to weigh in  your
verdict, inasmuch as that conduct is the  subject
of another indictment which is still  pending in
this court.
   Judge  Wilkinson  visited  Louisville  for the
purpose of making the  preparations  necessary
for the  celebration o! his  nuptials.   The other
two defendants had  also their preparations to
rnake.inasmuch as they were to act as his friends
upon this interesting occasion.  Doctor  Wilkin-
son, a brother of the Judge, had ordered a suit
of  clothes of Mr. Redding, who follows the very
respectable  occupation  of tailor, occasionally
relieved and interspersed by the more agreeable
pursuits of  a coffee-house  keeper.  On the day
but one  preceding  that fixed lor the marriage
ceremonies, the  Doctor, in company with  his
brother and friend, Murdaugh, proceeded  to the
■hop of Mr. Redding fcr the purple of obtain-
ing the weddjmg garments.  Upon trying on the
coat it wii* found illy made and of a most un-
graceful fit./  It  hung loosely about his shoul-
ders, and excited by  its awkward  construction
the criticism and  animadversion of his friends.
Even the artificer did not presume to defend the
work of his own hands; but simply  contended
that he could re-organize the garment and com-
pel it, by his amending skill, into fair and just
proportions.  From the evidence, I presume no
one will doubt that it was a shocking bad  coat.
Now, though under ordinary circumstances the
aptitude of a garment is not a matter of very vi-
tal importance in the economy of life, and ought
not to become the subject of  controversy, yet
all will  admit that there are occasions  upon
which a gentleman may pardonably indulge a
somewhat  fastidious  taste in  relation to this
matter.  Doctor  Wilkinson will  certainly  be
excused, considering the attitude in  which  he
stood, for desiring a well made and fashionable
coat.
   1 confess I am not a very good judge in con-
cerns of this sort.   I have had  no  experience
on the subject, and my investigations in relation
to it, have been  exceedingly  limited.   Under
favor, however, and with due deference  to the
better judgment  of  the  learned counsel  on the
other side, I give it as my decided opinion,  that a
gentleman who is about to participate in a mar-
riage ceremony is. justified in  refusing to wear
a coat, which, by its loose construction and  su-
perabundant material, indicates,  as  in the case
before us, a manifest want of  good husbandry.
   Suffice it to say,  Doctor  Wilkinson and his
friends did object  to the garment, and Mr. Red-
ding, after some altercation, consented to retain
it.  The pantaloons,  which constituted a part
of the suit, had been sent to the Hotel, and the
 Doctor was in the act of paying for them, out of a
$11)0 bill,  which  he had previously deposited
 with Mr. R., when the Judge remarked that he
 had better not pay for the pantaloons until he
 had first tried them on, as they might be  found
 to fit no better than  the coat.  Mr. Redding, ac-
 cording to his own  evidence,  responded, that
 "they had said too  much already  about   the
 matter," to which the Judge,  he says, replied,
 that he did not come there  to be insulted, and
 immediately seized  the  poker  and struck him;
 upon which the Doctor and Mr. Murdaugh also
 fell on him, with their knives drawn. Redding
 then seized his  shears, but  did not succeed in 
(70)
cabbaging therewith any part of his assailants.
He was successful, however,  in  dragging the
Judge  into  the street, where, after  a slight
scuffle, which resulted in no personal injury to
any of the parties, they were separated.  After
the separation, Redding offered,  if they would
lay down their knives, to fight them all.  This
kind proposition the  defendants  declined; but
the Doctor returned into the shop, obtained his
$100 note, and then the defendants retired from
the place.
  Such in  substance is Mr. Redding's own ac-
count of  the transaction at his  shop.  The wit-
ness Weaver  also proves the altercation which
occurred in relation  to  the fit of the ooat and
the scuffle   which ensued in consequene;e.  He,
however, avers that Redding, in a very insulting
manner,  told  the  Judge  that  he "was more
meddlesome than the other," and that he "was
too d—d meddlesome,"  or  words to that effect;
which  insulting language so excited  the Judge
that he seized the poker  and  commenced the
assault.
  The other witness, Craig, Redding's journey-
man, testifies in substance the same as Redding,
as to what  passed in the shop; corroborates his
account of the altercation about the coat; and
says that be considered Doctor Wilkinson, not
as assisting in the affray, but as attempting to
separate  the parties.  Some of  the wvtnesses
think that the Doctor attempted, in the street,
to stab Redding, as he was getting the advan-
tage  of  his brother.   The evidence  on  this
point,  as well  as  in  regard to the conduct of
Murdaugh,  is  somewhat contradictory.   In the
view, however, which I have taken of the case,
the discrepancy is of  little importance.
  It is clearly proven, take the  evidence in  any
way, that Mr. Redding used insulting language
towards Judge Wilkinson,  on account of the
Judge's expression of an opinion in relation to
the fit of his  brother's coat.   What was  the
exact language used, it is difficult to ascertain.
  There were six persons in the room when the
quarrel ensued—on the one side, the prosecutor,
(Redding,)  his foreman, (Craig,)  and the boy,
(Weaver;) on the other, the three defendants.
  All the evidence on this point has been deri-
ved from the first party, and ought, consequent-
ly, to be  taken with  many grains of allowance.
The prosecutor has given you his version of the
affair, but his cunning has prevented the defend-
ants from giving you theirs.  Doctor Wilkinson,
 who was discharged  by the examining magis-
 trate, has been included in  the indictment, one
 would judge, for the very purpose of precluding
 his testimony.   No one can doubt that the con-
 duct of Judge Wilkinson,  however  reprehensi-
 ble, resulted  from the  abusive  language  and
 insulting demeanor of  Mr. Redding.  The hap-
 py facility with which  he indulged, on  a subse-
 quent occasion,  in  the use of opprobrious  epi-
 thets, gives good reason to suppose that his re-
 marks on the present  were  not very  guarded.
 The expression deposed to by Weaver is, I pre-
 sume, but a sample.  "You are too d—d meddle-
 some,"  was the  observation, accompanied, no
 doubt, by the  overbearing and bullying manner
 which illustrated his   conduct  afterwards, and
 which smacked more of his spiritual pursuit, as
 the Ganymede  of a coffee-house, than of his
 gentle calling as a knight of the  shears and
 thimble.   He  certainly did,  on this occasion,
 "sink the tailor;"  for tailors are proverbially
 polite and gentlemanly in their deportment.
   I do not wish  to be  considered  as justifying
 Judge Wilkinson or his friends, in taking notice
 of the  petulant  and insolent  conduct  of Red-
 ding.  I think  they would have better consulted
 their character and feelings, by treating him
 with contempt.  I will go further, and candidly
 admit that I consider their course reprehensible;
 that it resulted from passion and sudden excite-
 ment, and not from deliberate determination.
 They were themselves convinced of this in a
 moment, and left the ground, ashamed, as they
 still are,  of their participation in the matter—
 Judge Wilkinson rebuking and leading away
 his young and more ardent friend, Murdaugh,
 who seemed to indicate some disposition to  ac-
cept the boastful challenge of Mr. Redding,
 "that he  could,  if they would lay down their
knives, whip them all three."  From all the evi-
dence, it is perfectly clear that, in the alterca-
tion, no  personal injury resulted to any of the
parties; that the defendants retired voluntarily
from the  quarrel; while Mr. Redding retained
the field,  and with boastful taunts and insulting
outcries,  invited  a  renewal of the fight.  The
 Mississippians were manifestly satisfied.  Not so
Mr. Redding: he was "full  of  wrath and cab-
bage," boiling over with violence, and breathing
defiance and vengeance against the retreating
foe.  He, doubtless, retired to his coffee-house,
and attempted  to soothe his wounded  feelings
 with some of the delightful beverages which it 
(71)
was occasionally his profitable province to dis-
pense to others.   Here  his  friends gathered
around him; he recounted to them his manifold
grievances; he grew  warm in the recital; the
two  white-handled pocket-knives,  which  had
been drawn but not used in the  affray,  danced
before his distempered imagination, in the shapt
of trenchant and  death-dealing blades.   These
little instruments, of ordinary  and general use,
became, at once,  bowie  knives,  "in buckram."
He believed, no doubt, and made his friends be-
lieve that he was an injured man, and that some
satisfaction was due to  his insulted honor.   I
have presented this part of the case to you, sim-
ply for the purpose of enabling you to judge of
the subsequent action of the parties, and to in-
dicate on which side a desire for vengeance, and
a combination to  obtain it, were most likely to
originate.  Upon  the conclusion of the first af-
fray, which party  would you have suspected of
a disposition to renew it?  Where could lie  the
motive on the part of Judge Wilkinson and his
friends for additional violence?   But who  that
is acquainted  with the  workings of human na-
ture, or the indications of human feeling, will
hesitate a  moment in  believing that  revenge
lurked  in the bosom of Redding,  and sought
only a safe opportunity  for development?   His
conduct indicated a state of mind precisely fitted
for the formation of a conspiracy.
  Having laid the foundation,  I will now pro-
ceed  to the erection of the superstructure.  I
will  shewfc first by the direct and then by the
circumstantial proofs, the existence of this foul
and cowardly conspiracy.  I will, however, here
remark, that I doubt  not the misrepresentations
and  falsehoods of Mr. Redding, in relation to the
transaction,  induced several of the persons im-
plicated to join the combination, who, with a
correct knowledge of the  facts,  would  never
have participated  in the affair.
  First, then, as  to the direct and positive  evi-
dence.  Mr. Jackson says, that  immediately af-
ter the first affray he was passing Mr. Redding's,
when his attention was attracted by loud talk-
ing in the store, which induced  him to enter,
where he found Redding,  Johnson and Meeks.
Johnson was expressing his  opinion as to the
course which  should be  pursued  towards  the
Mississippians for their  conduct, and said they
"ought to go  to the Gait House and flog them."
"Jack," said he to Mr.  Redding, "just say the
word, :«nd I'll go for Bill Holmes, and we'll give
them hell;'' at  the  same  time  boasting, in his
own peculiar phraseol^y,  "that he was as much
manhood as was ever wrapped up in so much
hide."   Upon some  hesitation being evinced at
thi3 proposition, Meekt?  said,   "Let's go  any
how, and we'll have a spree."
  Mr. Jackson further deposes,  that some time
after he was stopped by Johnson, on the street,
who told him he was  going after Holmes;  that
Jack Redding  was  a  good man, and that  he,
Jackson, ought to  go   with them  to the Gait
House and see him righted.  Jackson declined,
allcdging as an excuse his  religious character,
and his desire to abstain from  fighting; where-
upon Johnson exclaimed,  in his ardent zeal for
enlisting recruits, that "church, hell or heaven
ought to be laid aside to right a  friend."   Jack-
son says he understood it distinctly, that it was
a fight to which he was invited.
  Mr. Jackson's testimony is entitled to credit.
He did not participate in  the affair; and he can
have no inducement to speak falsely, for all his
prejudices  must naturally be  enlisted on  the
side of the prosecution.  His character is sus-
tained by unexceptionable  testimony, and  has
been impugned by no  one except the Salaman-
der gentleman, whose ambition seems to be, to
pursue in the next world  that occupation which
in this is principally monopolized by the des-
cendants of Ham.
   The next direct  evidence  of the conspiracy
is from  Mr. Deering,  whose  character   and
testimony are both  unimpeachable. He says he
was passing down Market street, on the evening
of the affray, when he saw, near the market-
house, Johnson, in company with  Holmes  and
others,  and that they were discussing the sub-
ject of the quarrel  between the Mississippians
and R.edding.   This proves that   Johnson  was
carrying into effect his proposition at Redding's
store, viz.:  "to go and get Bill Holmes and give
them hell."  He had already found Bill Holmes,
and,  we  shall presently  see,  made all hisj ar-
rangements for "giving them hell."
   Mr. Deering says that soon after he met Mr.
Johnson again, who  inquired  for  Mr. Tui ner,
the City Marshal.  Mr.  Deering  told him he
would be too late with his officers, for the  Mis-
sissippians would  begone; to which Mr. John-
son responded, "there were enough gone th ere—
that if  they came  down  their hides wou,Jd not
hold shucks."   What  did  this  mean, if it did
not  ndicate that the conspiracy  had a)  ready 
(72)
 been formed, and a portion of the  conspirator.!
 assembled at the Gait House, for the purpose of
 preventing the game from escaping, and holding
 icat bay, until the arrival of the rest of the
 hunters.  They had gone, it seems, too. in suffi-
 cient numbers  to authorize the classical  boast
 of Mr. Johnson, "that if they (meaning  the
 Mississippians) came down their hides would'nt
 hold shucks "
   There is one more witness, whose testimony
 is positive to the point.  It is Mr. Harris.   He
 swears, clearly and unequivocally, that Johnson
 met him on the evening of the affray, told him
 that the Mississippians  had insulted Mr. Red-
 ding, and directly solicited him to go with Red-
 ding's friends to the Gait House and  see  him
 righted.  Mr.  Harris says  he refused  to  go,
 whereupon  Johnson  exclaimed, "Are you a
 friend of Redding's ?"  thereby  showing  how
 strong was the feeling when even a mere refusal
 to participate in the violence was considered as
 proof that the  man refusing  was no friend of
 Redding.
   Such, gentlemen, is the positive proof of the
 conspiracy.   It consists of the evidence of three
 disinterested and  honest  witnesses,  two of
 whom were directly and  strongly  solicited to
 participate in the matter.  The testimony of
 each of these witnesses  corroborates that of the
 other two.  The facts sworn to have a natural
 order and connection.  There is a verisimilitude
 about the whole story, which would not belong
 to either portion by itself.   The testimony is en-
 titled to much more weight than if it had been
 the  recital of a single  witness; for if you be-
 lieve one of the witnesses you must give credit
 to all.  One of them swears that he heard John-
son, in Redding's shop, propose to Redding and
his friends that  he should  get  "Bill Holmes"
and "give them hell."   The next witness saw
Johnson  on  the street  immediately after,  in
company  with  "Bill  Holmes," who seems to
have been the  Achilles of these Myrmidons;
 explaining to him how his dear Patroclus, Red-
 ding, had been  insulted  by  the hectoring Mis-
 sissippians,  and  urging  him  to  vengeance.
 Again the same witness met Johnson, and was
 informed by him that a  portion of his banditti
had already taken possession of the passes of the
Gait House, and that if  the Mississippians  ap-
peared,  "their  hides  would'nt hold shucks."
 The third witness swears  to a positive solicita-
tion fr«nt  Johnson, that he  should join  in  the
 foray, and to the expression of strong indigna-
 tion by this slayer of cattle upon his refusal  to
 do so.
   Johnson was the "Malise" of the party, "the
 messenger of blood and brand"  sent forth  to
 summon the  clansmen true.  Too  well did he
 perform his duty.  He collected his friends and
 conductod  them like beasts to the slaughter;
 while he himself found the "manhood," which,
 according to his boast, distended his hide, rapid-
 ly descending to his heels.  But enough, for the
 present, of this  vaporing  worthy; I shall  pay
 my respects to him hereafter.
   I  will now proceed, in pursuance of the  plan
 I  had prescribed, to shew the  existence of the
 conspiracy,  by the   circumstantial evidence,
 which is, if possible, more irrefragable than the
 direct testimony; but yet most beautifully illus-
 trates and confirms it.  I will exhibit to you  a
 chain of facts,  linked together  by a  natural
 and necessary connection, which I defy even the
 strong arm  of the  opposing counsel to  break.
 I  will weave a  cable upon whose  unyielding
 strength the defence may safely rely to ride out
 the storm of this furious prosecution.
   Mr. Redding went to the Gait House after the
 affair at his shop, for the purpose, as he avows,
 of obtaining the names of the Mississippians
 that he might procure process against them from
 the civil authorities.   On his way,  as he  con-
 fesses, he armed himself with a deadly weapon,
 which, however,  I am bound, in justice to say,
 he never had the courage to use.   A number of
 individuals  accompanied  and  followed  him,
 whose manner and  strange appearance,  excited
 universal attention  even in the bar-room of  the
 most frequented hotel in the western country.
 Their strange faces and strange action excited
 general  apprehension.  Nearly  every witness,
 to the unfortunate catastrophe, has deposed that
 he was struck  with the "strange faces" con-
 gregated in the barroom.  The learned counsel
 on the other side, has attempted to prove in the
 examination, and will, no doubt, insist in the
 argument, that that room is daily crowded with
 strangers from every £art of the country; that
 the excellence of the fare, and the urbanity
 of its proprietors, invite to the Gait House a
 large portion of the travelling public; and that
 consequently  it  is  nowise  remarkable  that
strange  faces  should be observed in the bar-
room.  Though I admit the gentleman's premi-
ses,  I deny  his  conclusion.  That strangers 
(73)
should frequent  the dlt House  is not wonder-
ful; they do it every day ; and for that very rea-
son strange faces, under ordinary circumstan-
ces, arouse neither remark nor attention.  That
the "strange faces" of Mr. Redding's  friends
should have excited remark and  scrutiny,  not
only from the inmates of the House, but from
strangers  themselves,  is truly wonderful, and
can be accounted for only  by  admitting that
there was something very peculiar in their con-
duct and appearance.
  They went there prepared for pre-concerted
action.  Having a common  object, and a well
arranged plan, a glance, or a motion, sufficed to
convey intelligence  from one to  the other.—
Tell-tale consciousness  spoke from each coun-
tenance.  Their looks, unlike the mystic sign
of the mysterious brotherhood,  gave up to the
observer the  very secret they wished thereby to
conceal.   There  is a  strange and subtle influ-
ence, a kind  of mental sense, by which we ac-
quire intimation  of men's  intentions, even be-
fore they have ripened into word or action.  It
seems, on such occasions, as if information was
conveyed  to  the  mind, by a sort of natural an-
imal magnetism, without the interventicn of
the senses.
  Thus, in this case, all the by-standers were
impressed, at once, with the conviction that vi-
olence was intended by the strange men who
had attracted their attention.  These men, it is
proven, were the friends and intimate compan-
ions of Redding.  Most of them, though living
in the city of Louisville, were not in the habit
of going to the Gait House, and  yet by singular
coincidence had all assembled there  on  this oc-
casion.
  They were remarkably stout  men, constitu-
ting the very elite of  the thewes and muscle of
Louisville, and many of them noted for their
prowess in the vulgar broils of the city.  Why
hai they thus congregated on this occasion?—
Why their strange and suspicious  demeanor?
I will show you  why.  It will not be necessary
to await the actual  fight, to become  fully con-
versant with their purpose. It  found  vent in
various shapes, but chiefly bubbled out in  the
ung,:a.rded remarks and almost involuntary ex-
pressions of the  more garrulous of the party.
  I shall be compelled, even at the risk of being
tedious, to glance at the evidence  of a  number
of the witnesses in showing you the circumstan-
ces at the Gait House, which conclusively indi-
cate the existence of the conspiracy.
  Mr. Everett,  one of the proprietors of the
Gait House, says he was admonished by his bar-
keeper that a difficulty was about to arise, and,
he had belter persuade Judge Wilkinson out of
the bar-room.   Accordingly,  ho went in and
took the Judge away, and gives as a rea.«on that
he was alarmed at the strange  faces in the bar-
room, and apprehended difficulty; alarmed, not
because the faces were those of strangers, but
because of something in their appearance which
indicated concert and threatened violence.
  Mr. Trabue was waiting in the room for sup-
per, and says he heard some one remark, "if the
Mississippians had not gone up stairs, they would
have  been  badly treated;" in connexion with
which remark, Redding was pointed out to him.
This it seems was after the Judge had retired
at the solicitation of Mr.  Everett. Now who
were to have treated tlic Mississippians badly,
except Mr. Redding and his friends?  Who else
had any pretence for so doing?  Can you  doubt
for a moment that the remark had reference to
Mr. Redding's party?  It  was  probably  made
by one of them;  but whether by one  of  them,
or a stranger, it equally indicated  their violent
determinations.  Mr.  Trabue  also proves that
after  Judge  Wilkinson retired,  Mr.  Redding
also retired; and when the Judge returned into
the bar  room, Redding presently  entered; fol-
lowed, to use the language of  Mr.  Trabue "by
a right smart crowd" of his friends. Now why
did Redding thus go out,  and return  with his
gang  at his heels? Why were his movements
thus regulated, by the motions of the  Judge?—
Wherefore was it that every one expected a dif-
ficulty?
  Mr. Redding, according to his own story, went
to the Gait House simply for the purpose of ob-
taining  the names of the  gentlemen  who had
insulted him.
  He had  accomplished  his  ostensible object
He had obtained the names, and more than that,
had gratified his base appetite by  abusing one
of the gentlemen in the most indecent and dis-
gusting manner.  No rowdy who  ever  visited
his coffee-house could have excelled him in this,
to the vulgar mind, sweet mode of vengeance.
He had even driven  the Judge from  the room
by the overwhelming torrent, of his billingsgate
epithets.   To use an  expression suited to  his
comprehension and feelings, he ren ained "cock
                     10 
(74)
 of the walk."  Yet  he was  not satisfied.  He
 retired, and watched the  return of the Judge,
 and  then emboldened by his previous impunity
 followed with his cut-throat band to complete
 the work of vengeance.
  But to proceed with the circumstantial evi-
 dence.  Mr. Mon tgemery states that he was with
 Mr. Trabue at the Gait  House when Redding
 came in after the names, and, also, when he
 came back just before  the conflict; heard him
 nse very rough language,  and, also, heard Hal-
bert remark that there would be "rough work
 with the Mississippians."  Now this  fully cor-
 roborates the testimony of Mr. Trabue on the
 same point, whd heard the remark, but did not
 recollect who made it.   This Marshall Halbert
 is the man who  boasted,  after the affair was
 over, that he had knocked down one of the Mis-
 sissippians  with a chair while his back was to-,
wards him, and recounted many other  feats  of
daring to  the astonishment of the listeners.   I
 should judge him to be of the blood of honest
 Jack Falstaff, whose  killing, as  every body
 knows,  was  always  by  word of mouth, and
 whose deeds of desperate valor were so unfor-
tunate as to find neither hislorian nor be'iever
except himself.   At all events Halbert, accord-
ing to his own confession,  was one of the con-
spirators, and I  have no  doubt performed his
part in the affray as well as he knew how, and
 with  much greater humanity than he pretends.
 In addition  to the above  remark of Halbert's,
Mr. Montgomery states  that he heard several
persons say at a time, when the defendants were
 not in the room,  that they would beat the Mis-
sissippians well.
  General Chambers, who lives opposite the
Gait House, and  is in the daily habit of  visiting
it, says he  went into the bar-room just  before
 the affray,  that  he  observed  persons whom he
 was not in the habit of seeing there, and that
 from their appearance  and demeanor, his sus-
 picions were immediately aroused.
  I attach  great  weight  to  the testimony of
 Gen.  Chambers.   His character for intelligence
 and  observation  needs no comment  from me;
 and the fac* that his suspicions were aroused,
 must convince every one,  that cause for alarm
 existed.
  The next testimony  to which I shall refer  is
 that of Mr.  Oliver.   He says that he was ac-
 quainted with Mr. Meeks, and was  taking a so-
 cial glass with him on the eveningof the affray,
 when Meeks started  off,  saying he must go to
 the Gait House, (which was on the opposite side
 of the street,) that he was bound to have a fight
 that night, and "by G—d he would have one."
 You will recollect that Meeks was one of the
 persons who collected around Redding immedi-
 ately after the affair at the shop, and  seconded
 Johnson's proposition to get  Bill  Holmes and
 "give them  h—1," by saying "they would go
 any how, and have a spree."  Can you doubt
 for a moment, that the observation made by this
 unfortunate man to .Mr. Oliver, as just recited,
 had relation to  the  previous arrangement with
 Johnson and others at  Redding's  shop?   The
 remark  of Meeks seems to me, taken in connex-
 ion with his previous and  subsequent  conduct,
 almost  conclusive  of  itself as to the existence
 of a conspiracy.  I  had almost forgotten to ob-
 serve Mr. Oliver's statement that Meeks, before
 he started, tied a knot in the small end of a cow-
 hide which he carried, manifestly to prevent it
 from slipping  out  of  his hand  in  the conflict
 which he so eagerly courted. His knife, by a sort
of pious fraud, had been taken from him by Mr.
Oliver,  otherwise the  result  might have  been
very different.  The  prudent  caution of  Mr.
Oliver in disarming him of this weapon, proves
how strong must have been the indications of
his violent disposition.
  Mr. Reaugh says he  was at the Gait House on
the evening of the  affray, and saw Redding in
conversation  with Rothwell  and Halbert—he
also  saw Holmes and  Johnson.  Something in
the demeanor of the party induced him to ask
Johnson what was the matter.  Johnson replied
by relating the affair of the shop.  Upon which
Reaugh observed "if the Mississippians fall into
the hands of these  men, they will  fare rather
rough."  "Yes,"  replied  the worthy butcher,
"they would skin them quicker than I could
skin a sheep."   Mr. Reaugh states that he made
the remark to Johnson because of the remarka-
ble size  and  strength of the men  to  whom he
alluded; the strange manner in which they had
assembled, and the fact that he knew them to
be friends  of Redding, and that Redding  had
been in  a quarrel with the  Mississippians.
  Mr. Miller states  that being a member of the
grand jury, and having heard of the  affray at
Redding's, he went into a tin shop to enquire
about the matter,  when Mr.  Halbert came in
and boasted much  of  what he intended to do.
 Witness then went to the  Gait House for sup- 
(75)
 per, when he heard Redding abusing J udge Wil-
 kinson, and challenging him for a fight.  Wit-
 ness advised Halbert to take Redding away, ob-
 serving that he, witness, was on the grand jury,
 had the names, and  would have all the matter
 attended  to.  Some one,  he thinks Johnson,
 then remarked that "if he did'nt leave the room,
 he'd  see  the  finest sort  of beef-steaks served
 up."   Presently he heard the exclamation, near
 the counter, "there they are, all three of them,"
 and the crowd immediately closed in upon the
 persons so indicated.
   Mr. Waggry, also, heard the remark about
 the "steaks," and then heard some one exclaim
 "we'll have a hell of a fight here just now."
 He also heard Mr. Miller advise Halbert to take
 Redding away.
   Mr. Brown swears that he heard Mr. Miller
 tell Mr. Redding he was not taking  the proper
 course; he  should  have the matter before the
 grand jury; whereupon  some one  said  "hush
 you Billy Miller, if it comes to handy-cuffs the
 boys will settle it."  The witness then became
 so apprehensive of a fight that he left the room.
   Now, though Miller is not positive as to the
 person who  made use  of the  expression about
 "serving up beef-steaks," yet  no one, I take
 it, will hesitate as  to  his  identity.  Who  but
 Johnson could speak in such rich and technical
 language?   Who but  Johnson could boast of
 "having as much manhood as was ever wrapped
 in  the same extent of  hide?"  While,  at the
 same  time, he had so arranged  it, that the
 "hides" of the Mississippians "would not hold
 shucks."  Who but this  unmitigated  savage
 would talk of "skinning" a gentleman "quicker
 than I could skin a sheep?"  Why he rubs his
 hands, licks his lips, and talks of serving up
 christians in the shape of  "steaks," with as lit-
 tle compunction as you  or I  would exhibit in
 eating a raddish. The cannibal!  He should go,
 at once, to New Zealand and open his shambles
 there. His  character would suit  that country;
 and I doubt not he would obtain great  custom,
 and find ample demand for his human "steaks."
 Why,  gentlemen,  I should  be afraid  to buy
 meat out of his stall.  He talk 3 as if he supplied it
 by burk ing.  I should expect some day to swallow
 an unbaptized infant in the disguise of a reeking
pig, or to eat a fellow-citizen, in cog, in a "steak."
Such a fellow should be  looked  to.  But again.
What  meant   the  expression  deposed to by
Reaugh, "there they are,  all three of them
now?"  It was the signal  for the  conspirators
to close in.   It clearly proves a pre-concerted
plan; no names were mentioned, and without a
previous understanding, the expression would
have been nonsense.  Most of the party did not
know the Mississippians; hence it was necessary
that some one should give intimation when they
entered the room.  The expression  "There they
are," was the signal for the onset.   What meant
the expression,  sworn  to by Waggry, "We'll
have a hell of a fight here just now?"
  What conclusion do you draw from the re-
sponse made to Miller, when he advised Redding
to bring the matter before the grand jury, "Hush
you, Billy Miller,  and if it comes to handy-cuffs
the boys will settle it?" If what comes to han-
dy-cuffs? And who were the boys?  Why, if the
quarrel with the Mississippians comes to handy-
cuffs; and as  for the "boys," there was not a man
present who  did not know who they were.
  Redding was one of the  "boys," and a very
bad boy too.  Billy Holmes was another; Mar-
shall Halbert was a perfect "broth of a  boy,"
and  if his own story is entitled to  credit, he
must have been twins, for he  acted the part of
at least two  in the fight.  Bill Johnson was as
much of a boy as ever was "wrapped up  in the
same amount of hide," though his extraordina-
ry modesty  has induced him to deny the  soft
impeachment.  The  unfortunate  Meeks  and
Rothwell were two  of the "boys;"  and  last
though  not  least, comes Harry Oldham,  the
"Jack Horner" of the party.  He  "sat in  the
corner" till  the  fight was  nearly over, when
he "put in his thumb"  and "pulled out," not
"a plum," but a pistol; and ever since, has been
exclaiming, " iVhat a brave "boy" am I."
  Yes, gentlemen of the jury, these were the
"boys," whose strange  appearance aroused the
suspicions and excited the apprehensions of all.
  Permit me, now, to call your attention  to the
testimony of Mr. Donahue.  It is clear and con-
clusive. He swears that on the evening of the
affray, and just before  it occurred, being in the
bar-room of  the Gait House, he heard Rothwell
ask Redding  "if they were there;" upon  being
answered in  the negative, he exclaimed "come,
let us go up stairs and bring them down,  and
give them hell."   Rothwell, was the brother-in-
law of Redding, had been informed by Redding
of his grievances, and had accompanied him to
the Gait House.  Whom did he mean, when he
asked if "they were  there?"  The Mississip-
pians undoubtedly.  Whom did he propose to 
(76)
dr;:^ from their rooms, and chastize?  Of course
the same persona for whom he had just enquired.
Rothwell asked "if they were there:" when the
defendants came in, some one cried out "there
they are, all three  of them."  These  two ex-
pressions  manifestly emanated  from  persons
who understood each other, and were engaged
in pursuit of a common object.
   If these remarks  had  not relation to some
previously concerted plan of action, they would
Ijc unmeaning and foolish: but granting the ex-
istence of the  conspiracy I have supposed, and
every word is pregnant  with meaning; full of
force, weight and effect.
   Mr. Raily deposes to  the caution given by
Miller to Redding;  also  to  the fact that  Red-
ding  left  the  room when Judge Wilkinson
had  retired,  and  came  back  again   immedi-
ately after  the Judge had returned.   He also
saw Oldham after the affair was over, putting a
pistol into his pocket, and wiping, with his hand-
kerchief, the blood from a double edgeeldirk.
   Mr. Pearson says he went to the Gait House
just before supper, on the evening of the affray.
As he stood behind the bar, one Capt. Rogers ob-
served that  there would  be a fight.  Presently,
witness  met Marshall Halbert, and told  him he
ought to  stop it, meaning the fight.   Halbert
said "no, let it go on."   This was  before Red
ding had commenced abusing Judge Wilkinson,
and proves that the  idea of a fight  did not or-
iginate  from that  circumstance.  The Judge
came, and Redding abused  him.  He went out,
and Redding followed.  He returned, and pre-
sently so did Redding with a crowd at his heels.
Seeing the crowd, and apprehending violence,
Mr. Pearson was in the act of leading the Judge
out of the room, when the crowd rushed  upon
Murdt.ugh; the affray commenced, and the Judge
stopped, refusing to leave the room until hes.iw
his friends  out uf the difficulty.  Need  I ask
you whether he was right in so doing?
   Mr. Banks says he saw  Redding just after the
first affray, and asked him if he was hurt.  He
said no,  but that "he would have satisfaction,"
and that "he could whip them all three."
   Dr. Graham says that after Judge Wilkinson
had left the bar-room, the first time, he heard
some one observe, "the d——d coward has run."
   Does  not Mr. Oldham's testimony prove the
conspiracy?  I do not mean directly, but circum-
stantially.  He says he was not present at the
fight in the bar-room, and knew  nothing of the
affair, nor of the  defendants.  He says he  was
standing in the passage when  the door opened,
and he received a cut from Dr. Wilkinson, whom,
he knocked down for his pains.
  After fighting  in  the crowd awhile,  he  saw
Murdaugh retreating up stairs, and asking for a
pistol, whereupon he was reminded of  his own
pistol,  which  he immediately drew and  dis-
charged at the young gentleman, giving him not
the weapon, but its contents, to-wit, a bullet,
split in  three pieces.  This worthy gentleman*
who is certainly
    ------------"as mild a mannered ntan
    As ever scuttled ship, or cut a  throat,"
swears positively that he did not know either of
the defendants; that he belonged to neither party
in the affray; and that he  fought, to use his own
descriptive and unrivalled phraseology,  entirely
"upon his own hook."
  Surely Mr. Henry Oldham must be the knight
errant of the age; the Don Quixote of the west;
the paragon of modern  chivalry.
  He fights, not from base desiro of vengeance,
nor from sordid love of  gold; not even from pa-
triotism or friendship; but from a higher and  a
loftier sentiment; from his pure, ardent, disinter-
ested, unsophisticated love of glorious strife.—
Like Job's  war-horse,  he  "smelleth  the battle
afar off," and  to the sound of the trumpet, he
saith ha! ha!   To him
"There is something of pride in  the  perilous hour,
What'er be the shape in which death may lower,
For fame is there, to tell who bleeds,
And honor's eye on daring deeds."
  You have  heard,  gentlemen, of the bright,
warm  isles which gem the oriental  seas,  and
are kissed by the fiery sun of the tropics; where
the clove, the cinnamon,  and the  nutmeg grow;
where the torrid atmosphere is oppressed with a
delicious, but  fierce and intoxicating influence.
There the  spirit of  man partakes of the same
spicy  qualities  which  distinguish  the   pro-
duetions of the  soil.  Even  as  the rinds of
their fruits split  open with  nature's  rich ex-
cess, so do the human passions burst  forth with
an  overwhelming violence  and prodigality un-
known till now,  in  our cold,  ungentle  clime.—
There, in the islands  of Java, Sumatra,  the
Malaccas, and others of the same latitude, ca-
ses similar to that of Mr. Henry Oldham are  of
frequent occurrence.  In those countries if is
called  "running a muck."  An individual be-
comes so full of fight  that he can  no longer 
(77)
contain it; accordingly, he  arms liiioself with
a species  of dagger,  very similar to that from
which Mr. Oldham  wiped the  blood with  his
pocket handkerchief, and rushing into the pub-
lic streets, wounds  and slays  indiscriminately
among the crowd.  It is true, that this gallant
exploit always results in the death of the person
performing it; the people of the  country,  en-
tertaining a foolish notion that it is too danger-
ous and expensive a mode  of cultivating national
bravery.  But in the  present instance, I trust
this rule  will be relaxed.  Mr. Oldham is the
only specimen we possess of this peculiar habit
of the spice-island, and he  should be preserved
as a curiosity.
   But, alas!   the  age  of chivalry has gone by;
and in the performance of my duty I fear I shall
have to exhibit some  little defects in the char-
acter of Mr. Oldham, calculated in this censori-
ous day to detract from his general merits.
   It is with  great pain, I feel constrained to
say, (for he id a sort of favorite of mine,) that
 telling the truth  is not one of his knightly ac-
 complishments, and that his heroic conduct in
 the affray at the Gait House  was nothing more
 nor  less, according to hi:) own s^ory, than a
 downright cowardly attempt at assassination.
   First, as to his veracity.  He says that he was
 cut, in the passage,  by  Doctor Wilkinson,  to
 whose identity he swears  positively; yet  it is
 proven, by half a dozen unimpeachable witness-
 es,  that the Doctor was at that  time,  hors du
 combat, beaten to a  mummy—almost  lifeless,
 and perfectly limber—while his knife had fallen
 from his relaxed and  nerveless grasp,  upon the
 floor of the bar-room, where it was afterwards
 picked up.
   Yet Oldham  swears, manfully,  that it wa3
 the Doctor  who cut him, though when asked
 if his face was not bloody, he replied that the
 passage  wan  too dark  to enable  him to distin-
 guish faces.   If he could not  sec whether the
 face of the  person  who  cut him was bruised or
  bloody,  how dare he Mwear it was Doctor Wil-
  kinson, whom ho admits he had never seen be-
 fore?                                    ,
    Yet, though his vision was so dull in regard
  to  this matter,  it was  almost supernaturally
  keen  upon  another.  Ho  swears that he  was
  cut by a dirk knife, with  a "white handle."  Now
  in  this dusky passage, where  he  could  not see
  his assailant's face, how could he distinguish so
  accurately   the  character of   the weapon, and
more especially, of the handle.  The handle of
such a knife as either of those exhibited would
be entirely concealed in the grasp of the holder.
But Mr. Oldham could  see through the hand,
and swear to the color of the handle, even when
he  could not distinguish the color of the assail-
ant's face.                ^
  The prosecution seems to be afflicted with a
monomania on the subject  of white-handled
knives.  The  white-handles cause them greater
terror,  and excite more  of their observation,
than the blades.  One  would almost  be led to
suppose, from the evidence, that the defendants
' held by the blades and fought with the handles.
 These white handles flash'before their eyes like
 the bright inscription upon  the dim steel of a
 Turkish  cimeter.  I  hope,  though with many
 misgivings, that none of them will ever die of a
 "white handle."
   But, to return to my subject, why in the name
 of all that is  human or humane,  did Oldham
 shoot at  Murdaugh, whom he acknowledges he
 did  not know; of whose connexion  with Doc-
 tor Wilkinson he was unacquainted; and who
 had not attempted to do him the slightest injury?
 Accordinc to his own account of the matter,
 he acted the part of a  base and cowardly assas-
 sin.  If he tells the truth, he is an assassinating
 villain: if he does not, he is a perjured villain.
 I leave him choice  of  these  two  horns of the
 dilemma, though I doubt not the latter is  the
 one upon which he is destined to  hang. I  can-
 not believe in the existence of such a monster as
 he would make himself out to be;  and have of-
 fered his conduct to you as evidence  of the ex-
 istence of a conspiracy, and of his participation
 in it.  It is better that he should have the excuse
 of having fought in Redding's quarrel than no
 excuse at all.
    Gentlemen of  the Jury—I have now perform-
  ed that portion of my task which embraced the
  circumstantial evidence.   Out of the mouths
  of fifteen different witnesses, most of them gen-
  tlemen of high character and undoubted vera-
  eity, I have  exhibited to you an almost countless
  variety of  circumstances,  the  occurrence of
  which,  or of any great portion of them, is ab-
  solutely incompatible with  any other hypothe-
  sis than that of the existence of the conspiracy,
  which I proposed at the outset to prove.
     Upon that hypothesis all these circumstances
  are easily explicable,  and in perfect accordance
  with the ordinary principles of human actien. 
(78)
   I have combined the scattered strands of evi-
 dence; I have finished the cable which I promis-
 ed; and now challenge the opposing counsel to
 try their strength upon it.   They may pick it
 into oakum; but I defy them to break it.
   There is one other argument in favor of the
 view that I have taken of  the origin of this un-
 fortunate affray,  which may  be properly intro-
 duced at this time, and with which I shall close
 this branch of the subject.
   It arises out of the respective  characters and
 positions in life of the two parties, and is, in my
 opinion, entitled to great weight.  Who, judg-
 ing of character and situation, was most likely
 to have sought and  provoked the  unfortunate
 conflict—Judge  Wilkinson   or  Mr.  Redding?
 The conduct of the  Judge, under the opprobri-
 ous epithets heaped  upon  him by  Redding, in
 the bar-room, sufficiently indicates, that though
 he had previously given way to sudden passion,
 he  was now cool,  collected and forbearing.   His
 mind  had recovered its balance, and he behaved
 on  this occasion,  as  well as subsequently,  with
 philosophical  calmness.  I doubt,  gentlemen,
 whether any of  you would have permitted
 Mr. Redding to have indulged, with impunity,
 in such unmeasured  abuse.   But the  situation
 of the Judge  was peculiar,  and every induce-
 ment  which  could operate upon a  gentleman
 warned him against  participation in broils and
 battles.  With  buoyant  feelings  and pulse-
 quickening anticipations he had come more  than
 a thousand miles, upon a pilgrimage to the shrine
 of beauty, and not of blood;  upon an errand of
 love, and not of strife.  He came to transplant
■one of Kentucky'c5 fairest flowers to the warm
gardens of  the sunny South; there  to bloom in
 beauty and in brightness.
  The marriage  feast  was spread;  the bridal
 wreath was woven; and many bounding hearts
 and sparkling eyes  chided the lagging hours.
 The thoughts of the bridegroom dwelt not upon
 the ignoble controversy, which, for an unguard-
 ed moment, had occupied his attention, but upon
 the bright and glorious future, whose rapturous
 visions were about to become enchanting reali-
 ties.
  Under such circumstances,  Judge Wilkinson
 could not have desired the  conflict.  Had the
 fires of hell blazed in his bosom, they must have
 been quenched for a while.   The very fiend of
discord would have been ashamed, fresh from a
 voluntary,  vulgar, bloody quarrel, and reeking
 with its unsightly memorials, to have  sought
 the gay wedding banquet.
   You cannot believe he coveted or courted th*
 unfortunate affray, without, at the same time,,
 considering him destitute, not only of all senti-
 ment of delicacy  and refinement, but of every
 characteristic of  a  man.   Does  his previous
 character warrant such a conclusion? He has,
 as has been shown to you in evidence, ever en-
 tertained the character of an honorable and up-
 right gentleman.  I see, by the sneer upon the
 lip of the adverse counsel, that the term grates
 harshly upon his sensibilities.  But, I repeat it,
 Judge Wilkinson has ever entertained the char-
 acter of a gentleman; a  character directly at
 war with the supposition that his conduct on this
 occasion resulted otherwise than from necessity.
 I mean, by "a gentleman," not  the broadcloth,
 but the man; one  who is above doing a mean,
 a cowardly or a dishonest action, whatever may
 be the temptation; one who forms his own stand-
 ard of right and will not swerve from it; who
 regards the opinions of the world much, but his
 own self-respect more. Such men are confined
 to no particular class of society,  though, I fear,
 they  do not  abound in  any.   I will  save the
 learned counsel the  trouble of translating his
 sneer into language, by admitting that they are
 to be found as readily among mechanics as else-
 where.
  Such  a man I believe Judge Wilkinson  to be.
 Such has ever been his character, and he is enti-
 tled to  the benefit of it  on this occasion.  It
 ought to have, and I know will have very  great
 weight  with you.  Good  character always has
 been, and ever  should be,  a wall of strength
 around its possessor,  a seven-fold  shield to him
 who bears it.
  This  is one  of the advantages which virtue
 has over vice—honorable over dishonorable con-
duct—an advantage which it is the very highest
 interest of society  to  cherish and enforce.  In
proportion to the excellence of a man's charac-
ter, is, and ever ought to be the  violence of the
presumption that he  has been guilty of crime.
I appeal, then, to Judge  Wilkinson's character,
to prove that he could not have desired this un-
fortunate controversy; that it is impossible  he
should have been guilty, under the circumstan-
ces which then surrounded him, of the crime of
wilful and  malicious  murder.   What, on the
other hand, was  the condilion of the conspira-
tors?  Redding had been going about from street 
1*0)
to street, like Peter the hermit, preaching up a
crusade against the  Mississippians.  Johnson,
like Tecumseh—but no,  I will  not assimilate
him to that noble  warrior—like  an Indian run-
ner, was threading each path in the city,  in-
citing his tribe to dig up the tomahawk and drive
it, not into the scalps, but the "steaks" of the
foe.  But I will not pursue this point at greater
length.
   I proposed,  after arguing  the  position that
there actually was a conspiracy to  chastise the
defendants, and inflict upon  them great bodily
harm, to shew, in the next place,that the defend-
ants had good reason to believe such a conspira-
 cy existed, whether in point of fact  it did or
not.  Most of the arguments bearing upon this
proposition have been already advanced in sup-
port  of the other.  These I will not repeat.
There are one or  two others  worthy of notice,
 What could  Judge  Wilkinson have  supposed
from the conduct of Redding,  but that he sought
and provoked a difficulty?  What else could he
 conclude from the unmitigated abuse which was
 heaped upon him, from the opening of the very
sluices of vulgarity?  That the Judge apprehen-
 ded violence is evident from the warning which
 he gave.   He  told Redding that he  might say
 what he pleased,  but not to lay his hands upon
 him; if he did, he would  kill him.  He  could
 not be supposed to know that Redding came only
 for the  names.   When  Meeks stepped up to
  Murdaugh and struck  him  with his clubbed
 whip, while the crowd closed in around,  what
 could Murdaugh reasonably expect but violence
 and  bodily harm, resulting  from preconcerted
 arrangement?  Without going at length into an
 argument on this point, I take it for granted, no
 one  will deny  that the  defendants  had ample
 grounds for apprehending the existence, on the
 part of Mr. Redding and his friends, of a con-
 spiracy, to commit upon them personal violence.
    Let us  now look a moment at the conduct of
  the  defendants,  at  the  Gait  House, and  sec
  whether it transcended the bounds of right, rea-
 son  or prudence.  When Murdaugh and  the
  Doctor entered the room, the exclamation was
  made, by some one, loud  enough for all to hear,
  "There  they  are—all  three of  them,  now;"
  upon which,  according to nearly all the witness-
  es, Mr. Redding made the remark to Murdaugh,
  "You are the man that drew the  bowie knife on
  me."   You  will recollect Redding  had  just
  crossed  Judge Wilkinson's  path, and  placed
himself with his back againat the counter, mani-
festly with the object of bringing on the fight.
Murdaugh, indignant at being publicly charged
with having drawn a bowie knife upon an unarm-
ed man, replied, "that any one who said he
had drawn a bowie knife told ad—dlie;" where-
upon instantly steps up Meeks, with his knotted
cowhide, exclaiming, "You are the  d—d little
rascal that did it," at the same time inflicting
upon him a very  severe blow.  By the bye, this
assertion of Meeks proves that, he had  been at
Redding's after the first affray, and heard a full
account of it. It is  urged  against  the Judge,
that when Mr. Everett led him  to his room, he
asked for pistols.   I think an argument may be
drawn from this circumstance in his  favor.   His
requisition for arms  proves that he considered
himself and his friends in great personal danger.
He  manifestly required  them  not  for offence,
but  for defence.  Had he intended an attack,
he would not have  gone down to the bar-room
without first  obtaining the weapons  he  desired.
Men do not voluntarily attempt the lives of oth-
ers without being well prepared.  It is evident
that Judge Wilkinson  and  his friends  thought
only of the protection of their own persons; for
they went down stairs provided only with the
ordinary weapons which they were  accustomed
 to bear.   Murdaugh and the Doctor had a pocket
 knife  each;  the  same they had previously car-
 ried.  They  had added nothing  to their armor,
 either offensive  or  defensive.   The Judge, ap-
 prehensive of difficulty, had taken his bowie
 knife, which, probably, he had not previously
 worn.  When,at the solicitation of Mr. Everett,
 he retired, he doubtless informed his friends  of
 what had just transpired in the  bar-room, and
 expressed his fears of violence.  This  accounts
 for  the readiness with  which  Murdaugh met
 the assault  of the two powerful men who simul-
 taneously rushed upon him.
   The evidence  is  conclusive that Meeks com-
 menced  the attack,  upon Murdaugh, by two
 rapid, violent blows of a cow-hide; accompanied
 by  a heavy  blow from a stick or cane from the
 hands of Rothwell.   At the same time he seized
 the hand of Murdaugh,  in which,  prepared  for
 defence,  was an open  knife;  but Murdaugh,
 with coolness and celerity, changed the weapon
 to his  left hand, and used it according to the
 dictates both of law and common sense.  The
 very first blow had driven him to the wall.  The
 crowd closed around him:  ho could not retreat, 
(80)
  and^vas justified, according to the strictest and
  most technical principles of even English juris-
  prudence, to take the life of the assailant.  No
  man  but-a  fool  or a coward  ould ha\c acted
  otherwise than he did.  Was he not, according
  to the rule  read  by the  District  Attorney, in
  imminent danger of his life or of great bodily
  harm?  Let the unhealed wound upon his head
  rcjpond.  Let his hat, which has been exhibited
  to yon, answer the  question.  Upon  thi<? you
  may perceive two incisions,  which must have
  b^en  caused by  a  sharp,  cutting instrument.
  No obtuse weapon was capable of the  effect.
  The blows  were manifestly sufficient to have
  caused death, but for the intervention  of the
  elastic material, upon which their principal force
  was expended.  The part, then, taken  by Mur-
  daugh in the affray was clearly defensive and j us-
  tifiable.   It is not pretended that  Doctor Wil-
  kinson took any other part in the affray than at-
 tempting to  escape from its violence, unless you
 notice the evidence of Oldham, that he cut him
 as he  fled from the room.  Ho  was  beaten, first
 by Rothwell, then by Holmes, and if you take
 their  own statements,  by those two worthies,
-Halbert and Oldham.  He  was crushed almost
 to atoms.  He had not a t-hance  even for self-
 defence.  Rothwell  had  left  Murdaugh,  after
 striking him  one blow, in charge of  Meeks, and
 fell upon the Doctor.   While beating the Doc-
 tor, he was  stabbed  by the  Judge, near the
 diring room door.  The Doctor fled round the
 room, still followed by Rothwell, who was  again
 struck by the Judge,  when  upon the opposite
 side.  The two blows paralyzed his powers; when
 Holmes stepped in and so completely prostrated
 the Doctor, that he was compelled to hold him
 up with one hand while he  beat  him with the
 other.
   Neither offensive word nor action, upon this
 occasion, on the part of Doctor Wilkinson, is
 proven or pretended.  It  is perfectly clear that
he was beaten by Redding's friends, simply be-
cause he was  of the Mississippi party.  I consid-
er it highly disgraceful to the Grand Jury who
 found the bill, that he was included in it.
   In reference to the part taken by Judge  Wil-
kinson.   It is proven beyond contradiction, by
Mr. Pearson, a gentleman of undoubted veracity,
that the Judge, at  his  solicitation,  was in the
act of leaving the  room, as the  affray commen-
ced; when, witnessing the attack upon  Mur-
daugh, he stopped, refusing to  leave until he
  saw the result of the controversy, in which hit
  friend was engaged.  Standing in the corner of
  the room, he did not at first take part in the con.
  flict; perceiving, doubtless, that  Murdaugh was
  making good his own defence.  Presently, how-
  ever, he cast his eyes around and saw  his bro-
  ther trodden under foot, entirely  powerless, and
  apparently cither dead or in  immediate danger
  from the fierce  blows of Rothwell, who, as you
  have  heard, was a man of  tremendous physical
  power, and armed with a bludgeon, some say, a
  sword cane.  Then it was  he thought it neces-
  sary to act; and advancing through  the crowd
  to the spot,  he  wounded the assailant, who was
  crushing out his brother's life.  Gen.  Chambers
  swears positively that Rothwell  was  beating,,
  with a stick, and with great severity, some one,
  whom the other witnesses  identify as the Doc-
  tor, at the time  he was stabbed near  the dining
  room door.   This produced  a slight diversion in
  the Doctor's favor, who availed  himself of it,
  by retreating, in a stooping posture, towards the
  passage door.  Rothwell, however, pursued and
  beat him down,  but was arrested in his violence
 b,  another blow from Judge Wilkinson, which,
 together with the puncture in his  throat, re-
 ceived in all probability from  a  chance thrust
 of  the sword cane in the hands of one of his own
 party, disabled  him and  caused  his  death.
 About this time Holmes was completing  Roth-
 well's unfinished work, and the Doctor, hunted
 entirely around  the room, fell, utterly exhausted,
 at the feet of his relentless pursuers.   It is won-
 derful that he had strength enough  to escape
 with Murdaugh  and the Judge.
  Such, briefly, were the parts enacted by these
 defendants,  respectively, in  this unfortunate
 affray—the result of which, none regret more
 than themselves.  Considering the proof of  the
 conspiracy, and  the knowledge, or even the rea-
 sonable apprehension on the part of the defend-
 ant?, of its existence, as  affording  them ample
 justification for their participation in the matter,
 I have not thought it necessary to go into a mi-
 nute analysis of the evidence on this branch of
 the subject, nor  to attempt to reconcile those
 slight discrepancies which will always occur in
 the testimony of the most veracious witnesses,
 in giving an  account of a transaction  viewed
 from different positions and at different periods
 of time.
  The law of self-defence has always had and
ought lo have a more liberal construction in this 
(SI)
country than in England.   Men claim more of
personal independence here; of course they have
moie to defend.  They claim more freedom and
license in their actions towards each other, con-
sequently therj is greater reason fi.r apprehend-
ing personal attack  from  an enemy.    In  this
country men retain in their own hands a larger
portion of their personal rights than in any oth-
er; and one will be  authorized  to presume an
intention  to exercise and  enforce them, upon
grounds that, in other countries, would not ex-
cite  the slightest  suspicion.  It is the appre-
hension of impending harm, and not  its actual
existence,  which  constitutes the justification
for defensive action.   If mine enemy point at me
an unloaded pistol or  a wooden gun, in a man-
ner calculated to excite in my mind apprehen-
sions of immediate,  great  bodily  harm, I am
justifiable in taking his life, though it turn out
afterwards that I was in no actual danger.
  So, on the other hand, if 1 take  the  life of
another, without being aware of any  intended
violence on his part, it will constitute no excuse
for me to prove that he intended an attack upon
me.
  The apprehension  must  be  reasonable,  and
its reasonableness may depend upon a variety of
circumstances—of time, place  and manner, as
well as of character.   The  same appearance of
danger would authorize greater apprehension,
and of course readier defensive action, at night
than in the day time.  An  attack upon one in
his own house would indicate greater violence,
and excuse  stronger opposing action, than an
attack in the street.
   Indications of violence from an individual of
known desperate and dangerous character will
justify defensive and preventive action, which
would be inexcusable  towards a notorious cow-
ard.   A stranger may reasonably indulge from
the appearance or threats of a mob, apprehen-
niona that would be  unpardonable in  a citizen
surrounded by his friends and neighbors.
  Beating  these observations in mind,  let us
look at. the situation of the  defendants.  They
were attacked at their Hotel, which, for the time
being,  was their house. They  were strangers,
and a  fierce mob  had gathered around them,
indicating,  both by  word  and deed,  the most
violent  intentions.   Thev  were  three,  small,
weak men, without  friends—for even the pro-
prietor of the house, who should have  protected
tiiem,  had  become alarmed, and  left them to
their fate.  Their enemies were, comparatively,
giants—dangerous in appearance and desperate
in action.   Was there not ample ground for the
most fearful apprehensions?
  But the District Attorney says they are not
entitled to the benefit of the law of self-defencu,
because they came  down to supper, and  thus
placed themselves, voluntarily, within reach of
the danger.   According to his view of the case,
they should have remained  in their chamber, in
a state of siege,  without  the  right  to  sally
forth,  even for  provisions;  while  the  enemy,
cutting off their supplies, would, doubtless,
soon have starved them into a surrender.  But
it seems there was a private  entrance to the
supper table, and they should have skulked in
through that; no one but a craven coward, un-
worthy of the privileges of a man, would have
followed such a course.  The ordinary entrance
to supper  was through the bar-room.  They had
a right to pass this  way:   no law forbade  it:—
Every  principle of independence and self-respect
prompted it.  And  through that bar-room  I
would  have gone, as they did, though the  floor
had  been  fresh sown with  the  fabled dragon's
teuth and bristling with its  crop of armed men.
  I  care  not whether the assailing party had
deadly weapons or not; though 1 will bye and
bye shew they had, and used  thein too.  But
the true question is,  whether  the  defendants
had not good reason for believing them armed
and every way prepared for a desperate conflict.
I have shewn already  that Doctor Wilkinson
and Murdaugh did not transcend the most tech-
nical principle laid down by the commonwealth's
attorney; not even  that which requires a man
to run to the wall before he can  be permitted
to defend himself—a principle, which, in prac-
tice, is exploded in England, and never did ob-
tain in this country at all.  But, says the learn-
ed  attorney, Judge  Wilkinson interfered, and
took part, before he  was himself attacked: he^
had  no right to anticipate the attack upon him-
self: he had no right to  defend his friend; he
had no right to protect his  brother's life.   Now
I differ from the  worthy  counsel on all these
points: I  think  he had a right to  prevent, by
anticipating it, violence upon his person: he had
a right to defend his friend, and  it was his sa-
cred duty to protect his brother's life.
  Judge  Wilkinson  was the most obnoxious of
the party; his friends were already overpower-
ed; he could not expect to escape; and in a mo-
                          ll 
(82)
 ment the whole force of the bandit gang would
 have been turned upon him.
   The principles of self-defence, which pervade
 ell animated  nature, and act towards life the
• same part  that is performed by  the external
 mechanism of the eye towards  the  delicate
 sense of vision, affording it, on the approach of
 danger, at the same time, warning and protec-
 tion, do not require that action shall be with-
 held till it can be of no avail.  When the rat-
 tlesnake gives warning of his fatal purpose, the
 wary traveller waits not for the poisonous blow,
 but plants upon his head  his armed heel, and
 crushes  out,   at  once,  "his venom and  his
 strength."  When the hunter hears the rust-
 ling in the  jungle, and beholds the large green
 eyes of the spotted tiger glaring upon him, he
 waits not fir  the  deadly  spring,  but  sends at
 once through  the brain  of his crouching enemy
 the swift and  leaden death.
   If war was declared  against your country by
 an insulting foe, would  you  wait till your sleep-
 ing cities were wakencs! by the terrible music
 of the bursting bomb?  till your  green  fields
 were trampled by the hoofs of the invader and
 made red with the  blood  of your  brethren?
 No! you  would send forth  fleets  and armies—
 you would unloose upon the broad ocean your
 keen falcons—and the thunder of  your guns
 would arouse stern  echoes along the  hostile
 coast.  Yet this would  be but national defence,
 and authorized by the same great principle of
 self-protection, which applies no less to individ-
 uals than to nations.
   But Judge  Wilkinson had  no right to inter-
 fere in defence of his brother; so says the com-
 monwealth's  attorney.   Go, gentlemen,  and
 ask your mothers  and  sisters whether that be
 law.  I refer  you  to no musty tomes, but to the
 living volumes of nature.  What! a man  not
 permitted to defend his brother against conspira-
 tors? against  assassins, who are crushing  out
 the very life of  their bruised  and  powerless
 victim?   Why, he who would shape his conduct
 by such  a principle does not deserve to have a
 brother or a friend.  To fight for self is but  the
 result of  an honest instinct, which we have in
 common with the brutes.
   To defend those who are dear to us, is  the
 highest exercise of the  principle of self-defence.
 It nourishes  all  the noblest, social qualities,
 and constitutes the germ  of patriotism itself.
   Why is the step of the  Kentuckian free  as
 that of the bouuding  deer; firm, manly, and
confident  as  that  of the  McGregor  when  hir
foot was on the heather of his native  hills, and
his eye on the peak of Ben Lomond?  It is be-
cause he feels independent and proud; indepen-
dent in the knowledge of his rights, and proud
in  the  generous consciousness of ability  and
courage to defend  them, not  only  in  his own
person, but in the persons of those who are dear
to him.
  It was  not the blood that would desert a
brother or a friend, which  swelled the hearts of
your fathers in the "olden time," when, in  de-
fence of those they loved, they sought  the red
savage  through all the fastnesses of his native
forest.  It was not such blood that was poured
out, free as a gushing  torrent, upon the  dark
banks  of the melancholy Raisin, when all Ken
tucky manned her  warrior  sires. They  were
as bold and true as ever fought beneath a plume.
The Roncesvalles pass,  when fell before the op-
posing lance the harnessed chivalry  of Spain,
looked not upon a braver or a better band.
  Kentucky has no law which precludes a man
from defending himself, his brother, or his friend.
Better for  Judge Wilkinson had  he never been
born, than that he should have failed in his duty
on this occasion.  Had he acted otherwise  than
he did, he would have  been  ruined in his own
estimation, and blasted  in the opinions of the
world.  And  young  Muidaugh,  too; he  has a
mother, who is looking even now from her win-
dow, anxiously  watching for her son's return—
but better, both for her and him, that he should
have been  borne a  bloody corse to her arms, than
that he should have carried to her, unavenged,
the degrading marks of the accursed whip.
  But there was danger, as well as degradation.
Their lives were in imminent  hazard.  Look at
the cuts in Murdaugh's hat and upon his head,
the stab received by the Judge, and the wounds
inflicted upon the Doctor.  Besides the over-
whelming  superiority in number and strength,
the conspirators had very greatly the advantage
in weapons.   We  have  proven the exhibition
and use, by them, of knives, dirks, a sword cane,
and a pistol, without counting the  bludgeons,
which,  in  the hands of such men, are weapons
little less  deadly than the others.
  Need I dwell longer upon this point?  Need I
say that the defendants are no murderers? that
they acted in selfdefence, and  took  life from
necessity,  not from malice?
  But there is a murderer—and, strange to say,
his  name appears upon  the indictment,  not as 
83)
*
criminal, but as prosecutor.   His  garments are
wet with the blood of those upon  whose deaths
you hold this  solemn inquest.  Yonder he sits,
allaying for a moment the hunger of that fierce
vulture,  conscience,  by  casting  before it  the
food of  pretended regret,  and false, but ap-
parent eagerness for justice.  He hopes  to ap-
pease the manes of his  slaughtered  victims—
victims to his falsehood  and treachery—by sa-
crificing upon their graves a hecatomb of inno-
cent  men.   By base misrepresentations of the
conduct of the defendants,  he  induced his im-
prudent friends to attempt a vindication of his
pretended wrongs, by  violence and bloodshed.
His clansmen  gathered at his call, and followed
him for vengeance; but when the  fight began,
and the keen  weapons clashed in the sharp con-
flict—where  was  this  wordy warrior?—Aye,
"Where was Roderick then?"  No "blast upon
his bugle horn" encouraged his  companions  as
they  were laying down their lives in his quarrel:
no gleam of  his dagger indicated a desire  to
avenge their  fall—with  treacherous cowardice
 he left them to their fate;  and all his vaunted
 courage ended in ignominious flight.
   Sad and gloomy is the path that lies before
 him.   You will  in a few moments dash, un-
tasted, from his lips the  sweet cup of revenge;
to quaff"  whose  intoxicating contents he has
 paid a price that would have purchased the gob-
 let of the Egyptian queen.  I behold gathering
 around him, thick  and fast, dark and corroding
 cares.  That face, which looks so  ruddy, and
 even now is flushed with shame  and conscious
 guilt, will from this day grow pale, until  the
 craven blood  shall  refuse  to visit  his haggard
 cheek.  In his broken and distorted sleep, his
 dreams will be more fearful than  those of the
 "false,  perjured  Clarence;" and around  his
 waking pillow, in  the deep hour of night, will
 flit the ghosts of Rothwell and of Meeks, shriek-
 ing their curses in his shrinking  ear.
   Upon his head rests not  only  all the  blood
 shed in this unfortunate strife, but also the soul-
 killing crime of perjury; for, surely as he lives,
 did the words of craft  and falsehood fall from
 his lips, ere they were hardly loosened from the
 Holy volume. But I dismiss  him, and do con-
 sign him to the furies—trusting, in all charity,
 that  the  terrible  punishment  he  must  suffer
 from  the acorpion-lash of a guilty conscience
 will  bo considered in his last account.
   Johnson and Oldham, too, are  murderers  at
heart.  But  1 shall make  to thern  no appeal.
There  is no chord in their bosoms which can
render back music to the  touch of  feeling.
They have both perjured themselves.  The for-
mer cut up the truth as coolly as if he had been
carving meat in his own stall.   The latter, on
the contrary, was no longer the  bold and hot-
blooded knight; but the shrinking, pale-faced
witness.  Cowering beneath yeur stern and in-
dignant gaze, marked you  not how "his coward
lip did from its color fly;"  and how his qualing
eye sought from floor to rafter protection from
each honest glance.
   It seems to me that the  finger of  Providence
is visible in the  protect.on of  the defendants.
Had this affair occurred at Mr. Redding's Coffee
House, instead of the Gait House, nothing could
have saved them.   Their l.ves would hav- been
sworn away, without remorse, by Redding and
his gang.  All that saved  them  from sacrifice
was the accidental presence of gentlemen, whoso
testimony  cannot be doubted,  <ind  who  have
given an honest and true account of the trans-
action.
   Gentlemen of the Jury:—I shall  detain you
no longer.  It was, in fact, a matter of superero-
gation for  me  to address  you  at all, after the
lucid and powerful exposition of the case, which
has been given  by my respoctcd friend, Col.
 Robertson.   It was doubly so, when it is consid-
 ered  that I am to be succeeded  by a gentleman,
 (Judge Rowan,) who, better, perhaps, than any
 other man living, can give you, in his profound
 learning and experience,  a just interpretation
 of the laws of your state;  and  in his  own per-
 son, a noble illustration of that proud and gene-
 rous character which is a  part of the birthright
 of a  Kentuckian.
   It  is true, I had hoped, when  the evidence was
 closed, that the commonwealth's attorney might
 have found it in accordance with his duty and
 his feelings to have entered, at once, a nolle pro-
 sequi.  Could the genius of "Old Kentucky"
 have spoken, such would  have  been  her man-
 date.  Blushing  with shame at the inhospitable
 conduct of a portion of her sons, she would havo
 hastened to make reparation.
    Gentlemen—Let her sentiments be spoken  by
 you.  Let your verdict take character from the
 noble state which you in part represent.  With-
 out leaving  your box, announce to  the  world
 that here the defence of one's own person is  no
 crime; and  the  protection of a brother's life is 
(«4)
the Bubject of approbation,  rather than of pun-
ishment.
  Gentlemen of the  Jury—I  return you  my
most nrofound and sincere thanks for the kind-
ness with which  you  have listened to  me, a
stranger,  pleading the cause of strangers.
  Your generous  and  indulgent treatment I
shall ever  remember  with  the most grateful
emotions.
  In full confidence that you,  by your sense  of
humanity and justice, will supply the many de-
fects in my feeble advocacy, I now  resign into
your  hands  tho fate of my  clients.  As you
shall do unto them, so,  under  like  circumstan-
ces,  may«it be done unto you.
  Mr. Prentiss during  the delivery of his ad-
dress had been repeatedly interrupted by bursts
of applause from the assembled auditory; and
when he sat down was greeted with irrepressible
cheers.  In a few minutes after order had been
restored, Mr.  Thompson rose and addressed  the
Court and Jury as follows :—
  May it please the Court—Gentlemen of the Jury,
I know you are already wearied by the lengthened
protraction of this cause.   I am also  aware of the
high and great claims and  unqualified  ability of the
gentleman,  [Mr.  Prentiss,] who has  preceded  me.
By retracing, I cannot hope to strengthen the posi-
tions assumed by him; and so weli has he swept the
field, but little remain? for a gleaner.   The mature
experience, the distinguished and well de^rved repu-
tation of the gentleman,  [Mr. Rowan,] who will
conclude the defence, also admonish me of the pro-
priety of taxing your patience as lightly, as is con-
sistent with a  succinct statement of the  law,  and
brief commentary upon the evidence in the cause.
  When all that has been  alledged against the defen-
dants, in argument, has been so  ably answered, I
Eissureyou, nothing buta  sense of duty, and a com-
pliance with the wishes of the accused, would induce
me to address  you.   The defendants come before
you, gentlemen, not as in ordinary cases.  Among
the wise provisions and wholesome customs of the
common law, it was ordained, that the triers should
be of the visne or neighborhood-   Jurors,  thus  se-
 lected, were presumed, from their acquaintance with
 the parties, and their knowledge of character, to be
better prepared to adjudicate justly upon  those  ar-
 raigned for a  violation of the laws.   "Where the of-
 fence was committed, and there only, could the party
 be tried.  His character and reputation might shield
 him from  suspicion and prejudice—the whole tenor
 of his life—the uniform purity of hi.'; conduct, would
often of themselves, among his neighbors and aci
quaintances, refute any imputation of crime.
  The trial by compurgation  is not now known to
our laws; but the testimony of an upright life, and
an unblemished character, is a more convincing, and
less suspicious proof of innocence, than the conpur-
gational oath of friends, too partial perhaps, and too
confiding.  The moral force of that good name, and
the countenance of those steadfast friends, which
would encircle and protect the defendants at home,
they have not here.  But, gentlemen,  they are not
only strangers,  far from  home, and  from  friends,
they are also arraigned, and upon  trial before you,
not of the visne or county, where the offence is al-
ledged to have been committed: By a change of ve-
nue, this cause has been translated, to another coun-
ty, because, where the offence was committed, the
defendants have been driven from the temple of jus-
tice by prejudices unwarranted by the facts, foment-
ed by the newspapers, aad sedulously circulated and
impressed upon  the public mind by those who origi-
nated, and upon whose skirts rests the blood of the
unfortunate catastrophe,  in the tragic events of
which the accused are implicated.
  The defendants, Dr. Wilkinson,  Murdaugh and
Judge Wilkinson, are now put upon their trial upon
two distinct and separate indictments.  The  first
charges Judge Wilkinson  with the murder of John
Rothwell, and  charges Dr. Wilkinson and Mur-
daugh, as principals in  the first degree, as being pre-
sent, aiding, abetting and assisting him in the mur-
der.  The second, charges Murdaugh with being
guilty of the murder of Alexander Meek, and charg-
es Judge Wilkinson and  Dr.  Wilkinson as  princi-
pals in the first degree, present, aiding, assisting and
abetting  him in the murder.  As you have learned
from the testimony, the same, and but the one fatal
and  unfortunate affair at the Gait House, in Louis-
ville, is the foundation of these two distinct and se-
parate indictments.  By the examining court, whose
duty and province it is, if, upon enquiry, it deems a
party brought before it so far culpable as to  merit a
stricter examination, to send him on to the Circuit
Court for further trial, Dr. Wilkinson was discharg-
ed.   No beneficial purpose in attaining justice; no
requirement of law, demanded this double proceed-
ing by distinct indictments.  To the Doctor's  con-
duct, the color of crime did not so far affix itself, but
that the Mayor of Louisville, promptly, against the
tide of public sentiment, dismissed him from further
prosecution, as one in whom he found  no fault.   Se
inapprehensible  was the Doctor, in the opinion and
judgment of that officer of the law, a trial before a
jury of his country was deemed not proper.   I have
not been able to perceive, nor do I  now perceive,
the propriety of including the Doctor in these in-
dictments.  In the affray at the tailor's shop, which 
(RS)
is unconnected in point of fact, and in legal contem-
plation, is separated from and  independent of the
transaction at the Gait House;  the Doctor not only
committed no violence,  but one of the witnesses
tells you he attempted to separate the  parties.  Op-
portunity, with safety to himself, the provocation of
seeing his brother insulted on his account, and then
overpowered, would surely have been a sufficiently
exciting cause for that wantonness and malevolence
of heart with which he is now charged,  if in  truth
" fatally bent on  mischief and  regardless  of social
duty," he thirsted for blood.   He then, as after-
wards, had with him his pocket knife; angry, and
personal  altercation first, and  then actual  conflict
between Redding and his brother, was transpiring in
his presence on  his own account, he spoke not an
offensive word,  he struck no blow.  The  harshest
interpretation that can be given to his actions, is,
that it is doubtful, whether he would have assisted
 his brother, or separated the combatants.
   In the affray at the Gait  House, not a  solitary
witness proves that he offensively participated in the
affair;  there is no evidence that he did, or even offer-
ed to do violence to his assailants, unless you are
disposed to credit the statements of Oldham.   Vv'hat
credence should be given to the testimony of that
faith-worthy conspirator; what reliance can be plac-
ed on the oath  of that volunteer in the fight, your
 knowledge of human character and the discretion of
 the gentleman you have already witnessed, will ena-
 ble you readily to determine. To Redding and com-
 pany the Dr. gave not the slightest cause of offence;
 he knew none of them, except Redding; was a stran-
 ger, passing through Louisville from Mississippi to
 Bardstown, and  was found, much like a "certain
 man on his way from Jerusalem to Jerico, who fell
 among thieves and robbers, who stript him, beat him,
 and leaving him for dead, departed."  Upon  his en-
 trance into  the public bar-room at the Gait House,
 he was suddenly, unarmed, struck down senseless.
 He had assaulted no man, provoked no one, insulted
 nobody, he had not even  uttered  a  syllable.   The
 enormity of getting hungry,  and coming down
 stairs to supper, when supper was ready, is the only
 crime he is proved to have perpetrated.  For this of-
 fence he was assailed, bruised until he was livid, and
 not only beaten there until he was senseless; but now
  here again  is he struck dumb by being joined in
  these indictments.  His power of utterance  is sup-
  pressed, and his tongue torn out by the roots, that
  he may not divulge the foul deeds of that night.  By
  a ruse de guerre it may well suit the prosecutor to sti-
  fle the utterance, and suppress the testimony of all
  of the adverse party.   The accused are not permit-
  ted, by any of  themselves, to give a narration of the
  matter; no  one acquainted with all of them, was
  present to remember their words, watch their move-
ments, feel their danger, and now detail the circum-
stances of necessity under which they acted.  Red-
ding and his party, the assailants then, the prosecu-
tor and witnesses here, can, without contradiction,
save from casual visiters at the house, or accidental
lookers on, give what complexion they please to the
cause. Why has Doctor Wilkinson, after his dis-
charge, been included in these indictments?  Why
has his evidence been stifled—his power of utterance
in behalf of his brother and Murdaugh choaked?  It
cannot be pretended that  he even deserves to  be
tried.  Why, then, not permit him to be heard  as a
witness? A vision from one of the adverse party
might much elucidate the matter.  He has been in-
cluded in the indictments,  because those  of neither
side  present,  were  persons from  all parts of the
Union, itinerant, unknown, their attendance as wit-
 nesses doubtful, flouried by the suddenness of the af-
fair, their testimony composed from  want of ac-
 quaintance with the parties, the ignorance or indif-
 ference  of lookers on—all these circumstances for-
 bade a hope that the proper acts and parts could be
 assigned to the proper  individuals.  Doctor Wilkin-
 son out  of the way, the combined oaths of the con-
 spirators, they hoped, would give colour  and cast to
 the case.  The forms of law have  been perverted to
 subserve the purposes of this prosecution by impli-
 cating the Dr.  Explanation from an  opponent,  or
 the possibility of contradiction, save from some one
 accidentally present being cut off; they hoped by
 concerted swearing to accomplish what they so sig-
 nally failed to effect by their combined attack   The
 Doctor  is now inculpated, not because he is guilty,
 but because it suits the purposes of the  prosecution
 that he shall not be heard as a witness.
    1 will here, gentlemen, briefly advert  to the  law
 of homicide in self-defence, and its bearing upon the
 facts in the cause so far as Murdaugh is concerned.
    " Sec 14. And not only he who on  an assault re-
 treats to a wall, or some such streight beyond  which
 he can go no further, before he kills the other, is
 judged, by the law, to act upon unavoidable  neces-
 sity; but also he who  being assaulted in such a man-
  ner, and such a place that he cannot go back, without
  manifestly endangering his life, kills the other with-
  out retreating."   1 Hawkins, p. c. p.  113.
    The  right of self-defence, as settled  by the law,
  is, first, that rule of action that is instinctively im-
  planted in the human breast by the wisdom of prov-
  idence  for our preservation; it is onlv so  far modified
  by the  benignity of the law, and enlightened reason,
  as to require, that, from "tenderness  of shedding a
  brother's  blood," the assailed party shall so  far re-
  cede and avoid conflict as his personal safety,  or the
  violence of the assault, will permit.  The rule of the
  civil law, that "qui cum aliter tueri se  nonpossunt,
  dimni  culpam  dederint  innoxii sunt," is  also the 
(SG)
English common law. contained in the latter portion
of that section  of Blackstone's Commentaries read
to you by the Attorney for the Commonwealth; the
party assaulted  must not factitiously, but really re-
treat so far as  he conveniently can;  or, "so far as
the fierceness of the assault will permit  him,  for it
may be so fierce as not to allow him to yield a step
without manifest danger of his life, or bodily harm;
then, in his defence, he may kill his assailant in-
stantly, and this is the doctrine of universal justice,
as well as of municipal law.  [4. B.  c. p. 185.]
  The same doctrine, that  where the fierceness of
the assault forbids,  or no opportunity is afforded to
retreat with safety to the assailed party, is the law
as laid down by Hale, [1. H. p. c. p. 482,] and in the
clear and lucid language of Mr. Justice  Parker, of
Massachusetts,  in the case  of the Commonwealth
against  Thos. O. Leffridge,  "when the attack upon
him [the assailed party] is so sudden, fierce, and vio-
lent, as that a retreat would not diminish, but in-
crease his danger, he may instantly kill his adversa-
ry without retreating at all."
  If Murdaugh was attacked at such time and in
such place, and so fiercely, that, to save  his life, or
protect himself  from great bodily harm,  it was ne-
cessary to slay  his assailant, the law adjudges him
only guilty of  homicide, excusable, se defendendo.
Where the necessity is unavoidable, urgent, imposed
upon the party  against his will, neither reason nor
law, require him to  do what his safety and personal
security  forbid  he should attempt to do.   The law
being as I have laid it down, and as may be read
from those works of unquestioned authority, I now
ask you to collate and apply the facts touching Mur-
daugh's conduct, to  the law so understood.
  The scope of  action, and  the line of duty, as per-
mitted and demarked by the principles of law  to an
assailed party,  have not been transcended by  him
by colour of and under pretext of the right of self-
defence,  in this instance, as I understand the  testi-
mony.
    Murdaugh  had  no   acquaintance  with Meek,
did not know him, had never before seen him; being
a lodger  at  the Gait House, at the usual hour he
came down from his room   for supper.    He came
down with his coarse overcoat on, a serious incum-
brance to a person  about to engage in a combat; a
garment of which any one meditating battle would
have divested himself.   Murdaugh is a small and
feeble man,  had he  expected danger to himself, or
purposed a hostile collision with any one, he would
have been more efficiently armed.  A  pocket  knife
was the only weapon about his person.  Had he de-
liberated an attack,  he would certainly have divest-
ed  himself of his heavy coat, and  armed himself
with pistols, or some more effective armour than a
common pocket knife.   The proprietor of  the Gait
House, [Mr. Everett] informs you that the time of
his coming to the bar-roorn,  was in  the evening
about the time it is  usual for  the inmates of the
house to assemble for supper.   You are also told
that it  is customary, and that about  the time of,
and just before supper is announced, the boarders,
sojourners, and others,  congregate in the bar-room
adjoining the dining room.  When others assembled,
and were preparing for supper, Murdaugh also, en-
cumbered with an overcoat, and  almost unarmed,
came into the public bar-room.  The tavern, for
the time being, was his house,  and he  was entitled
to all the privileges thereof, so long as he demeaned
himself with propriety,  and paid charges.  Which
of the party commenced the conversation is settled
by Redding himself, who, although he recollects no
concert or conspiracy, nevertheless informs that the
altercation, in words, commenced by his accosting
Murdaugh,  and  saying,  "you are the  man that
struck me," or, "you are the man that drew your
bowie knife at my shop;"  or words to that  effect.
To this charge against him, falsely made in allusion
to what had  transpired at the  shop  in  the  eve-
ning, Murdaugh emphatically  responded that "the
asserter,  (whoever  he  was,)   of such a charge,
was a d—d liar." To be calumniated to your face,
and falsely taxed with an offence, (if offence there
was,) provoked  just such an  response as such a
charge deserves from a free, fearless man.  The af-
fair at the shop would never in all probability have
been revived, or even  so  much  as alluded to by the
defendants.  Time had intervened for the passions
to cool and for reason  to interpose, but in an irritat-
ing manner the former quarrel is called  up.  When
Murdaugh asseverated that he  was not  the individ-
ual who gave the blow or  drew the bowie knife at
the shop,  Meeks, with the murder of  whom he ia
especially charged, seized him, saying,  you are the
d—d  little rascal.  When the  conversation  com-
menced,  Raily, Trabue  and others  tell you, the
Growd commenced gathering around them;  to many
of those in the room they  were partially obscured.
This gathering around him by  total strangers was
simultaneous with the revival of the previous quar-
rei, his position near the counter of the  bar-room
prevented his receding.  As they advanced, Graham
and Trabue tell you,  he  warned them  off, and that
warning, earnest as it was, passed unheeded.   Now
surrounded, retreat impracticable, a former quarrel
revived, his  warning unheeded, his knife-hand up-
lifted, as a menacing signal not  to advance,  seized
by an unknown arm with an oath of violence, what
was he to do?  Meeks in wanton  drunkenness im-
agined and had avowed, "that he was bound to have
a fight on that night."  Oliver had in friendship
taken him off,  and by a sort of pious fraud had ob-
tained his knife under the pretence of  paring hie
nails with it.   Yet, ill-fated and as if demented and 
(87)
 doomed, he had returned, and at the same instant
 with laying  violent  hands on  Murdaugh, Mont-
 gomery and others inform you, he struck him with
 a  whip or cow-skin, and  other blows at the same
 instant were inflicted by  others.  What, I ask you
 was he to do?  Every man feels in his own bosom as
 testifying consciousness,  that under such  circum-
 stances the right of defence  would  justify,  the
 law of self preservation would impel him to act  as
 the laws of his nature prompt  him,  and the laws of
 the  land justify  him in acting.  The vilest  worm,
 that crawls on the earth, if trodden  upon will turn
 against the heel that crushes it.  The meekest and
 meanest of animals, when hunted  down to death,
 in desperation will turn on its'pursuers; it is an in-
 stinct of nature impressed on animal organization by
 an  all-wise   providence.   Situated as Murdaugh
 was, to defend himself, was but to act in obedience
 to a law of his nature; above the control of human
 laws, implanted in the constitution of his nature for
 good purposes, the love of self-preservation would
 predominate if even forbidden  by positive municipal
 regulations, when assailed, overpowered and beaten
 down almost to the very jaws of death; to strike for
 your life or security of your person, is an instinct in-
 herent in your nature  by  the laws of heaven,—it is
 an involuntary, spontaneous effort  of your animal
 organization—it is the inspiration of God Almigh-
 ty himself, upon the human heart,  to rebel  and
 contend against destruction.
  Impelled by extreme necessity, under great im-
 pending peril of life, Murdaugh did stab Meeks, and
 of that wound he  died.    Although the calamitous
 occurrence is to be regretted; who can doubt the ne-
 cessity  of the act?   A left hand thrust, with a pock-
et knife, by a feeble and partially disabled  man  in
 defending his person against dapgers,  and  himself
 from degradation,  against a  superior  in strength,
aided by numbers, caused the death of Meeks.  It,
gentlemen, is unnecessary for me to recapitulate the
 testimony, or array the facts,  to prove what is per-
 fectly evident,  that Meeks' death was the result of a
 necessity, that he causelessly, wantonly, and with-
 out provocation, imposed  on a stranger, to him un-
 known, and who in deed or by words, had never of-
 fered him injury.   The  manner of the attack—the
 weapon used by Meeks, (peril and  necessity apart)
gave higher provocation  than a brave man  will
tamely endure.  Should Murdaugh, when stricken
 withacowskin, have  submitted?   Should  he have
 whined and begged as a  negro slave, when  lashed?
 Should the finger  of scorn be  pointed at him as a
coward, disgraced by  the  whip?  The jests of the
rude, the taunts of the vulgar, would mark him for
insult and  mockery,  had he not fought: the very
girls, even  at church and on  gala days, would have
pointed to  him as the chivalrous young gentleman
of the  striped  jacket,  had he  tamely submitted.—
There is not a man on that jury, who deserves the
name of a man, that would passively submit to per-
sonal degradation  by personal chastisement.  The
whelks  of the cow-skin would bleed and  blister,
fret and  forever  fester upon his memory, long after
all traces of the  lash were cured on his back.  The
life of theaggressor could alone atone for the indig-
nity.                                  *
  As the accusation is  more gravely  urged  against
Judge Wilkinson than  the other defendants, I will
now advert to his conduct.  Suits to obtain personal
satisfaction for  assaults and batteries they never
committed, are  pending against  the  Doctor and
Murdaugh for the affair at the shop; an indictment
is also pending against them for that violation of
the public peace.  This attempt to amerce the Doc-
tor, and hold him pecuniarily responsible for an inju-
ry he never  committed, is  alike to  those indict-
ments against him for the murder of  men he never
before in his dream had thought of, much less of vio-
lence towards them.  This persecution is, oerhaps,
on the ground that he  was  the Judge's brother.—
Murdaugh, too, shares in all this legal persecution;
first, because  he is in bad  company; and, secondly,
because se defendendo, he slew a man so vile, that
the prosecution would discredit and render infamous
the only man (Oliver) who seems disposed to recog-
nize him as an acquaintance.  The violation of the
public peatc at the shop, is an injury that another
jury w-!l pass upon, and by their verdict, avenge the
insulted  majesty of the law.   Another jury will
mete out to the prosecutor satisfaction for the injury
received on that occasion.   You are now, gentlemen,
called on in  the  name  and on behalf of the Com-
monwealth, to convict Judge Wilkinson of the mur-
der of John Rothwell, a worthier and  less offending
man in the affray than Meeks, as it is insisted, and
because,  however  excusable  the other defendants
may be, the Judge at least, as the Commonwealth's
Attorney contends, did not  act in necessary self-
defence.
  In addition to the authorities already alluded to
relative to the doctrine of self-defence, the following
positions upon the law  of homicide, are, I believe,
sustained by reason, and deducible from the text and
reasonings  of standard authors.   When  a retreat
would not diminish,  but increase the danger of a
person under  the imperious  necessity of exercising
his right of self-defence, he may, without retreating,
oppose force to force, and even pursue his adversary
unto death, if his own  preservation require it, and
such killing is justifiable, [see Fos. C. L. p. 273—
1 Crim. Law, p. 80.]   The right of self-defence is
not confined to the party endangered—it is not only
an individual, but a social right—it embraces the
principal civil and natural relations; husband and
wife, parent and child, master  and child, not only
may, but in duty, are bound to protect one another; 
(88)
 and hnds good  between citizen and citizen in the
 spirit of the law, according to the reciprocal duties i
 they owe >.ne another. A servant,or any other person,
 when a felony is attempted, may interpose and jus-1
 tifiabiy slay the aggressor.  A person  in possession ]
 of a tavern  room, although no injury be intended
 him,  may, against burglars or incendiaries, oppose
 such force as may be requisite to prevent the felony.
 To protect against murder, robbery or enormous bo-
 dily harm servants of the party attacked, or inmates
 of the house about to  be robbed, may justifiably
 take the life of the assailant or robber, [See Arebold,
 p. 121;  Foster, p. 273-M.]
   I quote, almost literally, from the best  law  wri-
 ters—these  cases are  but  examples to  illustrate
 rules—the law is more palpably  embodied and  dis-
 tinctly  presented to the understanding,  when ex-
 emplified by a ease,  than when presented as an ab-
 stract  rule of action  without reference  to circum-
 stances.   Homicide  is  justifiable, or  excusable,
 when  committed  upon compulsion, and ex necessi-
 tate; because the party does it not from choice  as a
 free agent, but his action on the matter is constrain-
 ed,  his volition controled by external  circumstan-
 ces—the concurrence  of his will to'the deed is ab-
 sent—when  there is no freedom of action, no volun-
 tary assent  of the mind, there is no moral,  and
 should be no legal accountability.   When it is prac-
 ticable with safety, the law to eschew the shedding
 of blood, requires  the party should retreat in cases
 of mutual conflict.  But this  requirement is only
 when it is consistent with'his safety, and if his safe-
 ty requires it, he may be  stationary or advance with
 as much propriety as recede.  How flight would have
 affected  the Judge's personal security, is now a mat-
 ter of pure speculation;   if, tor  his own  personal
 safety, he was constrained to act as he did, or if in
 the  exercise of a  social, not a selfish privilege  and
 duty,  he succoured his  brother and Murdaugh, to
 preserve their lives or protect them from great bo-
 dily harm, he, in  law, is excusable.   Society and
 mutual companionship justify such interference, as
 is happily illustrated by  the case of the three men
 walking  in a field, and  one is assailed,  the others
 may interpose to prevent a felony being  committed,,
and may interpose to any extent to make their inter-
 position  effective,  as you have already learned from
 the case so  aptly quoted by Col. Robertson. The
 reason of the law is this; the life of a citizen is, in
 its contemplation,  dear, his person sacred.  Against
assaults,  injury, or destruction, he may defend them
 to the  last extremity, if the exigency of the occa-
sion demands it, that right is not altogether personal
 to him, but it is asocial right; and it is not only  the
 right of any  person to interfere to  pi event the per-
petration of a felony, but such interference to inter-
cept  the commission of a  crime  is enjoined as a posi-
 tive duty.
    The  natural relationship between the Judge and
 his brother, the mutual ties of friendship between
 him and Murdaugh,  his duty as a citizen, justified
 him in  interfering  in the conflict to defend them.
 By the spirit  of the law for the purpose of defence,
 he is identified with them, their necessity and jus-
 tification is his, their right of self defence is trans-
 ferred  to him, or is rather common to all.  If the
 Judge has not malignantly  transcended the degree
 of violent interposition necessary to save his brother
 and friend's life,  he has but fulfilled his duty as a
 citizen.   I do not desire to be understood that  offi-
 cious meddling in broils is countenanced by law, nor
 do I mean to  assume the position that where com-
 batants are struggling in an affray to prevent mis-
 chief, or keep the peace, extreme violence is  proper;
 no  such licentious latitude of action is even permit-
 ted to those engaged in the conflict; I limit the right
 by  the  wholesome restrictions  imposed on wilful,
 wanton  killing in other cases.   Before I call your
 attention to the evidence, I  will merely advert to
 another  principle of law which is sound in doctrine
 and applicable to this case.   In treating of justifia-
 ble homicide in the due advancement of public jus-
 tice, and in allusion to what killing is justifiable for
 that purpose, the opinion is intimated as correct by
 the author.   1  Hawkins P.  C. 107. "The killing of
 dangerous rioters by any private person who cannot
 otherwise suppress them or  defend themselves from
 them, (is lawful) i>t as much  as every private person
 seems to be authorised by the law to arm himself
 for the purpose aforesaid."  This doctrine seems so
 near akin to lawful killing in the execution of public
justice by hanging,  or in the arrest of felons who
 cannot be apprehended alive by those  who pursue
 them, that I cannot question its correctness.  The
 law to maintain itself and be respected must tole-
 rate the  means to suppress rebellious contempts of
 its authority, and such means should  be proportion-
ed to the exigency of the occasion and consistent
with the safety of the orderly and law-abiding citi-
zen.  Rioters assembled in force like rebels against
the government when they condemn the supremacy
of the law and spurn  its commands  should be re-
garded as outlaws and traitors.   The  law surely
cannot cherish any fuch suicidal and  disorganising
principles as a favorable regard for those who have
forfeited  all claim to be within the pale of its pro-
tection by their disrespect for its principles and the
institutions of their country.
  Without  a laboured analysis of the  testimony,
the prominent facts are few and substantially as I
shall recall them to  your minds.   I have but little
to say of the scuffle in the evening at the shop, the
occurrence itself is quite impertinent to the matter!
now in  issue as I conceive.  The defendants were
staying at the Gait House in Louisville. Judge Wil-
kinson was to be married in a few days at Barde- 
(89)
tviwn in the interior of the state.   Whilst in Louis-
ville the wedding day being just at  hand, it was
thought by them that  the operatives of one shop
could not  in time finish the necessary equipments
in the way of dress.  The Judge and Murdaugh ap-
plied to Davie, one of the  witnesses, to make  their
clothes   Dr. Wilkinson engaged  Redding to con-
struct for him a coat to wear to his  brother's  wed-
ding.  Dr. Wilkinson to ensure promptness and sa-
tisfy any  misgivings Mr.  Redding might entertain
of him, a stranger,  deposited with him a one hun-
dred dollar Mississippi note.   The  money was ap-
preciating, the Dr. did not wish  to loose the ex-
change in converting it into Kentucky money just
at that time,  nor did he desire to incur a possible sus-
picion  on the part  of Mr. Redding, that the gar-
ments would not be paid for.   The Judge and Mur-
daugh obtained their clothes and went to Redding's
shop with the doctor, accompanying'him as is usual
with comrades  in strange places.  The fit  of the
Doctor's coat did not please him,alteration was sug-
gested. The Doctor was for throwing the coat on
Redding's hands as an article he was not bound  to
receive.  Some chaffering took place.   The hundred
dollars was not surrendered, and that was the whole
cause of the difficulty.  Redding retained the money
and insisted that the coat  was, or  could be, made to
fit as such an article of  dress ought.  The Judge,
who was in the room, gave his opinion of the coat.
It is probable Redding was not apprised that he was
a brother of the  Doctor's;  he spoke  so harshly and
insultingly that  the Judge  rose  from the stove where
he was sitting, and struck Redding with the little
iron rod  used for stirring coal.  The Judge may
have been too hasty, but insulted by  being told  he
was a  meddling, busy body, or substantially that,
as you no doubt  recollect the testimony, did no more
than almost any one might be provoked to do.   A
scuffle ensued in which neither the Judge, nor Red-
ding, nor  any one else, was hurt.  The parties got
from the shop into the street;  were  separated, and
departed, when?  Just as  soon as Doctor Wilkinson
got his money.  Had the  money  been surrendered
as it should, there would have been  no difficulty.
But for the occurrences happening  since, the affair
at the shop would have passed off, as it was in reali-
ty, a slight casual fracus  not worthy of notice. The
attempt to swell it into an important fight is ridicu-
lous and  the expression  of my opinion about the
$100 is the most aid I can give you in your delibe-
rations upon that  mass  of immaterial testimony
fom the shop and about the shop.  After the parties
separated the Wilkinsons  and  Murdaugh go to their
boarding houses, ashamed of what had  happened I
have no doubt, or rather not thinking of it at all  in
the preparations making for their trip to Bardstown.
Not so with the other party in the  quarrel.  Menac-
ing speeches and hostile  movements characterise
their  deportment.  In  Redding's coffee house ad-
joining his shop, .Meeks, Johnson and his friends ara
seen.  The affray which had taken place  is talked
of and discoursed, and  the proposals  and propriety
of going to the Gait House to give the Mississip-
pians "hell" is mentioned.   Warrants  in blank
against the defendants  were offered Redding; those
however he did  not accept, to insert the names when
ascertained.  Redding, however,  must go  to the
Gait  House to procure the names.   The pacific
Johnson, Redding's legal adviser,  had made the
proposal to give them "hell."  Upon this "steak
cutter" immortal  celebrity   has  been  conferred
by the roasting he has received at the hands of the
gentleman (Mr. Prentiss) who preceded me.  Meeks
gets his knife ready, is under the persuasion—yes, a
sort of religious obligation rests upon his conscience
that he is  bound to have a fight that night.  He
seemed, however, to have loaned his knife, and got-
ten in its stead a cow skin. Oldham who goes around
for any chance is up in  blood for a fight "on his own
hook."  At the ingathering, Rothwell, Redding's
brother-in-law,and Holmes, congregate with others.
The  concert of action, the hostile intentions,  the
conspire cy to inflict grievous injury on the defend-
ants, is so obvious from the testimony, and has been
so clearly  enforced and happily commented on  by
others, (Col. Robertson and Mr. Prentiss) that I will
not fatigue y6u with its repetition. When the com-
bined forces had convened according  to the plan of
concert, allow me gentlemen of the jury, to ask your
marked attention to the manner of conducting the
battle.  Several hours  had elapsed since the skir-
mish at the shop.  The names had been  obtained;
Redding awaited it is  said the coming of a peaca
officer to serve  the process.  The names when pro-
cured, like the rejected blank process, did not sa-
tisfy him—staying for the Marshal of the city or
other peace officer at that  place,  an hour or more
getting a  memorandum of their names, are but
flimsy afterthoughts to cloak another arrangement.
Redding and  his friends, picked men of herculean
strength and statue, are accidentally in the bar-room
about the time the boarders and lodgers at the house
assembled to catch the news or be ready for supper.
Judge Wilkinson,  who  I venture had  scarcely
thought of the battle of the shop, came into the pub-
lic room alone. If Redding did  not recognize the
Judge, and if curious about his identity, why did he
not address his enquiry to some third person? Why
address himself to the man he had fought with only
about four hours before?  As if ignorant why insult-
ingly enquire of him, "are you the gentleman that
struck me in my shop?"  The Judge very calmly
and readily replied, "I am."   This conversation
thus commenced, and the torrent of vile abuse from
                           12 
(90)
 Redding instantly following, I take it,  was intend-
 ed to provoke an assault from  Judge Wilkinson.
 Had he resented by an attack the opprobrious epi-
 thets so lavishly bestowed upon  him, Redding and
 company, as the assaulted party,  would have shield-
 ed themselves under it, as  a legal justification to
 have inflicted upon  him a most grievous battery.
 This finesse to bring on the fight failed, and Judge
 Wilkinson returned to his  room.   Great  forbear-
 ance had been exercised  by  Judge Wilkinson.  He
 claimed to be  protected from insult and violence,
 and requested  of the proprietor of the house  (Mr.
 Everett) to furnish him with pistols at his  room.
 No  arms  were brought to 'him and after remain-
 ing  in  his room  about a quarter of an  hour he
 again came down to the bar-room.   In the diagram
 shown you to  point out the  localities of the house,
 you recollect in descending  the stairs,  just at the
 foot, there is a window overlooking the bar-room.
 Time for Redding to  depart had intervened since the
 recent quarrel, and  in passing the window by the
 stairway, if Judge Wilkinson had thought of it and
 passed into the public room, he would not have dis-
 covered Redding  there.  The witness, Raily, in-
 forms you that when Judge Wilkinson, at Everett's
 instance, returned to his room, Redding and some
 of his friends also left the public room and went into
 the entry or across  the  passage into  the reading
 room.  The Judge came into the room in company
 with the other defendants, or they were immediate-
 ly in  his rear.   Up to this time no  intimation had
 ever been given to the defendants that Meeks or
 Rothwell were enemies; Redding was the only one
 of the conspirators personally known to them.  The
.existence of such conspiracy, they  were as igno-
 rant of as they  were of  the individuals who compos-
 ed it.   The Judge, it is true, was armed with a bowie
 knife, but Murdaugh  and the  Doctor were  not
 equipped for fight.   Redding again came  into the
 room, he had  been foiled in  his effort to bring on a
 fight by the patient forbearance of the Judge.  Du-
 ring the interval, the Judge was up stairs, it is more
 probable that  Redding left the public room  to re-
 arrange his plan of attack than for any other pur-
 pose.  Whether Judge Wilkinson's knowledge of
 the topography of the house would have enabled him
 to sneak to supper by the way back of the bar-room
 designated in the diagram we do not know.  The
 premonition he had  already received,  would have
 induced a  prudent man to arm  himself;  he came
 into the bar-room the usual  route to the supper ta-
 ble.  His right to wear arms for his defence is as
 unquestionable as his privilege  to  come into the
 room.  About the time of Redding's re-entry into
 the room,  Mr. Pearson, just when  Murdaugh was
 attacked and the remarks were made which I will
 presently attend to,  accosted Judge Wilkinson, to
 whom he had  been passingly introduced the previ-
 ous summer, and told him it would be better to leave
 the room.  This suggestion from Pearson he  ac-
 ceded to, and was about leaving when the quarrel
 and fight arrested his attention and checked hie exit
 from the room.   The admonition from Pearson and
 the testimony from the  other witnesses are replete
 with proof, that  however secret to the defendants, it
 was  apparent to others they were to  be attacked.
 The remark made in their  absence up  stairs, the
 mysterious presence of unusual personages about
 the house—fighters all; but too  clearly foretold the
 impending danger.  At the shop  Murdaugh had
 displayed hastiness of temper; he was young;  with
 him a fight might be provoked;  he would possibly
 answer their purpose.  The Judge had been insulted
 but declined  battle.   Just before Murdaugh was
 angered  by a provoking  falsehood,  as to his draw-
 ing his, knife &c, at the shop, Redding is heard to
 say, "these are the three men," or'"here are the
 three men;" mark the words; they are of ominous
 import. To whom were they addressed? The words,
 "The one whom I shall kiss is  he,"  did not more
 significantly mark the object of treason than Red-
 ding pointed  out the  defendants. When the con-
 versation commenced, the conspirators at the signal,
 like Cassar's assassins when  the petition for there-
 call of Metellus from exile was presented to him  in
 the senate chamber of Rome, gathered around the
 intended  victim.   The murmurs that in whisper had
 presaged  the storm; the growling muttering broke
 into open violence.  The onset is made upon Mur-
 daugh in one part of the room as we have before
 stated.  At the same instant the Doctor is stricken
 down. Proximity to Pearson an esteemed citizen of
 Louisville perhaps saved the Judge.   About the
 time Murdaugh stabbed Meeks, from the testimony
 of General Chambers and Montgomery, you cannot
 but be satisfied that Rothwell with his cane or blud-
 geon, was also inflicting  violence on him, then reel-
 ing and almost bound to the floor by severe blows
 on the head.   The severity of the blows is evident
 from the  scars left, and  Meeks  could  not and did
 not inflict them.  At this crisis the Judge did inflict
 with his bowie knife a wound upon Rothwell in the
 side or back.  Murdaugh, extricated, seems to have
 gotten from the room, and in that part of it where
 Holmes had the Doctor down prostrated and lifeless,
 Rothwell hard by, is again stabbed by the Judge.
 As  soon  as disengaged  the  defendants retreat to
their room up stairs. When Rothwell received the
second stab a futile attempt is made to show, and
Johnson swears he was performing the  office of pa-
cificator.  He was one of the conspirators, was pre-
sent,  engaged in  the fight, had  come to the Gait
 House for the purpose uf abetting the  lawless vio-
lence and it would be as miraculous if any such in-
stantaneous revulsion of  purpose seized him,asit  is
wonderful that no one present heard the pacific ex- 
(91)
clamation, "peace! for God's sake,peace!!" about the
time of the second stab, except this redoubtable and
veritable Billy Johnson.  This sketch of fancy, is
no doubt of a piece with much of  the testimony of
the coiispirators in relation  to  the matter.  Pride of
character, if any they have, tempts them to extenu-
ate their conduct  for their  own exculpation.  Cha-
grined by defeat, burning for vengance, they testify
with all the feelings a party could in  his own cause.
Their account of the occurrence, should be discarded,
because others present  were  disinterested lookers
on, whose recollections are  not warped by bitter pre-
judices.  The testimony of  persons not of the party,
is every way less exceptionable, less suspicious, and
more  satisfactory.  In scanning  the testimony of
various witnesses to the same occurrence, enlighten-
ed reason teaches the propriety of not rejecting what
one testifies, because another did not  see or hear the
same thing.   That you did not see, or, do not know
what I have seen or what I know, is  no reason even
to doubt the detail of facts I may  make.  When
within the range of human  probability a credible
witness attests the existence of a fact, it outweighs
the negative testimony of  the whole world.  What
you know to be true is not the less so because others
do not know it.   Now, rejecting altogether the tes-
timony of the conspirators, or  in charity permitting
it to prevail, when not contradicted by the unenlist-
ed lookers on, the brief narration of the matter up to
the stabbing of Rothwell is a succinct  history of facts.
To reconcile apparent  clashings, or rather to fill up
omissions in detail which may seem  to occur, apply
the rule just  suggested, and  you may  well  credit
and reconcile all that those gentlemen have testified
to.  What Trabue saw may have escaped the obser-
vation of  Graham or  Raily, and so of others.  The
testimony of one cannot be impugned because an-
other did not see  or may not recollect what he sees.
Of the wounds inflicted by the Judge, and a wound
inflicted in the breast by an unknown hand, Roth-
well died.  By collateral remarks  foreign to the
cause I am unwilling to detain you. The severity
of the conflict is  too well attested by the death of
two, and wounds of others of the assailants.   The
peril of the conflict  to the defendants is  too well
attested by the  still visible  marks of violence on
their persons.  The brutal and merciless beating in-
flicted on the Doctor,  the attempt not only to chas-
tise, but to take the life of Murdaugh, as manifested
by the cuts  with a  deadly  weapon   through his
haf the assassin stab the Judge received  when the
combat was  being declined, by  returning to his
room;  a  retreat itself by brave  men, too clearly
proves, that  enormous bodily  harm  and impend.ng
hazard of life had placed the defendants  in the atti-
tude justifiable of self-defence. By the joinder of the
defendants in the indictments, they are identified in
the  proceedings as one  individual.  If for the pur-
pose of accusation, the crime of one is the crime of
all, the right of defence should be deemed the right
of all  to defend.   Are good citizens to stand by and
let a lawless band of ruffian conspirators slaughter
them  one by one?  Must each run as far as he can,
and if overtaken fight if he can?  The prosecuting
Attorney,.(Mr. Bullock,) seems to insist that, unne-
cessarily, in their  malice, Judge Wilkinson stabbed
an unoffending man in the  back, and thereby caused
his death.  The nature of  the offence  is not affected
by the part of the body the blow may happen for-
tuitously to alight upon.   That the blows were in-
flicted maliciously, or even willingly, except so far
as constrained assent of the mind constitutes such
willingness, cannot be believed.  Suppose,  gentle-
men of the jury, any three of you were to go to the
state of Mississippi and land at Vicksburg or Natch-
es.  Whilst temporarily at a tavern in one of those
places, before proceeding to the interior on your bu-
siness,you have a difficulty with citizens of the place
and kill two of them.  When the news reached your
friends here  in Kentucky, a thousand miles from
the scene, would  they not be Willing to swear that
necessity, and necessity alone,  induced you to kill
strangers you  never  before saw;  men too,  with
whom neither from business, nor acquaintance, you
had ever before had intercourse.  Judge Wilkinson
with  his brother and friend had come to Kentucky
on an embassy of love. So near the consummation of
his nuptials, he would not desire the comeliness of
his person nor the integrity of  his  attendants  to
be soiled by a fight.  At such a time,  distant,far dis-
tant from his thoughts, would be  meditations upon
bloodshed and murder.  As a visitor  to our state he
was entitled to our hospitality.   We do not as the
wandering Arabs of the desert, seize and prey upon
the confiding traveller.  Surely we are too civilized
to regard all strangers as  enemies,  and  like the
piratical barbarians of Northern Europe in the dark
ages, consider as lawful booty all who unfortunately
or accidentally are cast upon our shores?  To our
state, as the abode  of hospitality, Judge Wilkin-
son had come to contract the  tenderest of human
relations with  one of the daughters of your land.
 A distinguished citizen of  his own state and known
 throughout the union as a valued and honored citi-
zen,  a pacific man, at such a time,  is it consistent
with reason to believe that he  would, but by con-
 straint, have involved himself in so  disagreeable a
 difficulty?  After the rencounter at  the shop, and
 Jud^e Wilkinson had had time to bethink himself
 of the propriety,  the flurry of feeling had  subsided,
 and  he  seems when accosted  by Redding at  the
 Gait House to have sternly resolved on no farther
 difficulty.   Quietly he submitted  to the foulest
 tirade of abuse Redding could heap upon him.  As
 far as forbearance is a virtue, he displayed it in an
 eminent degree.   His inflexible purpose not to have 
(92)
 a difficulty,  was not changed by the villification
 and gasconading of Redding.  The  language and
 the deportment of the Judge, his retiring, the mo-
 tives  of action that would influence any man cir-
 cumstanced as he was, evidences  how 'studiously
 and consistently with self-respect he avoided a con-
 flict.  Now, permit me to ask you when at last a
 fight  was forced upon the defendants, what should
 Judge Wilkinson have  done?  Ought he to have
 stood calmly,by, until at leisure they were all lynch-
 ed or slain in detail?  Should he if practicable have
 run until caught  and then have fought?  No! No!!
 As a true man against them, lawless rioters, he had
 a  right  to  defend his companion and brother.  A
 mob arrayed in numbers, with force were inflicting
 ignominious and grievous hurt upon his companion
 and friend.  Men whom he had never wronged, un-
 merciful in their wanton riotousness of superior bru-
 tal force were mangling Murdaugh with bludgeons,
 and instruments  of  death were savagely playing
 about his person.   The Doctor, his brother, whom
 he loved with a brother's heart, was overpowered,
 down, trodden; they were crushing the life from his
 body as  he lay prostrate on the floor; ought the
Judge to  have refrained  from  interfering?   Who
could refrain?  Does reason or law require any such
degree of high and impracticable  philosophy as
 apathy and indifference under such circumstances?
He that  would not resctse a friend or a brother never
 deserved  the  fidelity of the one or the affection
 of the other.  Had  the Doctor or Murdaugh  been
 murdered  and the Judge  had  not  interfered,  a
voice  of execration against  his  faithlessness  and
 cowardice would have rung over the whole state that
 could be only equalled by the deeptoned denuncia-
 tion that would have resounded through the length
 of the land, if the mob unharmed had succeeeleel in
 their bloody and  murderous purpose.  The revolu-
 tionary  and disorganising proceedings of mobs in
 New York, in Mississippi, and at other points in a<
 few years past, have tarnished the fair character of
 our country.  These lawless conspirators have im-
 printed on the escutcheon of our state the first foul
 blotch of Lynchism.  Contemners of  the law, sig-
 nally foiled by the resistance of their victims, in the
 name of the law, they now  ask you to perforin an
 act of vengeance for them.  Rebuke them from this
 place, repudiate their claim to be avenged, through
 your instrumentality on men, whose lives they have
 attempted by violence, whose characters  they have
 traduced, whose  liberty  they have  infringed by
 incarceration  in a common  felon's jail, and whom
 they  would now  doom to felon's graves.   By your
 verdict  proclaim to the world that our state in bye-
 gone times, known as the "dark and bloody ground,"
 is now  a land of civilization, where peace and good
 order In society are respected  and the laws revered.
 Gentlemen,  any inaccuracy uf  statement as to the
evidence, I have fallen into, your memories will cor-
rect.  The further defence to be made by an older
and abler advocate, will more than supply all omis-
sion on my part.  As  to myself the fate of the de-
fendants is in your hands.  I thank you for your po-
lite attention.
  [At 40 minutes past 2 o'clock, Mr. Benjamin Har-
din commenced his address, and spoke for two hours
and a half, which, with the similar space of time oc-
cupied by him next morning in conclusion, made a
speech of five hours on the whole.   It  will be  ob-
vious that it would be quite beyond the limits of
this publication to publish every thing uttered by any
one  speaker  in  five hours.   A person can  read
through an ordinary novel in that space; and,  gen-
erally, a  fluent speaker says more in  a given time
than can be read; so that a little reflection must con-
vince any one that a speech of five hours alone would
fill the whole of this pamphlet.  In reporting Mr.
Hardin's speech, therefore, it has been found neces-
sary to compress it into a fifth  or sixth  of the space
it would properly occupy.  In doing  so, much is
gained and much lost by the reader; condensation
in the argument is gained,  but many of the graces
of oratorial ornament and wit, must necessarily be
sacrificed.  The object of  this  publication being,
however, to place  facts,  and  the  reasoning  upon,
them, before the public; it is  conceived that object
will  be attained by  the compression of. the longest
speeches without any serious disadvantage.]
  Mr. Hardin:—I shall, gentlemen, very humbly
and  very cordially,  congratulate you upon having
this case  brought so near a close.   It has already
been protracted beyond'the usual limits of criminal
trials by the extraordinary ingenuity and uncom-
mon array of talent enlisted on the occasion.   The
gentlemen on the opposite side have felicitated you
upon the politeness  of your patience:  and, among
others, I, too, return you my thanks for your at-
tention.
  I little expected, when I engaged in this  cause
in  Louisville last  winter,   that I   should ever
have  to  address  you  on the subject.   Although
I have been fifty years  practising at the Kentucky
bar, this is the first time 1 have ever had to address a
jury in this place; and  I  cannot help feeling that I
am as much a stranger here as any gentleman  who
has addressed you.  I shall, however, in speaking to
you, apply myself to an exposition of the facts, and
of the law bearing upon them, and whatever may be
your feelings, you will, I am sure, keep in mind, that
you are bound to exercise your reason, and that you
owe a duty,  of no  ordinary responsibility, to  your-
selves, your  characters,  and your  country.   That
duty is a sacred trust reposed in you, which vou can- 
(93)
 not weigh lightly  without injury  to  yo:irselvc3 as
 well as wrong to others.  Ncr mu3t you surrender
 up your reason to your passions,  and allow your-
 selves to be carried away by the shouts of applause
 from a fashionable audience, as if you were in a thea-
 tre whore a Junius Brutus Booth, and a Miss Ellen
 Tree, exhibit the practised arts  of controlling the
 feelings, and successfully  eliciting the noisy plaudits
 of excitement.  This is not a Theatre—this trial is
 not a farce—nor are you seated on those benches for
 amusement.  This, gentlemen, is a solemn Court of
 Justice—a solemn tribunal, in which your Judge, pre-
 siding with becoming dignity, represents the majes-
 ty of the law, and in which you are expected to ire-
 liberate with becoming gravity upon  circuuutanei .->
 of awful import.  The appalling  death of two "fel-
 low-creatures, is the occasion of your being here as-
 sembled, and the guilt or innocence of  those  at
 whose hands they fell, is the object of your solemn
 investigation.
   Even though I knew I should have to address 'a
 jury of strangers, and an assemblage to whom I am
 personally unknown,. I little anticipated that I should
 have to make a speech to any other audience than
 that usually to be found in our halls of justice.  But,
 my friend, Col. Robertson, whose^outh and warmth
 in that way, urge him to  precedence, has taken me
 by surprise, and placed before me a gallery of beauty
 and fashion, which  might  well deprive mo  of my
 presence of mind, if I were not fortified with less of
 the ardour  of youth in my veins than himself, and
 were I  not less  practised in those graces of person |
 and manners which he can so successfully play off to
 woo and win their fascinating smiles.
    By law, and in conformity with the original insti-
 tutions upon which  all law is founded, this trial was
 to have taken place where theoccasion of it occurred
 —in the county of Jefferson.  The legislature, in its
 wisdom, has thought fit  to change the venue from
 Jefferson to Mercer county; but why,  I am unable
 to say.  For, even Colonel'Robertson, the very able
 counsel for the defence, has admitted that, although
 for a time,  great excitement  existed  in Louisville,
 yet, after the investigation at  the examining Court,
 that excitement  was altogether  allayed.   In this
 country experience  has always taught us that when
 a change of venue is'sought, the object is not to ob-
 tain justice, but to evade  it.  The object is to thwart
 and embarrass  the prosecution,  and multiply the
 chances of  eluding the  responsibility of the  law.
 Hosv is this effected?   Is it not by a removal to some
1 place esteemed favorable to the accused; by a remo-
 val so distant from the scene of action, that the ex-
 pense  and inconvenience render it probable but ibw
 of the witnesses catfattend; by a removal to where
 witnesses of a character dubious, if not  infamous
 where known, may find credit because they are un-
 known, lie: ;.we are some seventy or eighty miles
from the stage on'which this tragedy was acted, yet
we are a3ked \, hy we did not bring the stick and
the cowhide, and Bill Holmes the pilot, as  if we
would be afraid to produce them  were they within
our reach.  I would ask the opposite side, in my
turn, why gentleman have brought us eighty  miles
from the scene  where we could have elicited the
truth in every particular? I listened yesterday with
great pleasure to Colonel Robertson, whose speech
was very good,  and evinced as much of  the fire of
youth, as the flowers of rhetoric; but I cannot say it
was much ca:culated to convince the understanding
that the "worse can be made to appear  the  better
cause."  I also listened  with  great pleasure to Mr.
Prentiss, who addressed you yesterday, and in part
to-day: and I must say that, although there were in
his speech some things which  I could not approve,
and many deductions which I could not admit; yet,
on  the whole, it was an oratorical effort which I
could not help admiring.  I am even disposed to go
farther, and to say that I am utterly astonished that
such forensic powers, and so ably  wielded, did not
prove less abortive*—but I must attribute  the feeble-
ness of  the  effect,  more to the weakness of the
cause, than to the want of genius in the advocate.
However, Mr. Prestiss really astonished me with one
proposition he laid down  with respect to the common
law of this country, that every man is to judge  for
himself where the point  of danger lies, that entitles
him to disable another, or to kill him, lest he might,
in turn, by possibility, become the killer, so that, in
fact, if it were so,  the point of danger never could
be defined by law, because what a brave man  would
consider no danger  at all, a timid.man would consi-
der the point of danger bristling with a thousand
deaths.  Was there ever such a monstrous doctrine
recognised by the laws of any community! -
   [Here Mr. Prentiss interrupted Mr. Hardin, to say
that he had only urged that what might be consider-
ed by a man,  from apparent circumstances, the point
of danger, where resistance was necessary for  his
own preservation, would in  the law be grounds  for
justifiable homicide.]
  Mr.  Hardin:—I will come to that in due time.—
The dilemma  cannot be removed, that the same
point, according to this doctrine, is, and  is not,  the
point for the resistance contemplated by the law.—-
No, gentlemen; the law recognizes no such absur-
dities.  The law was laid down yesterday correctly
by the District Attorney, that when the  killing of a
man has taken place, it is a murder in the eyes of the
law, and must be pronounced by the law to be a
murder, till the contrary is shown.  What then be-
comes of this new  doctrine, unknown to the law,
 that the slayer and not the law, is to judge and pre-
sume the justification?   The  law itself s;;ys, all kil-
ling of one man by another is murder. The slayer,
according to Mr. Prentiss, says, oh, no, I killed my 
(94)
  man becau?e I fancied he would kill  me—it is no
  murder, it is justifiable homicide! Yet, the law again
  says, if a sheriff, who hangs a man by lawful authori-
  ty and in doing so, commits only a justifiable homi-
  cide, should, cve-n for the best of motives, instead  of
  hanging the man, as bound to do, chop his head off
  with a sword, though death must necessarily follow
  either way; yet is heguikyof murder, and liable  to
  the punishment, for the killing contrary to the pre-
  scribed mode of his duty. There are certain maxims
  of law laid down in the books which are never dis-
  puted, because they are founded upon reason and just
  principles; such, for  instance, as these:—If A. kill
  B. from necessity, to save his own life, the danger be-
 ing undeniable, it is excusable homicide. If A. kill
  B. in a sudden heat of quarrel it is man-slaughter.
  If A. kill B. without  what in law is called a compe-
 tent provocation, it is murder.  If a man fire a pis-
 tol ball into  that crowd and kill a man, though it
 were his  bosom friend  against whom personally he
 could have no previous malice, it is  murder, though
 he did not intend that death.  It is murder  in the
 eye of the law,  because  the recklessness of human
 life implied in the rashness of the act,  shows that
 general malice to mankind, which  is  equally  dan-
 gerous  to the community as any private  malice
 could be.   I will read you the law upon the subject
 of words in a quarrel  being no provocation sufficient
 to justify assault.   [Here Mr.  Hardin read the well
 known text that words are no provocation in law.]
 All killing is murder unless an excuse is shown; but
 words are no excuse, because they never bring a kil-
 ling below the crime of murder: neither are  inde-
 cent and contemptuous actions justification, accord-
 ing to Raymond and Blackstone.  Here is a maxin
 in point—If there is a previous quarrel between A.
 and B., and sometime after, in consequence of the
 previous quarrel, they fight,—then nothing connect-
 ed with the previous quarrel justifies a killing, and
 it cannot be excused, unless it clearly appear that B.
 in killing A. had to do so to save his own life.  See
 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 452.   "If there be  ma-
 lice between A. and B. &c."
   The application must be made to the fight at the
tailor's shop; and this answers the question why we
have introduced evidence in proof of the first affray.
There is one principle of law  to which I may as
 well now call your attention as at any other time.
  When men act together, and by consent, it is no
matter who gives the wound causing death—ihey are
all guilty in the eye of the law of the offence, what-
ever it may be.  [404.]
  And in  relation to that sort of wound—if a man
receive a wound, not of a dangerous nature—but by
gangrene, or  consequent fever, death  ensue, it is
murder  o*r manslaughter, as the  case  may  be, as
much as if the wound itself had been mortal at the
instant.
    Mr. Prentiss labored a position, and labored it
  ably, I admit; but Mr. Bullock had previously com-
  batted its application successfully.  The position it
  advanced upon  the  well known quotation from
  Lord Hale:
    "If A. B. and C. be walking in company together,
  "and C. assault B., who flies, and is in danger of be-
  "ing killed from C's. pursuit, unless present help be
  "afforded; and A.  thereupon  kill C,  in defence of
  "the life of B.; it seems that in this case of such ine-
  "vitable danger of the life of B., the killing of C. by
  "A is in the nature of self-defence, bu' it must plain-
  "ly appear by the circumstances of the case as the
  "manner of assault, the weapons with which it was
  "made, &c., that B's life was in imminent danger."
    A man seeing another kill a third person, may kill
  the man  about to commit the felony, but then it is at
  his peril  he does it, and he is responsible to the law
  for his interference.   Upon this text,  if you are to
  acquit Judge Wilkinson, it must be apparent that
  when the stabbing took place, there must have been
  manifest danger to  his brother's life,  there must
  have  been an apparent—an absolute necessity.  To
  show that there was no such necessity, and to place
  before you in a clear view the leading features of the
  facts, I will now claim your attention to the review
  I shall make of them.
   Mr. Redding keeps what is called a Merchant
 Tailor's  shop on  Main street in Louisville.   His
 store  is not far below the Gait  House on  the oppo-
 site side.
   These three gentlemen, now arraigned before you,
 are residents of  the State of Mississippi, and former-
 ly, as I am informed were residents of the State of
 Virginia,  and, for aught I know, of the same county,
 town, or village. They came to Kentucky early in
 December, for what, is of no import that I can  see,
 although it is made  to cut a conspicuous figure here
 as a favor conferred  on Kentucky—a  contemplated
 marriage at Bardstown.  They arrived at the Gait
 House. Where Judge Wilkinson  had his clothes
 made up,  if he  had any prepared for the  occasion,
 is not  shown.  Where Mr. Murdaugh had his made,
 if any, is  not shown.   But it is shown that Doctor
 Wilkinson was to have clothes made at Mr. Red-
 ding's. They were  made with great punctuality,
 and the Doctor came to Redding's store at the ap-
 pointed time.  He tried on the new coat, and seemed
 well pleased with it.   So satisfied  was he  with the
 coat, that  he wore it  on the spot, and left a $100
 bank bill  on account  of payment, requesting Mr.
 Redding would hold over the bank bill, which was
 of a Mississippi bank, till some expected  change for
 the better would take place in the rates of discount.
 Doctor Wilkinson then  went away,  wearing the
coat, and desiring the other things to be sent to the
Gait House.  As I now come to where it will be ne-
cessary for me to mention the names of witnesses, 
I beg it to be understood that I do not mean to avail
myself of the example set by the opposite side.  I
will  not shelter myself behind my professional duty,
to vilify an unfortunate witness,  disarmed of his
self defence—unfortunate, because of his  inability
to make any reply in the same public court  in which
he is maligned.  Younger gentlemen at the bar than
I am, may indulge in the practice; and, perhaps, the
rashness  of youth  and inexperience may excuse
what wisdom and manliness could not justify.  No
character, however  spotless—no reputation, howe-
ver unstained before—can escape the sullying hand
wantonly raised to tarnish it, where there  is no im-
mediate opportunity of wiping away that which cor-
rodes while it damps the lustre.
  When Doctor  Wilkinson returned to Redding's
store,  accompanied by his brother and Mr.  Mur-
daugh, some objection was made to the collar of the
coat.  It was no serious objection,  we may suppose,
for we hear from Mr. Prentiss, himself,  "the expec-
tancy and rose of the fair state," that he perhaps
would not have been quite so fastidious.  Perhaps,
some young fellow, like my friend, Colonel Robert-
son, "the glass of fashion, and the mould of form,"
might have been a little squeamish; but, for myself,
every one knows,  I am not particular.   I  never
should have knocked down a tailor with an iron po-
ker because there was a shade, of fashion lacking in
the collar of my brother's coat  The whole thing, I
admit, is a matter of taste, the poker included.
  But there was, however, some objection to the
fashion of the coat—and that objection was thought
grave enough to enlist the triple wisdom of a digni-
fied  judge of the  land, an eminent Doctor of a dis-
tant state, and a sage member of the  Mississippi
bar.  Yes, with this formidable array of judicial
wisdom, pharmaceutic skill,and legal research,these
three gentlemen came to a little store in Louisville
to fight a poor tailor! And all about an.unfashionable
twist in the collar of a coat.
   To be sure they  came from the El Dorado of the
South, with their thousands of  bales  of cotton con-
densed  into their pockets.  They were perfect mag-
nets of attraction,  for the secret of their loadstone
lay wrapt up in their Mississippi bank notes.  Hotel
keepers were bowing to them on all hands, trades-
men and store keepers honored the pavement they
trod, and as to tailors, I am ready to believe they
became perfectly fascinated with them. Nay, I even
make no doubt that the keepers of watering estab-
lishments and medical springs, submitted to the soft
impeachment, and  became devoted to their  inter-
ests—it is the necessary consequence of the influence
of cotton bales.
   Here was this  hard-working tailor, ever on the
watch for good customers,  bowing to them as assi-
duously,  if not more assiduously, than the  Hotel
keepers, or Spring Doctors—taking back his coat, I
have no doubt with tears in his eyes, but is it reason-
able to suppose, that, fascinated as he was,  by tho
ability of such customers to pay, he would  be so
blind  to his own  interests as to give unprovoked
cause of quarrel to such customers?  However back-
ward he inay have beenftdrn prudence and circum-
stances, it seems there was- no want of readiness to
carry matters with a high hand on the part of those
with whom he was dealing!
  Judge Wilkinson is sitting on a stool at the stove
and when he sees hi3 brother about  to pay for the
pantaloons and  vest, he interferes without  being
called  upon to do so, and opposes the payment for
these  things; upon which the tailor very naturally
asks him what business he has to  interfere.  The
Judge, without telling him that he was the Doctor's
brother, which Redding did not know, and that as
such he had a right to advise him, jumps up, snatches
an iron poker with  which a man could be knocked
down  as readily as with a crow-bar, and for the
small provocation of a tailor saying, "you  make
yourself a little too  busy  in the matter," ignorant
that he was  addressing a dignified Judge, the Judge
aims a deadly blow at his head, which if not  fortu-
nately warded off might  have  involved consequen-
ces to which  I must not advert.   What  does this
prove?  If it proves nothing else, does it not show
plainly that Judge Wilkinson is not quite as mild
and  forbearing in hia disposition as his friend Mr.
Prentiss would have you to believe.  Did  Judge
Wilkinson's conduct show that it was  his beliet
men's passions should be subject to the control of
law if not of reason? that he was in principle a re-
specter of the law in this instance?   I know it will
be  argued that there is  a wider latitude  given
to the restraints of law in the southern than in the
northern states and a false assumption is built upon
this circumstance, that the free use of personal lib-
erty to avenge private quarrels, gives greater brave-
ry to  a people.  But  I have read, I  have witnessed,
and I believe that the people of New England, a sec-
tion of this great  republic, where  you  can get no
man  to fight  duels, and where every man throws
himself under the protection of law for the redress of
his private wrongs, when  they have been called into
the field for the protection of their  country, have
shown the brightest examples in modern history of
personal bravery and national valor.   Show me
where men have been more prompt to rush upon
the bayonets of their country's invaders  than the
heroes of New England!  Sir, courage and bravery
belong to the respecters of the law, which protects
every man's rights  in a civilized community. Cli-
mate in a country of  such vast  extent as  this, may
have its influence on men, as it is known to have on
the inferior race of animals.   You may meet the
lion,  distinguished for his courage and his power, in
theBarbary states,where, conscious of his strength, 
(90)
 you may pass  him icmr'-IcsUd,  if y-mi are not the
 aggressor.  As you descend to the more  sou!hefty
 latitudes, you  meet the leopard  and the punther,
 with whom treachery and ferocity are the substitutes
 for courage; and  when you pass the equator you
 meet the hyena,  the emblem of uncompromising
 cruelty and without a redeeming quality.   Men may
 in like manner be affected by climate; and he who
 on the iron-bound coast of the frozen North or on
 the arid  rocks  of New Plymouth, would illustrate
 every noble virtue  of  hi3 nature,  not less distin-
 guished for his piety than his patriotism, for Lis en-
 durance than his courage,and for his £erferosity than
 his bravery, when transplanted  to  the enervating
 regions of the south may become different and de-
 generated, trusting more to his interests than to his
 patriotism, to advantage than to courage, and to
 concealed weapons than to bravery.
   But  to resume my review of the evidence: Judge
 Wilkinson so remarkable for  his mildness and for-
 bearance, as a sample of these qualities, aims a blow
 as I have said  before, at the tailor's head,  which
 probably would have killed him had he not warded
 off the  blow with his arm in a manner to give great
 offence to Mr.  Prentiss, who  cannot see the  pro-
 priety .of a tailor grappling with a judge to prevent a
 repetition of blows that might break his head.  The
 little tailor, however, did grapple with the Judge,
 and  dragging him to the side door he falls with his
 adversary out on the pavement.  The tailor though
 small, being strong and active turned  the Judge un-
 der, and as he did so, Murdaugh haliooed  out, "kill
 the damned rascal," a command which the Doctor
 was about to obey, and when he was within a couple
 of inches of plunging his dirk into the tailor's heart,
 Mr.  Redmond caught  the Doctor's  arm.   But  for
 that  interference it would have been the last of Red-
 ding's career.  Mr. Murdaugh* had hallooed out to
 the Doctor, "kill the damned tascal!" and in the
 next breath, "part them—part thefh!"'This is easily
 accounted for.   When he saw  that Redding by Red-
 mond's interference had gained the advantage, he
perceived that the  tables were turned, and  fearful of
 the consequences,  became as impatient to have them
parted  as he had before been  anxious to  have the
tailor killed.  Well, they are parted; and when they
 get up, Doctor Wilkinson still has his knife drawn;
 Mr. Murdaugh has his knife drawn; and the Judge
 has his favorite  weapon, the poker.  The little  tai-
lor's courage, notwithstanding this formidable array,
is up, and he steps forth, a David before G jiiah, and
offers to fight the  whole three of them if  they will
lay aside  their weapons.  This I think,  however,
was  a  mere brag with the poker players; for I do
not believe he could have done it.  Five witnesses
swear that both Doctor Wilkinson and Mr.  Mur-
daugh had out their  knives.   Several coneur  that
 Doctor Wilkinson re-entered  the store  with  his
 knife  drawn, demanding hie $100 bank bill.  All
 agree  that he got it, and many agree that when lie
 and his companions left for the Gait House,  two
 went awayjexhibiting their knives and  one rejoic
 ing in the poker.  The knives, to be sure, have been
 identified as white handled knives.  Mr.  Prentiss in
 that able speech Which you have all heard and ad-
 mired, and which, it must be admitted, like a West
 India  tornado, swept "through this house carrying
 every  thing before it, even to  the  reason of many
 who heard  it, seemed to think that we had some
 particular fancy  for the handles of the knives, be-
 cause  they  were white  handles.  He thought we
 dwelt uncommonly on the whiteness of the handles
 till like spectres they were continually fliting before
 our visions.   With all this poetical or forensic color-
 ing we have nothing to do; we only identified them,
 and the  gentleman has failed  to contradict us by
 proving that they were black, green or  red.
   We  have now,  gentlemen, traced a small portion
 of this affair at the tailor's shop.  In what occurred
 there immediately after what has been mentioned* '
 we find the following facts established.  Mr. Red-
 ding swears that he was advised to enforce the law
 against these gentlemen.  The principal  officer of
 police, the city Marshal, is usually to be found about
 the Mayor's  office or jail, from the peculiar  nature
 of las duties. Mr. Redding proves that he and John-
 son went  towards the Mayor's office and looked for
 the Marshal at Hyman's and Vacaro's coffee house.
 Not finding him there, they went on to  the Mayor's
 office.  They applied at the Mayor's office'to Mr.
 Pollard, clerk of the City court, and told  him that
 one of the gentlemen was named Wilkinson, and
 that the names of the others  they  did not  know.
 They were told by Mr. Pollard that they should
 have the names; or  if they wished they might have
 a blank warrant to be filled up with the names when
 ascertained.    This  Redding declined  upon  being
 told that if he could.meet the Marshal he  could ar-
 rest the parties  without a warrant.  Redding and
 Johnson proceeded to the jail in search of the Mar-
 shal.  Not finding him there,  Redding returns by
 Market street, at the corner of which, he met Roth-
 well, near his residence.   As he tells Rothwell, his
 brother-in-law, the  nature of the affair,  Rothwell
 goes along with him.  And here I  must remark,
 that to  come down to Market street from the  jail is
 the shortest way, though my  friend, Col. Robertson)
 thinks that a man may go round by Jefferson street
 a few hundred yards out of  his road by the way of
 a  short cut.   But Redding being but a plain man
 not given to sophisticated deductions,  believes the
 nearest road is the shortest cut and took the shortest
 cut by Market street, where  he  met  Rothwell, as I
 have said,  and told him what had occurred.  He did
not ask his brother-in-law to go with him; but his
brother-in-law did think proper to accompany him. 
(97)
 There was no Bill He>lmes—no Marshall Halbert—
 no Billy Johnson—no eme but Rothwell accompany-
 ing Redding.   Mr. Graham  swears that there was
 no one with Redding but  Rothwell,  when he met
 them near the Gait House.  Where  was this terri-
 ble  array of giants and Patagonians of .which we
 have heard so much?  Why, no where  to be sure;
 the gentlemen have only drawn largely on their im-
 aginations.  As Sheridan once  said of Dundass,
 they are  indebted  to their imaginations for  their
 facts, though I will not go so far as to  say of my
 sprightly  friend Colonel Robertson, or my brilliant
 friend Mr. Prentiss, that either is indebted to his
 memory for his wit.
   Jackson swears, indeed, that he  heard proposi-
 tions made of going to the Gait House  to give the
 Mississippians a beating; yet Graham swears Jack-
 son would always lie  a little.  This Jackson whom
 we have shown to be unworthy of credit, swears to
 that being a fact which is contradicted by Redding,
 by Johnson, and  by Craig whose credibility  is un-
 impeached and unimpeachable.  But  it seems Mr.
 Prentiss takes  peculiar  exceptions to Bill Johnson,
 because he uses strange figures of speech and low
 and outlandish tropes and  metaphors.   Well, the
 gentleman ought  not  to blame poor Johnson for imi-
 tnting his betters in the arts  and graces of oratory.
 I suppose he has been  reading the  newspapers  in
 which the reported speeches of the most eminent
 members of Congress are recorded, and he finds one
 distinguished gentleman charges a party with being
 like a greasy pack of  cards all spotted and marked
 and shuffled together.   Another young aspirant
 compares the Secretary of the Treasury, a dignitary
 old enough to be his father, to a she-bear, running
 through cane-breaks and dropping her cubs at every
 step; and yet Johnson  is blamed for his figures, if he
 ever used them, of hides full of shucks, and skin-
 ning of sheep.  I thought Mr. Prentiss who so lately
 returned from  Congress would have admired Bill
 Johnson for being so apt a  scholar, like  that classic
 pereonage, Zip Coon,  in picking up the new and ap-
 proved style of tropes and metaphors now sofashion-
 able in the places which he himself has made resound
 w ith the aptness  of his illustrations.
  Gentlemen, I had got to this place in the affair at
 the Gait House, where Redding and Rothwell were
 seen unaccompanied by any one entering that hotel.
 Mr. Redding says, when he went into  the bar-room
 he looked over the register anil called for the names.
 Scarcely had he got  them  when Judge  Wilkinson
 entered and stepped up to the counter to take a drink
 of water.   Redding addressed  him thus;—"Sir, I
 bel e\e you are the gentleman who struck me with
 the poker in my own house this evening."  If Judge
 Wilkinson was sorry for his imprudence, why did
 he not then say it was in a hasty moment and upon
reflection he felt tl»t he was wrong? Could Redding
 have resisted the ingenuousness of such an answer
 to his enquiry?  Could he have harbored for a mo-
 ment longer any irritation for an acknowledged in-
 jury?  But what did  Judge Wilkinson say or do?
 Why, he heaped insult upon injury by an aristocrat-
 ic allusion to the tailor'^  profession.  "I will not,"
 he replied, "fight or quarrel with a man of your pro-
fession!" Now, although I agre>3 with Mr. Prentiss
 that there is nothing disgraceful in a profession, and
 I think the Poet has expressed himself with scarcely
 less felecity than Mr. Prentiss on the subject:—
    Honor and shame from no conditions rise;
    Act well your part, there all the honor lies—
  And as Burns says:—
    The heart's ai the part, ai
    That's right or wrang,—
 yet, we cannot help  imbibing with our literature
 and our sentiments many  trifling  prejudices from
 the mother country where aristocratic pretensions
 have too successfully attached disgraceful notions to
 certain pursuits of industry, and among these, the
 profession most sneered at by the would-be wits of
 the last century,is that of a tailor.   And although a
 man of that profession here may justly feel that he
 is as respectable, and follows as respectable a calling
 as any other man, yet when he thinks those old
 sneers are levelled at him as an insult, he naturally
 resents it with  the indignation of  an honest indus-
 trious  and .free citizen, not bound by a servility un-
 known to us,  to succumb to him who dares to ut-
 ter it.
  There is I fear a principle growing up amongst
 us inimical to our Republican institutions—a prin-
 ciple of classification  favorable  to  aristocratic dis-
 tinctions. We have our bankers, lawyers and doc-
 tors, arrogating one rank in our society; the states-
 men, heads  of departments and officials, another.
 Our mechanics and those who toil  by the sweat of
 their brow to produce our riches,  are cast into the
 shade; and knowing as they do, that such an attempt
 however noiselessly it is made, still exists palpably,
 is it any wonder they should be sensitive to every
 whisper that is  breathed to  mark the invidious dis-
 tinctions?  An apparent  unimportant  word may
 wound deeper than rough language.  Call a man a
 knave, and he may forget  it; but call him a fool, and
 he never forgives you.  Call a young lady a coquette,
 and she may pardon you; but tell her she is ugly,
 and she will never abide you the longest day she
 lives.   Tell a tailor he is a botch, and he may not
 even get angry with you; but sneer at him about his
 goose and his profession, and you insult him, though
 the words in themselves are harmless.  It is the al-
 lusion to prejudices that have existed, which carries
 the poison of insult in its barb.  Sir, we must not
 disguise the fact, that there is a line of demarkation
 drawn  by the proud  and arrogant between them-
 selves and those who live by thesweat of their brow; 
(98)
 between the comparatively idle, who live  but  to
 consume; and the industrious, who work but  to pro-
 duce; between the drones of the hive, and the labor-
 ing bees.  And to which pray is the country in its
 strength, prosperity and  wealth,  indebted  for its
 teeming productiveness?  To which for her energy,
 enterprise, protection, genuine patriotism and cele-
 rity in national or municipal times of danger? Go
 to Louisvil e when a portion of the city is enveloped
 inflame,sand you  will see a  thousand  mechanics
 rushing into the devouring element for the protec-
 tion of property,while the lawyer and the judge, and
 the haughty aristocrat walk about as spectators with
 their 1 ands in their pocket-. The mechanics compose
 the moving power and labor-working  machine upon
 whose industry we dl feed and fatten.  Their labors
 are the wealth of the country, and when we cease
 to honor and cherish them, we  poison the springs
 of our owji  invigorating prosperity, and cut off the
 sources of our own enjoyments.   Do we treat them
 with gratitude when we taunt them  with epithets,
 which they esteem  derogatory or insulting? ' Are
 we to treat them thus in the halcyon days of  peace;
 and when the thunder-cloud of war gathers around
 our course,  with a  monstrous pusillanimity, fling
 ourselves into their arms as our only  hope and res-
 cue?  Has not the history of our country shown, and
 will it not show again, that when the storm of inva-
 sion ravages our coasts, our safety is to  be  found
alone in the strong sinew and ready arm of our labor-
 ing population?  Where then are  yourbowie-knife-
and-pistol gentry,your duelists and your despisers of
 the  man who lives by the sweat of his brow?  Sir,
 they will be found  cowering and  lurking where
they may snuff the  battle afar off, and hide  their
once lofty heads in ignoble safety. But I will not
consume your time  with recitals which may be
found in every page  of our history.  I thall return
 to the evidence in the case before you.
  Mr. Everett is told by Mr. Sneee! that there is
likely to be some difficulty.  Mr. Everett goes into
 the bar and by some  indications to the Judge, meets
 him  in  the  passage and takes him  to his room,
 where they  find Doctor Wilkinson and Mr.  Mur-
 daugh.  Judge Wilkinson relates to them what had
 happened.   The Judge having made  this relation,
 asks Everett to  provide h'm  with pistols. Why?
 For what did he want them?  Was any one attack-
 ing them there or likely to do it?  They were safe
 in their room. They could only want pistols for
 the purpose of descending and  making the attack
themselves.   But Everett is asked to provide pistols.
lie eaid he would try, and with that avowed purpose
left them.  He had not been gone exactly fifteen min-
 utes in the opinion of some—in the opinion of others
bcarcely ten.when Judge Wilkinson with this lower-
country-tooth-pick, [taking up the bowie knifejjiot
trusting this time to the more merciful weapon with |
 which he had been practising,the tailor's poker; with
 this lower-country tooth-pick started down  prepar-
 ed  to use it.   Did he  know Rothwell?  Did  he
 know any but Redding?   No man  had accosted
 him but  Redding.  Why  then did he come down
 with this terrible implement of murder?  Why, Sir,
 just exactly for this reason, that he had been morti-
 fied at the result of what happened at Redding's store.
 The judge of the land had been turned over by a
 tailor; he had been bearded and abused by a tailor;
 and he provided himself with his bowie-knife and
 went down to have another deal with that tailor.
   Mr. Prentiss seems to think the Judge had  a right
 to go down to his supper.  Why, so he had; but he
 had a right to wait for the bell to ring.  He had no
 right to eat his supper before it was served up—no
 right to take his bowie-knife down to  the kitchen
 and terrify the cooks to allow him  to devour the
 supper while it was cooking.  And had the supper
 been ready, there  were table knives wherewith to
 carve his meat, and he had no right to carve it with
 a bowie-knife.  But the supper was hardly cooking
 when he went dow n.  The bell had to be rung over
 the  private passage up stair3 before  it was  rung
 below, and when rung below the folding doors had
 to be thrown open.   But the bells had rung no  where
 and Judge Wilkinson,  Dr.  Wilkinson  and Mr.
 Murdaugh came down before any bells were  rung;
 therefore it was  not to supper they came down.—
 Which table had Judge Wilkinson been in  the habit
 of going to?  the large  table or  the ladies'  table?
 There is no proof that he and his companions board-
 ed at the large table; and it is known that many
 gentlemen as familiar with the house as they had
 been, prefer the private or ladies' table. We have
 every reason to believe that  was the table  at which
 they boarded.  The entrance to the room  where
 that table is kept is not through the bar-room.   One
 entrance to the large dining room, is, indeed, through
 the waiting room, and there is a bar in that waiting
 room, at which many gentlemen who are not plead-
 ers, become suitors, make motions, and put in their
 pleas.  I  sometimes make my appearance at that
 bar, but I am not summoned by the attachment of
 ihe bottles. I go to hear the politics of the day—for,
 although  I have long since  quit the field, I cannot
 be cured of the curiosity  to know what wrangling
 is going on among  the little juntas in every village
as well as  the mighty ones of Congress.
  When these three  gentlemen got into  the bar-
 room, Mr. Redding was  at  the counter; Mr. Mc-
Grath was inside of it; Mr. Reaugh was at the fire.
Some say Mr. Redding came  in immediately  after
 the Judge.  You must expect that out of twenty
witness no two  will agree in all the facts; but in a
transaction like this, where "several fights were go-
ing on—where in every corner a man was bleeding,
or  dying  or suffering  -that   no two men could see 
(99)
every thing  or any thing alike, id to be expected.
But, gentlemen,  by collecting all the evidence to-
gether,  contrasting, comparing, and justifying one
by another,  we can arrive at the  facts of the case
clearly and beyond the probability of doubt.   We
can arrive at  them with  as much certainty as we
can at any other set of facts.   And from this man-
ner of collating the facts, I am enabled to present
them to you  without fear of contradiction.
  One of these facts is that Judge Wilkinson walked
across the bar-room, some twenty five feet, when
he came in.  Mr.  Trabue, a man whose evidence
is to be depended upon,  seems assured that when
Judge Wilkinson came in,  he walked three or four
times across the room, and then stood a while with
his eye fixed  upon Mr. Redding, his foot advanced,
and his right hand behind in his coat pocket, and, I
make no doubt, with his hand grasping the handle of
this very bowie-knife.  At that moment Mr.  Mur-
daugh went up to Redding.  I will not say,with one
of their own witnesses, that  in going up to him, he
rattled like a viper; hut as he went up he addressed
Redding,  saying, "I understand that you say I drew
a bowie knife on you in your shop this evening? If
you say so you are a damned rascal, or, liar!"   And
as he said so, he opened his knife  and elevated it, as
one said, or held  it down,  according to  another.
Yes, he accosted  Redding  in the most  insulting
terms and threw open his knife at the same time.
Is there any witness who has said Redding accosted
him in an angry manner?  One person said of the
knife—Lord, how it gleamed in  the  candle  light!
  The most warlike nation the world ever saw, was
Sparta.   When the Spartans prepared for  battle,
they polished their arms to glisten in the sun.  They
washed their clothes clean, combed their long black
hair, and sang the song of battle.  I have no doubt,
Mr. Murdaugh, if in the ranks, would  have  done
the same.  I make no doubt he would be the last to
run. I make no doubt he would have been amongst
the foremost to make his gleaming blade gilsten  in
the sun.  The highest evidence of a man's dexterity
and intent to use his weapons, is the high  polish he
gives them, and the  high state  of preservation  in
which he keeps them for  use.  Of Murdaugh's dex-
terity in the  use of his knife  in the work of death,
we have unfortunately too much proof; of his dispo-
sition to use it,  we have the evidence of  the high
order in which he kept it for  use,  even to that state
of Spartan polish,  which made it  gleam  in the can-
dle light, as the sword of the Spartan would glisten
in the sun.
  We are told  Meeks was determined for a  fight;
yet Oliver,  whose friendship for these gentlemen
seems of  the most ardent and disinterested  kind
gives up,  to Meeks, his knife, after having so easily
obtained possession of it on  the small pretence of
picking his nails.  He had been invited by  Oliver to
drinkata "Saloon," opposite the Gait House. They
dignify  these  establishments  now-a-days  by  the
high sounding title of "saloons;" but when you enter
one of them you find it the vilest grogery in tha
world.   These dignified grogeries exist to a shame-
ful  extent  in  Louisville, and  why?  Because the
politicians of Louisville are too busy with their un-
important bickerings, or too truculent to put them
down.   They are the  strong holds of the voting
interests of Louisville; and the truculent politicians,
who are ready to  sacrifice  every  principle for the
triumph of party,court the coffee-house-keepers, and
bend in supplication for their  election to the  in-
mates of the grogeries.  Even the municipal gov-
ernment is either influenced by paltry mercenary
motives in its avidity for the revenue of licences, or
it has not the nerve or public spirit to grapple with
the monster.  Talk of our constitution being  the
greatest, the purest, and the  most efficient on  the
face of the earth!  Yet, here  is an evidence of  its
working in a duplicate government.  The most des-
tructive of vices, because the parent of most,(is li-
censed, encouraged, fostered,  pandered to,  by poli-
ticians, and through their  truculency, by  the very
local government itself, as if the misery and debase-
ment of the community were more the end and aim
of their rule than the encouragement of virtue,  in-
dustry, sobriety and rational enjoyment.
  We  learn that Meeks  was unknown to  many; a
slender, small,  and weakly man, with a bit of a
cow-hide,  the lash of which some one says was
knotted.  From what  we learn of this cow-hide, I
 verily  believe it would  take  at least five hundred
 knocks of it to kill a man—and I doubt if he could
be  well killed,  after all, even  with five  hundred
 knocks of it.   Meeks, unfortunately for himself,
 stepped up to  Murdaugh, and said, "Yes, you  are
 the d—d little rascal who did it."  In  reply to this,
 the very first lunge Murdaugh made at him, severed
 a vital  artery and  caused his instant death. I  am
 no physician, and know not technically what effect
 the cutting of that artery may have;  but  I believe
 it to be as deadly  as it the brains were blown out,
 or  the heart pierced.   A man stabbed through  the
 heart no longer lives or breathes but he may stand
 a minute.  Meeks fell, and in attempting to resume
 his feet, as he leaned  on a chair, pitched forward
 upon his face, and when examined, he was dead.
   When did Rothwell  strike  Murdaugh?  Not  till
 Meeks was killed. Then, it  is proved, Rothwell
struck with a cane, and Murdaugh was beaten back,
and at that instant the tide of battle  rolled on to
 the right corner as you face the fire, and then Roth-
 well was seen loosing his  grip of the cane in  his
 right hand, and he was seen endeavoring to resume
 his grasp of it.  General Chambers thinks it  was
 Doctor Wilkinson  whom Rothwell was beating at
 in  the  right hand corner, but every one else says it 
[100)
 was  Murdaugh, and it is  of  course  evident  the
 General is mistaken.   Every one of the witnesses
 swears that Rothwell was engaged with Murdaugh
 in the right hand corner, while Holmes was engaged
 with Doctor  Wilkinson  in the  left hand corner.
 Let us now  consider the wounds received by Roth-
 well.  Dr. McDowell says, the puncture  in Roth-
 well's chest might be made with this knife carried
 by Murdaugh.   The skin  by  its elasticity might
 yield without having an orifice as large as  the blade
 afterwards apparent.   Who gave Rothwell  that
 wound?  Why, Murdaugh,  and no body else.  This
 accounts for Rothwell loosing  the grip of his stick
 or cane.  The moment  this knife penetrated his
 chest on the right side,  that moment his arm became
 paralized, and he could not hold his cane. He caught
 at it, but he did not use it after.   Just then, Judge
 Wilkinson came up behind with  his bowie-knife in
 his hand, and General Chambers says, he saw him
 make a lunge at Rothwell and stab him in the back.
 If two men are engaged in a fight, one with a dirk
 knife like this, and the other  with  a stick, in the
 name of God let another with such a bowie-knife as
 this stand off; but if he must interfere on behalf of
 him  who has the deadly  weapon, and against him
 who has not a deadly weapon, let him  do the work
 of death front to front, let him stab in the breast
 and not in the back.   But,  to come up behind and
 to stab him in the back, who is already overmatched
 by his opponent in point of weapons, evinces a dis-
 position which I shall not trust myself to dwell
 upon or to portray.  Ossian, speaking  of  Cairbar's
 treachery, says,—
   "Cairbar shrinks before Oscar's  sword!  he creeps
 in darkness behind a stone—he lifts the spear in se-
• cret—he pierces my Oscar's side!"
   By  this time Dr. Wilkinson was down in. the
 left hand corner and  Holmes  over him.   The fact
 is, Holmes was the only man that knocked the Dr.
 up against Trabue, though Halbert boasted of  hav-
 ing done it.  It was only  a boast in  Halbert, for
 I believe he goes over his foughten-fields more at the
 fire-side than on  the battle-ground  In the lan-
 guage of Dryden, speaking of Alexander:—
               The King grew vain;
   Fought all  his battles o'er again,
   And thrice he  routed all his foes, and  thrice he
           slew the slain.
   [It was now five o'clock; and Mr. Hardin request-
 ed an adjournment, as it would probably  take him
 two hours more to conclude his argument.  To this
 the court assented and an adjournment was  made
 to half past seven next morning.]

                  FIFTH DAI.
                     Friday, March I61A, 1839.
   The  court resumed the trial at a quarter before
 8 o'clock.  Early as the hour was,  there could not
 have been less than from  one to two hundred ladies
 in the gallery, and upwards of a thousand men in
the arena of the court.  After  the jury-call  and
reading of the  minutes,  the Court  required  Mr.
Hardin to resume his argument.   Mr. II. com-
menced at 8 o'clock and spoke without intermission
for upwards of two hours.
  Mr. Hardin:—Gentlemen of the jury, I would en-
deavor to resume the few remarks on  the evidence
which  I offered yesterday, as near the precise place
where I left off as possible; if I did not know that
in the present case such particularity  is not so re-
quisite as in the case cited by John Randolph, who
once told of a man that was so precise that he could
ifinterrupted and called off in the middle of his din-
ner by  the sound of a horn, on  resuming his seat
some hours after upon re-sounding the horn, take
up his  dinner exactly  at the identical bite where he
had left off.  I am not quite so particular and shall
probably recapitulate some of the evidence I have
already gone over.
  Yesterday evening I endeavored to give you the
law  and the facts of the case as  nearly as possible,
and as far as I  went.  I shall  now repeat that you
are not to take  as facts all that may be sworn in a
cause.   Although  witnesses  may be  men of  un-
doubted integrity and veracity,  yet all  they state
are not facts.  They are fallible beings and likely to-
misconceive and  misinterpret facts without any
intention of doing so.  We  are to ascertain  the
facts from the mass of evidences, and judge of each
witness'  competency  by contrasting  his evidenc?
with that of others, and when it  agrees with all or
the majority  of witnesses, we may  safely infer he
is right.  I endeavored yesterday to examine  the
facts that occurred at the tailor's shop,  for the pur-
pose of showing the   ill blood fomented in these
gentlemen's hearts against Redding.  I then show-
ed that they acted in concert, and provided  them-
selves  with what  weapons they could, not being
able to  get all  they wanted, and how, upon a small
occasion they  were prepared to use these weapons.
Indeed, there seems to be no witness  as to what oc-
curred  when Judge Wilkinson remained in consul-
tation with his  companions  in his bed-room.
  [Here Mr. Hardin made a short recapitulation of
the statement he had  gone over  before,  so nearly
alike in substance that it is conceived  unnecessary
here to repeat it.  However, some of  these points
elicited observations from Mr.  Hardin, new or  im-
portant, which  it may be necessary to give;  the
repetion therefore of such points of evidence will
be excused.]
  We may judge of the shifts the defence is driven
to when it is forced to rest upon  such  witnesses aa
Oliver,  a man  whom  no one in  Louisville would
listen to, and Jackson, the  pharisee, who talks of
religion without a spark of it in his heart, and who
is discredited by men who, as witnessa, arc unim-
peached. 
(101)
  If Judge Wilkinson, Dr. Wilkinson and Mr. Mur-
daugh, were known to be frequenters of the bar be-
fore meal times, why has it not been proved by one
of their witnesses?  That not being proved, I have
a right to assume that it could not bo done, because
it was not the fact.
  Next I have to ask, why these gentlemen came
into the  bar-room provided with arms?  Could it
be with any other design than to  run  Redding out
of the room?  Were they going into a room where
they commonly  resorted?  It is evident they  were
not.  Did they go  there on their way to supper?
It is evident they did not, for supper was not near
being ready.
  What disposition for eating a supper merely, does
it show in Judge Wilkinson to pace  the room three
or four times, and then fix the eye of destruction  on
Redding, while his purpose kindles  and he grasps
his  bowie knife  behind in his pocket?  What  more
eagerness for supper does Murdaugh exhibit in going
straight  up to Redding, rattling like a viper and
insulting him with being a liar?  Sir, I care not if a
mango into any crowd and before an angry word is
used to him, he goes up to as meek a man as Job
himself, and says to him, "you are a damned liar, or
rascal," and flings open his blade to inflict mortal
injury as his words  indicate; if the person so accost-
ed strike his insulter, it is not surely any great won-
der.  And yet Redding  did not strike a blow.  Mr.
Murdaugh  may  say, I kept within what I thought
was the safe side of the law—I approached with my
drawn knife—insulted  the person to  draw on the
attack from him, that I  might have some excuse for
using my knife  in  the manner in which 1 came to
use it at any  rate.  If  any man come up and call
you a damned liar,  or a rascal, and spring open  his
knife  in  the attitude of striking, should you  strike
or slay such an assailant, would you not be excusa-
ble?  But Col. Robertson attributes to an act of this
kind, nothing but a'manifestation of innocence and
high spirit. The Colonel is  really a  gallant man,
and judges of others by  the fire and chivalry raging
in his own breast.   You must not laugh,gentlemen,
for  if  you could  look upon the volcanic mountain,
though you would see its head capped with snow,you
would find its bosom,  like his, rumbling with fire,
Bmoke,and brimstone.  In former times,the highest
honor known to a Roman soldier was to have saved
a man in battle. But here it is argued that if a young
aspirant to lame pinks  and kills  his man, he is to
be sent home to  his parents in honor, crowned with
the chaplets of victory.   Nay, it is believed, if Bona -
parte.in his youthful prime,in his Italian campaigns,
had had Murdaugh by his  side he  would  have
confided to his ready and unerring arm the execu-
tion of many a  hardy adventure.  Col. Robertson
may say what he pleases, but I say it was Mur-
daugh commenced the assault; and that all fighting
done by him was in the wrong.  All  fighting done
on  his account was in the wrong; because he had
commenced in the wrong.
  Well, gentlemen, as I remarked to yon yesterday,
when I stopped, for I am now returned once more
to that point, Murdaugh had given the first provo-
cation, had killed his  man, had stabbed another to
the death, when  Judge Wilkinson stepped up and
gave Rothwell a  stab  in the back, while engaged
with and probably receiving the stab in his chest
from Murdaugh.   Yes, gentlemen,  a  third man
come3 up arid lunges  this beautiful  little weapon
into Rothwell's side, and starts back!  Sir, if men
are engaged" with deadly weapons,  part them if you
can; but do not come  up  behind them ar.d lunge n
bowie-knife  into" the vitals of one, and then come
into a public court and demand of a jury not only
to acquit you but to  do it with shouts of, "Glory,
Glory, go, go!"   And yet, gentlemen,  this' is  the
polite invitation given to you by Mr. Prentiss, to
acquit such  a man with  acclamation.   When  en-
gaged with a man who has only a cane no bigger
than his thumb,his opponent gives that man a dead-
ly stab in the chest which  paralyzes his arm—a third
person,  Judge Wilkinson for instance,  comes up
behind and stabs the paralyzed man in the back, it
is, no doubt, high time for you to be called upon to
mark your  approval of the  deed  by  shouts of ac-
clamation.  Mr. Prentiss by way  of  winning your
favor with complimentary  allusions, thinks Ken-
tucky  should no  longer be called   the  "bloody
ground," because the river  Raisin has carried off
the palm in  feats  of human butchery.  But I think
the  Mississippi gentlemen,  of  Vicksburgh,  have
bidden fair of late to obtain  for that part of Louis-
iana opposite their city, the palm of being the "dark
and bloody ground."  I suppose in the far famed
Menifee duel with rifles,  if some one had stepped
up and lunged a bowie-knife into the vitals of one of
the combatants,  the shouts of acclamation  that
would have arisen in that quarter qf the world,
would have resounded to  the uttermost ends of the
earth.
  Doctor Wilkinson, by this time  became engaged
with Holmes.  Holmes is a stout and large man;
but his size has been greatly exaggerated.  Like the
Patagonians, the first  discoverers thought them ten
feet in height; the next voyagers  only 8; and  the
next but G.   I recollect reading of Captain Smith,
that when he first explored the interior of this coun-
try, on his return, he represented the inhabitants as
all  Goliahs, six cubits and a  span in height.  Yet,
subsequently, more matter-of-fact  men found they
were only miserable and cowering Indians of ordin-
ary dimensions.   In  this manner appearances are
magnified.
  We are asked why Holmes is not here?  We echo
to the other side, "Why Holmes is not here?"  Our 
(102)
answer is,because he was not to be had,being a pilot
down  the river and not within the control of the
State's Attorney  or any process issuing from him.
  Mr. Trabue proves  that Holmes knocked Doctor
Wilkinson against him, and that  Holmes followed
up his blow and knocked  the  Doctor down.  An-
other witness proves that Doctor Wilkinson had his
knife in his hand on the floor, and Redding proves
that he found it on the floor and it had blood on  it.
We  have then evidence that all three were using
their knives f jr the shedding of blood.  Sir, among
other appeals made to you for acquitting  them, you
are told as a set off,  that, there is no state in the
Union on which you are more dependant than that
of Mississippi.  They  take their cotton South and
receive either through shipping agents,  or  drafts
direct, their money for it from the  merchants of
Great Britain.  True, Kentucky gets some of these
dollars from the Mississippians for what they think
better than their money, our produce, or they would
not  buy  it.    We,  in  the  rounds of trade, pay
these dollars, or what  represents them, to the Liv-
erpool  merchants for merchandise that  we think
better than the money.  The Liverpool merchants
in the next turn of the wheel, pay the same dollars
back to the Mississippians  for their raw cotton, and
the Mississippians are nothing loth to take our pro-
duce again for the same dollars.   And after several
twists  of this kind, when  we get them  back and
recognize  one of them as an old acquaintance, we
may say,  how do  you do friend dollar, I am very
glad to seethe face of an old acquaintance, step into
my pocket and warm yourself, I always give shel-
ter  to  a travelling friend. We  are  proverbially  a
hospitable people,  and  never refuse a night's lodging
to a dollar, or its liberty to travel further next day
upon leaving us an equivalent for what we lent  it.
But  to be serious, are we not all dependent on each
other?  I  know this and cannot admit that we owe
more to Mississippi than Mississippi  owes to Ken-
tucky: and  why there should in this case be  made
any  parade about our indebtedness  to that  state,
not  founded  in reality, is for you, gentlemen,  to
weigh
  To resume the facts of this case;  what does Judge
Wilkinson do?  He stabs Holmes in the arm; but he
is not indicted for that.  He stabs Rothwell when he
is engaged with Murdaugh  in the right-hand corner;
and again, when in the left-hand  corner,  standing
over Holmes, and trying to get him off' his own bro-
ther. Rothwell had been disabled by two stabs.—
Judge Wilkinson, standing at the dining room door,
when Rothwell was saying nothing, except in mer-
cy trying  to persuade Holmes to spare Doctor Wil-
kinson, comes across the room to the opposite door,
finds Rothwell's  back turned to him,  and then
makes the last, the second thrust of his bowie-knife
into  his victim's back.   Mr. Robt. Pope says,  I saw
 Rothwell's back  to Judge  Wilkinson,  when the
 Judge stabbed him—up to  the very handle.   I ask
 you, gentlemen, I speak to you not in language
 other than the broad and naked truth—is there any
 witness denies this?  Every one who knows Roberi
 Pope, knows that he would not  state what he did
 not know to be the fact.  We know that each and
 all of these wounds contributed to Rothwell's death.
 The last stab is given by Judge Wilkinson to Roth-
 well; Doctor Wilkinson and Murdaugh retreat out
 into the passage, and fight their  way to the foot of
 the stairs.  I care not what was done  there;  it was
 done after the offence previously  committed.   Sup-
 pose Oldham had shot one of them, and not missed
 as he did;  suppose Murdaugh had been knocked
 down; and suppose Judge Wilkinson received blows
 in the passage, does it lighten the offence previously
 committed?   I care not what took  place, when a
 man has killed another. When making his escape,
 I care not how many guns are fired at him, how ma-
 ny rocks thrown; because it alters not his previous
 offence.
  If there is any evidence  that any  one in the bar-
 room laid a  hand  on Judge Wilkinson, who has
 proved it?  Is it not plain, that any bruises or inju-
 ries he did receive, were received in the passage.
  Mr. Prentiss said he was willing to stack arras
 with the Kentuckians.  What arms had they?  They
 had a cow-hide whip!  We hear of a cane, which he
 thinks may be conjured into  a  sword cane.  Mr.
 Holmes, indeed, had his fists, but he could not stack
 them.   We are told that Oldham  had arms, by a
 witness who viewed the scene from the outside of n
 window, like one of the venerable birds perched on a
 dry limb eyeing the slaughter with a prospective in-
 stinct—one of those remarkable birds, renowned
 alike for their gravity and great stillness.  We have
 heard a good deal said,  and well said, if true, about
 Oldhnm.  That he was unsteady: that he cast his
 eye to his counsel for relief.  Yet'we really saw noth-
 ing in his conduct to warrant his being called perjur-
 er, scoundrel, coward and rascal;' and  here I must
 remark  that  this very  talented young gentleman,
 Mr.  Prentiss,  in using such epithets to  a  witness
 without even a shadow of justness in  the applica-
 tion, warranted me in saying that though I admired
some passages in his speech, yet, others, I  should feel
bound to denounce as unworthy alike of his profes-
sion and of his character.
  No man in this state can boast a prouder ancestry
 than that very Oldham,  whom it has been attempted
 to brand as odious and infamous.  They have been
among the earliest settlers and the most esteemed
of our citizens—trusted u ith command  in our  army,
and venerated  on the judicial bench.   And  has a
 man sprung from such  an honored stock, no pride
 in upholding his name—no  feeling to rouse his in-
dignation, when epithets as gross as they are ground- 
(ion)
less, are poured out to tarnish his reputation for the
paltry purpose of influencing a jury to discredit his
testimony, and to  warp  their judgments from the
straight-forward  path of  truth and justice?  What
proof has Mr. Prentiss to sustain the course he has
taken?  Sir, there is not a shade of proof.  The gen-
tleman is indebted to the  fertility of his fancy; and
his best friends must regret that he has not, in this
instance,  cultivated  that productive soil for some
more praiseworthy object than an  ignoble and dis-
graceful crop of baneful, destructive, and loathsome
weeds.  Does the gentleman think  he is one  of
the Angels appointed to pour out the vials of wrath?
Has he not indulged in pouring out gratuitously his
vials of wrath on Mr. Redding, who could not es-
cape.  Redding is stigmatised as a  murderer, to  be
haunted by the  ghosts of the slain at his  nightly
couch.  Yet  what was his  offence?  He raised his
arm to ward off the blow of an iron poker aimed  at
him by Judge Wilkinson!    He  had profaned a
Judge's person on this trifling provocation by seiz-
ing him, dragging him to the door,  and turning him
under!  "Oh  you  scoundrel," would  Mr. Prentiss
exclaim, "why did you do that?"  lie had retorted
upon Judge Wilkinson when taunted by him about
his profession; and, worse than all! hedid not, when
the killing was going on, stay in some convenient
place to be killed?  "Why did you not, you coward,
rascal, murderer, perjurer, and so  forth, turn your
back to be stabbed with safety?  Why did you not
stand up  wi'.hyour face to  the breeze, when the  si-
rocco swept along,  carrying death on its pinions?
Why did you fall on your face, and let the pestilen-
tial blast pass over you?  Why did you not breathe
till it was gone?  You,  and your friends, have  of-
fended us by your want of submission, and now you
aggravate your  offence  by coming here to testify
against us."
   Really, it is astonishing they are yet alive !  But
it will  be more astonishing, perhaps, when it is told
that they  will return to Louisville, and there stand,
in point  of reputation,  just  as they btood before
these slanders were concocted, digested, and spew-
ed upon them. It will turn out that they are yet un-
polluted and unscathed.  The same protecting Pro-
vidence which carried the Israelites through the Red
Sea, will protect even these persecuted and wronged
few.
   Gentlemen, I have endeavored  to trace facts  as
far as I have  gone,  with minuteness, and having
presented  these facts to you, it  is  for you to deter-
mine whether they do not  establish these conclu-
sions.  When the fight occurred in the bar-room, it
was brought on by these gentlemen intentionally: if
they brought it on, did they fight in their own de-
fence,  or  because they had  drawn the conflict  on
themselves:  could Meeks have inflicted death with
a cow-hide, or Rothwell  with a walking stick, bo as
to render  the killing of them necessary or justifia-
ble according to the true spirit of the law?
  But here there is a proposition of law advanced by
Mr. Prentiss, wiiich  I must combat.   He says the
law recognises that the point of resistance  unto
death, begins  where a man  himself believes the
point  of danger ought to  be  fixed. Then we have
no law at all—we may burn up our law books—this
revokes all that they contain  on the  subject of ho-
micide. There are two men engaged in a quarrel;
one as brave as Caesar—the other as timid as a hare;
one kills the other, when  the quarrel has arrived at
a certain point. The brave man, if he were a  Mar-
shal Ney in courage, is to be hanged, because he had
no fear of his life when he killed his adversary.  If
the timid man is the survivor, he is to be acquitted
with acclamation, because of his cowardice,  which
made him imagine danger where there was none.—
Thus cowardice and rashness are to be rewarded
and chcrished,and bravery and forbearance punished
with an ignominious death   Is it possible, you, an
intelligent jury, can be imposed upon by such so-
phistry?  Is there so low an estimate  of your under'
standings as to suppose it?
   A.  is tried and acquitted, because he is a base cow-
ard, and apprehends danger at a point where there
was no danger at all.
   B.  is tried for precisely a similar homicide in eve-
ry particular, and because he is  not  quite as big  a
coward as A., but apprehends some danger, is to be
found guilty, and sent to the penitentiary for a term
of years proportionate in duration  to his  lack of
cowardice as contrasted with A.
   C, for precisely a similar homicide, because he is
incapable  of fear, is to be convicted of murder, and
straight-way hanged!
   [Here Mr. Prentiss interrupted Mr. Hardin, and
explained in substance as before.]
   It makes no difference: the same principle is irf-
volved.
   I knew that I should have to combat this very
principle, the moment I  saw the hack driving into
 town with a head peeping out of the window, which
 head I knew belonged to the shoulders of a certain
 gentleman  from Mississippi.    When I was in
 Vicksburgh,I asked a gentleman how it was that Mr.
 Prentiss defended so successfully so many notorious
 murderers,  who really merited the gallows?   "Oh,"
 said he, "he has hit upon a principle  which he calls
 law,  that charms every jury to which it is address-    t
 ed."   I asked the gentleman to repeat  the  magic
 words to  rae.   He did so.  It was the very principle
 I have been combating.  It  is possible that as the
gentleman afflicted with this chronic principle, which
he belches up with  so  much advantage  to himself
and relief to others,  is now  in the neighborhood of
 Medical Springs, esteemed so potent by  Mississip-
 pians, he may resuscitate by a few drinks  of the 
(104)
 charming wnt«. a sophism which I have shown to
 be no longer tenable by any one who values what is
 healthy and sound, above that which is merely delu-
 sive.
   Sir, the principle of self-defence does not warrant
 a man in killing under  the name of self-defence,  if
 he is himself in fault by being the aggressor.
   Is the  principle of self-defence among nations to
 be carried into effect as  justly applicable to the right
 of self-defence among individuals?  In national con-
 troversy, the law of nations,  an imaginary code of
 mutual convenience, is  referred to, according  to the
 custom of the country,  but in a conflict between in-
. dividuals, there  is a defined law, which must  be the
 redressor.  A nation with right  and justice on her
 side, may be conquered by another  nation in the
 wrong, and cannot sue for or obtain  redress from the
 wrong doer;  but an individual, in a community,
 may be wronged by another, and can obtain redress,
 because he has the law common to  both, and a su-
 perior power to appeal to.  Therefore, there can  be
 no dependent analogy between the laws of nations,
 %nd the laws of individual communities.  There was
 some crude idea thrown out yesterday that the laws
 ■of Great  Britain ought not to be enforced here. We
 are not to be told at this day, that we have any other
 Common  law than  that derived from the common
 law of England. The very principles of our statu-
 tory laws are dictated by the genius of English com-
 mon and statutory law, with  the exception of such
 !ocal differences as require local application of prin-
 ciples.  If the gentleman could take from us any
 right to apply the law of England  where it would
 be in point for us, we could by reciprocity, deprive
 them of any they might most  rely  upon.  Where
 then, is the advantage of raising such an objection?
 But it is quite unnecessary to  dwell on this point.
   I shall now advert to the peculiar necessity enforc-
 ed upon us of becoming a law-abiding people,  if we
 preserve any regard for our  present form of govern-
 ment and constitution.   In Empires, Monarchies,
 and Kingly governments, armies are formed to keep
 the people in order; but in  a Republic, what could
 preserve trie social compact, but the law?  The mo-
 ment you dissolve or dispense with the law, that mo-
 ment you dissolve all national  constitution. Every
government, and most especially a Republican gov-
 ernment,  is bound to protect each citizen in his pro-
 perty, reputation and life.  How  can a Republican
 government do it, but by and through the law rigid-
 ly  and justly administered?   Whenever you dis-
 pense with the law, you allow men  to arm them-
 selves, and to become their own avengers, indepen-
 dent of, and above all law.  When they are not only
 permitted to do so, but to return home as innocent
 men, what is the effect?   Every man will  arm him-
 self, and like the turbulent and licensed armed mobs
 ^t the fall of the Roman R"public, brutal violence
 will reign instead of law; all government will bedig»
 solved, and anarchy and confusion will pave the way
 to usurpation and tyranny. You must venerate the
 law, if you would not see such a state of things. If
 you do not, A. and B. will arm themselves, like the
 Turk, up to the throat, and kill whom they please
 out of mere wantonness and sport.
   If you go into the Northern States, it is a rare
 thing if you can find a man in ten thousand with a
 deadly weapon on his person.  Go into other states
 that shall be nameless, and you will hear of them as
 often as of corn shuckings in  an Indian summer.
 Go further south—to Arkansas or Mississippi, for
 instance, and though you would be a peaceable man,
 shuddering at the name of a tooth-pick in the north,
 in these states you may arm yourself to the teethj
 and track your steps in blood, with impunity.  Why
 is this, but from the  relaxation of the laws that are
 elsewhere enforced and obeyed.
   I was down the river lately,  and it  was  pointed
 out to me where the Black  Hawk had blown up and
 killed her scores;  to  another place where the Gen.
 Brown had blown up and killed her hundreds; to
 one spot on the  shore where two  gentlemen blew
 each others brains out with rifles;  to another, where
 the widow somebody's overseer was butchered; to
 another, where the keeper of a wood yard was shot
 for asking pay for his wood; to  another, where an
 aged gentleman had his guts ripped out for protect-
 ing his slave from  cruel  treatment.—Great God!
 cried I, at last, take me back, take me back to where
 there is  more law though less money—for,  I could
 not stand the horrid recital any longer—when every  ,
 jutting point or retiring bend bore the land mark of
 assassination, and irresponsible murder.
  Why does the law call for punishment?  Surely it
 is not in vengeance for the past, but to  deter other?
 from the too free and frequent use of deadly wea-
 pons, whether in Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi
 or Arkansas.  Is it to be left to the vitiated taste of
 the brutal few to give tone to the mind of a commu-
 nity in setting  up  the  code of the  Bowie-knife
 against the common law?  It wa3 but the other day
 that in the Legislature of Arkansas, a  raemberf'on
 the floor  was a little disorderly, and  the SpeakeV
 to keep quietness, stepped  down, brandishing his
 Bowie-knife,  to  silence the ardor of  the  unruly
 member; which he did, effectually; for, of all the
 ways in the world of putting down a young and as-
 piring politician,  whose tongue will keep wagging
 in spite of his teeth, your Bowie-knife  is, I  admit,
 the most  effectual . And the Speaker, on this occa-
sion, bent upon having silence, silenced the offender^
not only  then, but for all time to come.  To be sure
he went through the form of a court ©f enquiry, but  '
a life is only a small matter  there, and  he was ac-
quitted according to the laws of that state.
  Coming events  cast their shadows  before; and 
(105)
here we have one symptom of that downfall of our
own glorious republic, which has been so often pre-
dicted, but which it has been reserved for the present
generation  to consummate: that symptom is to be
found in the flash of those deadly weapons carried
about and used with such unerring fatality by our
legislative  sages and judicial dignitaries.   As if
the next should come from high places too, we have
a fatal symptom  of our downfall furnished by the
corruption  of those in office who share in, or con-
nive at the grossest defalcations—the  widest  sys-
tem of public plunder, even in our monetary defal-
cations,  ever known  in any government.   Why
should wedeceive ourselves with the vain hope that
our Republic will boast greater permanency  than
that of Rome, when we  are fast falling into the
very track, step by step, which leads to  the preci-
pice over which she  plunged  headlong.  That  once
magnificent mistress of the  world marched up the
hill of fame and  glory with irresistible strides, till
she reached the  summit and looked around upon
the hundred nations in her rule.   But, at last, satia-
ted with prosperity, she began to repose supinely
upon her laurels, and she permitted herself gradual-
ly to relax that discipline  and good  order, which
had been to her not only her shield and buckler, but
her bond of union.  The  people were  permitted to
fight in twos and  threes at first with impunity.—
They became accustomed  to it,  and  then  fought
without interruption in gangs;  by and by, mobs
fought with mobs, and finally the whole  people be-
came arrayed against each  other  in regular armies,
till they had to  retire to  the plains  of Pharsalia,
where the  doom of the greatest Republic the world
had ever known was sealed  forever.   Are  we not
relaxing the  laws,—which leads to anarchy,  and
from personal violence to popular usurpation?  Are
we  not relaxing our financial vigilance,—which
leads to corruption at the fountain head and from
private peculation to public defalcation?   Is  there
no symptom in all this of a great crisis?  I tell you
again and  again, when you  can lay your hands on
great delinquents, make them an example: when you
can grasp great defaulters, punish them; then wilj
you more easily check pernicious  discords, and res-
tore to its proper tension and tone, the harmonizing
power of your laws and your government.   When-
ever you see men wearing Bowie-knives and dag-
gers—'■hunt them down as  ybu  would  bears and
their cubs, from whom you can expect nothing but
injury.  The whole  state of  Kentucky looks to you
this day for justice, for this is an awful investigation
concerning the lossof two of her citizens.  Two of
our fellow-citizens  have been murdered, and these
gentlemen are here to answer for it.   Some of the
best blood  of the country  has been spilled  as if in
the pen of slaughtered hogs; but because the rela-
tives of one of these butchered  men employ coun-
sel to aid the prosecution in developing the truth
and  guarding against the delusions of sophistry
from the greatest array of talent the country can
boast, or that wealth unbounded can  procure  to
elude the punishment due to the offended laws, you
are told to take but a one-sided view of the evidence,
and to decide at any rate against the paid advocate.
I have not asked these gentlemen what  they are to
be paid for eluding justice, because I did not consi-
der that a sort of evidence which ought to influence
your verdict.
  Gentlemen, one question is, are  we to tolerate
this Bowie-knife system under the false pretence of
self-defence?  I  say,  let your  verdict  act like the
axe laid to the root of the  tree,  and  many a prayer
will bless you for your timely  check of its growth.
Many a woman is made a  mourning widow, many
a child made a pitiable orphan, and many a father
childlet-s by  the use of this accursed  weapon.  You
have it in your power to prevent the recurrence of
such scenes.
   We have  had an exhibition here  in miniature of
those Roman scenes which prepared the public mind
for the downfall of that great people.  There was a
vast ampitheatre where the Roman  people could be
crowned together, and in the presence of some hun-
dred thousand persons of both sexes, a man would
be brought  into  the  arena, and a fereeious tiger
turned in upon him.  He might, or he might  not,
possess skill or courage to meet the formidable beast
and evade the deadly spring; but, if not so fortunate,
 when the tearing of his  vitals was seen, and the
 crashing of his bones heard, the solitary shriek of
 the victim's wife, as it arose upon the air, would in-
 stantly be drowned by the acclamations and thun-
-ders of applause bestowed upon the ferocious beast,
 prolonged by its renewed efforts to suck the blood,
 tear the flesh, and grind the bones  of its prey.   As
 a»have no  ampitheatre, a hall of  justice is made
 to answer for a miniature arena; and as we cannot
 have tigers,  nor men who will submit to be their
 victims, we have forensic gladiators, and witnesses
 whose private feelings and characters may be woun-
 ded, lacerated, and tortured, to the infinite delight
 and encouraging shouts and plaudits of a fashiona-
 ble auditory, while the victim is helpless and gloomy
 in his unmerited prostration.   Yes, it  is all for the.
 amusement of enlightened minds, and it is intended,
 perhaps, for the edification of  the rising generation.
 But, I protest, I cannot yet perceive that it 13 any
 more for the honor of the applauders, than it is ne-
 cessary for the good of the country, that these gen-
 tlemen should be honored and glorified for their dex-
 terity in the use  of the Bowie-knife and dirk.  In
 the time of public danger, or  foreign invasion, is it
 these Bowie-knife gentry, these pistol men in pri-
 vate life, that mount the breach and face  the  dan-
 ger?   Are  they  the  brother   Jonathans that face
                               14 
(106)
John Bull  and eye him and his scarlet coats with
defiance?  Where  are they then?   Why, like the
gnats and musketoes,  who glisten in the sunshine
andthe calm, but when the storm rages  and the
thunder growls, and the lightning flashes, and the
earth is rocked to  its centre, they are stowed away
from the danger, though they  are sure  to  emerge
from their  hiding  place to annoy  with their stings
when the succeeding calm and sunshine invite them
out once more.  Brave men may be voluptuous and
 effeminate  in   private life,  but in  the hour of
danger, they put on a  new  nature.    But these
fighters in  time of peace, clothe  themselves in
the  skin  of the  lamb in  time of war.    Sarda-
napalus, who  sat  all the while  with his  women
and eunuchs in times of peace,  spinning  and knit-
ting, aad telling long stories no doubt, and  some-
times wearing petticoats to make himself more ef-
feminate, when conspired against by  Belesis  and
Arsaces, gave  up his  voluptuousness,  and-at the
head of his  army  gained three renowned battles,
and  though beaten and besieged at  last in the city
of Ninus, to disappoint  his enemies, burned himself,
his  eunuchs and his concubines,  with his  palace
and all his treasures.   Alexander  the Great, who
was  kind, courteous, familiar, and  confiding with
lils officers in private life, when leading the  Mace-
donians, moved to-battle like a pillar of fire, irresis-
tible in his might.  When the great Frederick led
on his brave  Prussians, they  fought and fell, and
fought and fell, as long as any were left.  And thus
men imbibe the  spirit of their chief.  If led by a
brave man, they are brave.  If led by a coward,
they are poltroons; and  if led  by the  Bowie-knife
and-pistol-gentry,  I make no doubt they  would be
either assassins,  or nothing better than musketoes,
to be dispersed by the very first report of the cannon.
  Even at home, in our own rural districts, we see
the  influence of leading men on  whole neighbor-
hoods. Let a virtuous and enlightened man, whom
all will look up to as a pattern, settle in your neigh-
borhood, and every one will partake of his good in-
fluence.
  Why was it that Nelson,  in his death,  did more
for the glory of his country than ever he did in his
life?  Because he ascended to heaven in the arms of
victory, like Elijah, who tasted not of death.
  Let us never dream of selecting for our leaders or
our examples,  those who have so little moral cou-
rage  as to trust to Bowie-knives and pistols for  the
preservation of their manhood, instead of to their
blameless conduct in peace,  and bravery in  war.
  Gentlemen, I beg of you in the name of Him who
sits upon the cloud and rides upon the storm, mete
out the measure of justice to these  men, and vindi-
cate  the honor of Mercer county.  But do norstig-
m&tise youi  county by doing, as Mr. Prentiss would
have you to do by  shouting "glory, glory!  go, ye
righteous, go to your homes, in honour and in in-
nocence."  Whatever  you may do, I shall content
myself with the conviction that  in  my professional
capacity, I, at least, have done my duty.
  I have been deputed by the widowed mother of the
murdered Rothwell.and at the instance of his mourn-
ing sisters, to implore your justice. I  have closed
my mission.  Between you and your country—be-
tween you and your God, I leave their cause.
  [Concluded at 10 o'clock.]
  The Hon: Judge Rowan then addressed the Jury
thus:—
Gentlemen or the Jintv:—
  1 solicit your already jaded  patience, I will not
say for a short time, for I know not how long it may
employ me,  to make the appropriate comments,
upon the facts, the law, and the arguments of coun-
sel  in this case.  I will promise you, however, not
to be unnecessarily tedious.  I have, in the patience
and attention you have already displayed, a  pledge
that you will bear with me for at least a moderate
length of time.  My unfortunate clients, (confiding
alike in their own conscious innocence, and your in-
telligence and unbiased state of feeling,) were wil-
ling that you might have decided their case without
argument;  but their  will did not prevail.   The
Commonwealth's Attorney, Mr. Bullock, (in  whom
I am proud to find the son of honored parents,  whose
friendship I enjoyed in days past,) has evinced an
entire competency to the duties of the station, with
which  he has been recently honored, and which, per-
mit me to say,he honors, by the commendable can-
dorandhigh talents,with which he performs his offi-
cial duties.   I regret that I cannot speak in the same
commendatory terms of the candor of his aged and
very highly talented adjunct.  That gentleman re-
presents the vengeful  fe.nings of the near relations
of the  ill-fated Rothwell and Meeks, by whom he
his been employed to convict, if possible, the accus-
ed.   He has just  closed a philippic of four  hours
against them, as remarkable for vigor of intellect,
as for  vehemence  and impassioned zeal.  He im-
plores you,  with great  earnestness, to check (by a
verdict of conviction in this case) the habit of wear-
ing arms, and especially Bowie-knives, which has,
as he says,  latterly so much prevailed, and  multi-
plied assassinations throughout our  country.  He
considers the frequency of these melancholy inci-
dents as infallible evidence of the growing degenera-
cy of public morals, indicating the rapid decline, and
eventual  subversion of our free institutions.
  It  is the corruption  of the people,  he  tells you,
that  saps the foundation of a free government; and
he refers to the history of Greece and Rome to con-
firm and  illustrate his  doctrine.  Ho asserta that hs 
(107)
has set, and that all good me'.i ought to  set ihu.i
faces against the degeneracy of the times.
  Gentlemen of the Jury, I concur with him in  the
belief, that  corruption is the great destroyer of free
governments;  but do not believe with him, that its
prevalence is so alarmingly evinced by the  incidents
to which he has  so glowingly referred.  While cor-
ruption displays itself upon the surface airily of the
body  politic, it is, like boils on the surfacs of the na-
tural  body, but an evidence of the  exertion of the
recuperative energies to throw off the pucant mat-
ter.
   The right of the people to carry arni3, is little less
than  identic with their  freedom.   Without arms,
they  cannot vindicate their freedom.  Without the
right to possess, and wear them, they will  very soon
be without the spirit to use them,  even in defence of
their  liberty.  I feel no apprehension for the liberty
of my country from that source.  I  fear nothing
from  the carrying  of Bowie knives—brave men
do not  fear  them,  and  cowards  seldom  use
them.  It is wrong to reason against the use of any
good thing, from its occasional,  or even frequent
misuse.   While our institutions are pure,  and espe-
cially our Courts ol Justice,  we have nothing to
 fear;  they will vindicate the just use, and punish
the misuse of Bowie-knives   or any other  arms,
 which our free citizens may choose to wear.  But I
can refer him to an instance of the growing degene-
racy  of morals,  more  recent, and  greatly more
alarming, than any, or than all the instances he has
 named.  The recent instance, to which I allude, of
 alarming degeneracy in the public mind and moraU,
 is the composure, and even complacency, with
 which wj have  listened in the temple of justice,  to
 the mercenary ebullitions, and sanguinary efforts, of
 the gentleman himself.   It is in  proof that he has
 received from Mr.  Redding,  the brother-in-law ol
 the unfortunate Rothwell, a fee  of $1000, to  con-
 vict, if possible, the accused.
   He has not appeared in this case as the  Common-
 wealth's Attorney, nor under any appointment by
 the government, but as hired counsel—hired, too,
 by the incensed witness, Redding, upon whose tes-
 timony mainly,  it was hoped and desired by both,
 to produce the conviction and  ignominious death of
 the accused.  Gentlemen of the Jury, bear with me
 for a few moments, while  I also attempt to repress
 corruption, by denying it the right of access to the
 foruin  and to  the sanctuary of justice.  Let me
 tear  from its  face,  the illusive and imposing mask
 under  which it hopes to win its  way to  your favor
 and exert a bad  influence upon your judgment and
 your feelings.   I shall attempt to convince you that
 his appearance in this case, against the accused, is
 in contravention  of the law of the land and the
 moral  sentiment of all civilized communities—re-
probated, as  well by the s^ial sympathies of our
hearts, as by the precepts of our luly rjligion.
  And first, of the legality of the gj.itleinan'3 pos-
ture in this case.  Our constitution guarantees to
every man, a fair and impartial trial by a jury of
his peers, and proclaims that no man can be depriv-
ed of his life, liberty,  or  property,  unless by the.
judgment of hispeers, or the Uw of the land; by tha
law of the  land, we understand as well the protec-
tive, as the punctory law3 of our code.  The punc-
tory part relates to offences an 1  their punishment.
The guilty  are punisheJ, and the innocent are pro-
tected.   In  ascertaining and punishing guilt, tli3
laws are construed and applied to the case of tha
accused by the functionaries of the government.  In
the making of laws, there are no hired legislators,
they are all elected by the  people—so, in the enfor-
cing of the  laws, there are no hired prosecutors.\u&%-
es, jurors  or sheriffs.   I mean hired by individuals.
They are all appointed and paid by the govornment.
The machinery of judicial proceeding is altogether
official.  The agent3  are all official.  There i3 no
clubbing of official powers,  with that of any other
 individual, to baar down, oppress, or destroy  ano-
 ther individual.   The government,  insteai of as-
sisting individuals to oppress, restrains them  from
oppressing each other.  The government acts to-
 wards every man upon the presumption tint  he is
 innocent,  until his guilt be ascertained by official
 agency,  according to  the laws of the  land.  This
 presumption, that every man is innocent, until his
 gjilt be fairly, and legally proved, is the mo3t es-
 sential element in the corporate structure of civil so-
 ciety, one, without which its parts could not cohere,
 nor exist for a single day—it is not only the cement,
 but the very basis of the civil union.   It is thepostu-
 late, without which the jurist, the moralist, and the
 divine, would plead, write, or preach in vain—with-
 out this presumption, war,  anarchy and  rapine,
 would usurp the places of law, order and justice—
 upon it the whole fabric of civil society stands pois-
 ed, widening out like an inverted cone, until it em-
 braces those morals and manners, and those sympa-
 thies and  charities of the heart, together with those
 radiations  of  mind,   which embellish,  adorn and
 sweeten human life.   It is a presumption, which no
 man can contravene,  without poisoning the  foun-
 tains of human happiness, and thereby proclaiming
 himself an  enemy to mankind.  This principle is
 necessary, not only in the nascent state of society,
 as its basis, but in every moment of its existence, in
 every act  of its progress—neither  law,  morals, nor
 religion, could live without it.  In consonance with
 this great principle, the officers of the  government
 all procceed in reference to the accused.  He stands
 in the Box, shielded, as with  the fabled JEgis of Mi-
 nerva, by  this presumption, until his guilt is proved,
 beyond a reasonable doubt; and fairly proved. The 
(108)
Commonwealth's Attorney, the judge, the sheriffs,
act upon it.  Their oaths for official fidelity require
them to do so.  They have no  motive to act other-
wise, they represent the Commonwealth, and she is'
as much bound to protect the innocent, as to punish
the guilty.  It gives me pleasure to say  that  the
Commonwealth's Attorney, (Mr. Bullock,) has dis-
charged his duty fairly, faithfully and ably.  He has
acted upon the presumption, which I have been urg-
ing, that  the accused should be considered innocent
throughout the whole progress  of their trial, and
until its conclusion should evince the contrary. The
distinguished counsel, who represents the avenger
of blood in this case,  has, with his usual ability,
and with  somewhat unusual zeal, displayed great
devotion to the interests and inclinations of his  cli-
ent.  He was bound by his undertaking, to have  the
accused convicted and executed, unless they should
be  able to prove themselves  innocent.  His duty
and his energies were to destroy thorn, guilty or  in-
nocent.  The  duty of the Commonwealth's Attor-
ney was to suppose them innocent until their guilt
should be  ascertained—the duty of the former gen-
tleman was to suppose them guilty until their inno-
cence should be evinced by a verdict of acquittal.—
The gentlemen drew,  as you will percsive, their
motives from d'irectly opposite sources.  They acted
from different  motives,  and have thereby subjected
the  accused to a cross-fire throughout  the  whole
proceeding, and such must always be the case, when
hired counsel are permitted  to appear against  the
accused.  The appearance of the gentleman in this
case, violates the rights of the accused, and especial-
ly their great right to be presumed innocent,an J. pro-
fanes the sacredness of the temple of justice, and all
the sacred usages and forms of proceeding.  It cor-
rupts the streams of justice in  their  very fountains.
It introducss and consecrates the sanguinary and
long exploded claims of the next of kin to the slain.
Gentlemen of the Jury, according to the rude and
barbarous usags of man in his aboriginal state,  the
next of kin had a right to kill the slayer of his fa-
ther, brother, &c, without regard to the character of
the occision— without  enquiring whether it had
bsen inflicted justifiably, excusably—by misfortune,
or of malignant  design.   This  practice  prevailed
even in our day among  the Indians of North  Ame-
rica, and perhaps still prevails in many of their tribes.
It crept into the codes ef many semi-civilized  na-
tions as they advanced from barbarism.   To weed
out this vengeful and sanguinary principle,  and to
protect all but deliberate murderers, from its impas-
sioned and baneful effects, the great law-giver of the
Jews directed a competent number of cities  of re-
fuge to be erected, and so distributed  throughout
Judea, as to yield to the unfortunate homicide,  the
 requisite security from the next  of kin^to  the slain.
 The same principle insinuated  itself into the code
of England, but as she advanced in civilization, she
wisely and humanely tamed and rendered it harm-
less in the shape of a civil action, denominated an
appeal of murder, which  she permitted  the next of
kin to institute  against  the homicide, and she hu-
humanely encumbered  the action with such techni-
calities, and subjected it  to such delays in its pro-
gress, as rendered it harmless to the accused, by af-
fording time for  the subsidence  of the bad passions
of the avenger, while  she, in  the mean time, pro-
ceeded to give the accused a fair and  impartial trial
by a jury of his peers.   But in  the appearance and
efforts of the hired counsel in criminal cases, we be-
hold the re-appearance of that odious  and exploded
principle,  in  a more aggravated form than it was
ever displayed among the barbarians,  the Jews, or
the Anglo-Saxons.  With them, the unfortunate ho-
micide had to fear only the aroused passion of the
avenger.  It would subside.  It might, possibly, be
mitigated or appeased;  at most, none but the next
of km was to be dreaded—none  other  dare act—but
where counsel are hired by the accused, when his
vengeance is at its highest (and  it is alwa/s in  that
state of feeling that  he employs counsel) his feel-
ings are transferred into those  of counsel, and set
(to use a figure from dying) more or less unfadingly,
by the size or quantum of the fee.  There the accus-
ed had .he passion of revenge only, to fear—here he
has to encounter that passion,  combined with the
passion of avarice, the most sordid of our nature.—
But if the avenger might lawfully employ the ta-
lented gentleman who represents him, and not the
Commonwealth; in that case, might he not have em-
ployed any given number of our most  distinguished
lawyers, and advocates, and at once overwhelm the
accused by their combined talents, eloquence and
weight of character.  The limits of his vengeful ef-
forts are not to be found in the law, but in his purse.
The security of the accused is no longer to be found
in the laws and the institutions  of the government,
but in his own wealth and the poverty of the aveng-
er.  Guilt or innocence, upon this principle, is to be
decided not by the constitution and law3  of the land,
but by  the comparative  wealth or poverty of the
avenger and the accused; and  thus, instead of ap-
pealing to Heaven,  for a decision  of  guilt or inno-
cence, as  in  days of yore in the trial  by battle, be-
tween the avenger and the accused, we shall have
the question  decided by  a conflict of their purses;
and thus our beautiful  system of criminal jurispru-
dence will be so subverted and degraded, that  the
liberty and life of the accused will depend, not upon
his innocence, but whether he,  or the avenger can
bid highest—the one to preserve, and  the other de-
stroy it by the instrumentality  of hired  lawyers —
Who, in competition with each other, for employ-
ment will be  seen  hovering about the avenger and
the accused, ready to besmployedby either, and so- 
(109)
liciting  employment from both, regardless of the.
merits of the case, and regardful only of the amount
of the fee which  may be obtained.  Gentlemen, I
leave you to contemplate the  moral  degradation,
the wide-spread corruption which would follow the
practice if it were  to prevail, which I am resisting, as
unfair and unlawful.  The venerable gentleman has
told  you that he and myself practised law together,
and abreast for near half a century.  It is true, and
for the first twenty five years of that period, he like
myself declined  all applications to appear against
the  lives  of our  fellow men.   His first departure
from that  course  was, as he tells us, in the case of
the  Commonwealth vs. Smith, charged with the
killing  of Dr. Brown.  That was a long time ago,
and  I am sorry to tell you that he has been at it ever
since, and seems determined to keep  at it.  I take
much pleasure and feel some pride in  being able to
say that I never have taken a fee or appeared as a
lawyer against the life or liberty of my fellow man;
and  that no amount of fee could, at any period of
my life, have tempted me to do so.  I refused a fee
of $1,000 to do so when I was not worth that many
cents   Apart from its being unfair and  unlawful,
as I  verily believe  it to be, I do, and  always  have,
reprobated the  practice, because of its tendency to
indurate the heart  and deprave the moral feeling.
But  I am now contending that it is unlawful!;and fur-
ther to illustrate this point, let me suppose that Red-
ding had  given to the Judge, the Commonwealth's
Attorney, and the Sheriff, and  even to you gentle-
men of the jury, the $1,000 which he has given to his
talented lawyer in  this case,  (I beg pardon  of the
Judge, the Commonwealth's Attorney, the Sheriff,
and  of you gentlemen, for the supposition—I  make
it only for the argumeig,)  to animate them, as he
would term it, in the just performance of their official
duties.  To the Sheriff, that he might summon an
impartial jury, who would convict the accused; to
the Judge to decide  most justly  and impartially
against the  accused every  question of law,  which
might arise in the progress of the case; to the  Com-
monwealth's Attorney, that he might invert the
presumption of law as  to the innocence of the ac-
cused, and urge, with ardor and zeal,  their convic-
tion; and to the jury, that they might evince  their
love of justice by promptly rendering a  verdict of
conviction.  What  would be the public opinion of
such conduct in reference to him and  those officers
who had received his money ?  Would not all  man-
kind reprobate it, and fasten shame and degradation
upon all concerned  in a transaction so corrupt?—
They certainly would.  But let us inquire why they
would do so.   Would it not be because of the in-
fluence of the money  upon the fate of the accused?
The mere passage  of a $1000, or ten times that
sum, by transmission, from one hand,  or pocket, to
another is, in itself, and, apart from its effect and in-
fluence, a matterentirely immaterkl and indifferent.
It is then not in its naked matter of fact aspect, but
in the effect, and influence of those matters of fact,
that the public reprobate it.  The odious effect of
money so distributed consists in the pollution which
it inflicts upon the pure streams of justice,  to the
prejudice of the accused.  The pith of its effect is
in its unfairness towards them.  Now if the trial of
the accused can only  be fair,  when all the  pro-
ceedings against them are legal, and all the actings
official, apart and  free from all force but that of the
law, and all motives to action but those of official
duty, and if they are entitled by the constitution, to
a fair and impartial trial, we can beat no loss to sec
why the effect or influence of money exerted against
the accused, should be deprecated by them, and rep-
robated by  ail honest men.  Money, therefore,  can-
not be given by the avenger to the Commonwealth's
Attorney, (nor to any of the judicial officers,) be-
cause of its unfair influence against the accused.—
Now what is the difference in point of effect, that is,
fairness and impartiality, between giving the $1000
to the Commonwealth's Attorney and giving  it to
the very  talented and  very  experienced  lawyer to
whom it was given, and to whom you have listened
for  more than four hours.   By giving that sum to
the former, its effect, under the odious denomination
of corruption,  would have been let into the prosecu-
tion—by giving it to  the latter, its effect,aggravated
by an  alien and unofficial  volume of mind  united
with experience, sagacity, and weight of  character,
has been brought into the case, and their condition
thereby rendered worse than if the $1000 had been
given by Redding to the Commonwealth's Attor-
ney.  It is, gentlemen, in the contemplation of so-
ber reason, unfair, and therefore unlawful, that the
effect and influence of this $1000 should be thrown
into the scales against them.  It is corruption to an
undefined extent—I say undefined extent, because,
though we can ascertain the amount of the money,
we cannot  ascertain precisely the degree of unfair-
ness it produces—but as any, the least degree of it,
is excluded by the laws of criminal proceedure, we
can with confidence,  say, that the influence of the
$1000 fee,  most gratuitously and sagaciously ex-
erted  by the hired  lawyer against the accused is
palpably unfair.
  There is, gentlemen  of the jury,  in the human
heart an inherent love of fairness, which, when un-
biassed by passion, it is sure to display  whenever
occasions for its display are presented.  It pervades
all ranks and grades of mankind.  It is  evinced in
all their settled modes of contest—when a fight oc-
curs among the multitude, you will hear the excla-
mation of fair play from the mouths of all, who are
not engaged in it; and very many, in every crowd 
(HO)
are ready to maintain fairness at all hazardj.  Hence
the popular apothem—;fair play is a jewel.  Pugil-
ism and duelling have  their rules of fair play.  The
sports of the  people,  as well as their fights, have
some settled' rules  of  fairness—and even  war be-
tween i.ations has its laws of fairness—these rules
of fairnee-s are legibly and indelibly written upon
the human heart, and  we perceive them intuitive-
ly—we feel their force  in every fibre of our frame-
in every pulsation of our blood—they are venerated
every where, and in reference to every subject.
  Gentlemen of the jury, to give you some idea of
the degree in which this principle was cherished by
our rude ancestors,  when the accused had a right to
wage battle with his accuser, let me refer you  to the
rules of fairness by which the combat was regulated
and conducted—and  mark  that even in this  mode
of trial, the accused was presumed to be  innocent
until convicted, that is,  until vanquished by the ac-
cuser.   You will find the rules to which I allude, in
the 2d volume of Montesque's Spirit of Laws, com-
mencing at page 201, but I shall read only two or
three of the rules, from page 203: "Before  the com-
bat, the magistrates ordered  three banns to be pub-
lished.  By the first, the relations of the parties were
commanded to  retire.   By the second,  the people
were warned to be silent; and  the third, prohibited
the giving of any assistance to either of the parties,
under severe  penalties, nay,  even on pain of death,
if by  this assistance,  either  of the parties should
happen to  be vanquished."  Observe, gentlemen,
that the relations were to retire.  Do yoti  ask me
why?  Surely—lest, influenced  by  the  feelings of
kindred ties,  some  of them might assist their rela-
tive, and therein* violate the principles of fairness.
The crowd  were to be silent.  Why silent?  lest,
by their hisses or their plaudits, they might animate
the one or depress the  other, or  exert a distracting
influence upon either.  Now let  me ask you, does
the attitude of the gentleman, and his $1000 power,
exerted against the accused, quadrate with this rule?
What rule of fairness,  within the verge of human
conception, justifies his position  here, and his  ex-
ertions against them?   Does he know how much
the assistance  given by  him to the accuser, may
conduce to the vanquishment of the accused?  Does
he feel  conscious that  if by  this assistance of the
Commonwealth, (the accusing party,) he shall con-
duce to the conviction of the other party, he incurs
under  the  spirit of this last rule,  the  penalty of
death.
  Gentlemen of  the Jury, such was the mode, and
such the principles of fairness, observed by our an-
cestors in trying such a case as the one in which we
are now engaged—a mode upon which we look back
with reprobation; but our reprobation of  it is great-
ly mitigated by the lustre  of the  moral jewelry
 which lingers about  it; and think you, gentlemen
 of the jury, that the  wise and more civilized states-
 men and jurists, who rejected that barbarous mode
 of trial and substituted the mode which we are now
 pursuing, rejected with  it those principles of fair-
 ness which constituted all that was  attractive and
 valuable about  it?  Think you that they  interred
 the jewelry  with  the  body of the defunct mode?
 No, gentlemen—they  transferred those jewels to
 our code; their splendor gilds and  sets off its sym-
 metry.  It is  that very splendor which is now being
 dimmed, that symetry  which is now  being  marred,
 by the unfairness of  the mercenary and unauthori-
 zed efforts  of the representative of the avenger of
 blood.  By the theory of criminal  trial with us the
 accused are placed in the custody  of the law, pro-
 tected from all extraneous force, and  subjected only
 to that of its  own  power, exerted  through its own
 responsible and unprejudiced official agents,through-
 out every stage of the proceeding, from the incep-
 tion of the trial to its finale.  Even after convic-
 tion and sentence pronounced,  the  execution must
 be done by the proper officer and in  the manner pre-.
 scribed by law.   If the proper officer vary the man-
 ner prescribed, as by hanging one  sentenced to be
 beheaded, or  by beheading  one.  sentenced to be
 hanged, he is guilty of murder; and ifonethatis
 not an officer execute the culprit, even according to
 the manner prescribed in the sentence,he is guilty of
 murder.—See this law in Hale's Pleas of the  Crown,
 1st vol., p. 501.  Strange that a man  ascertained
 to be guilty and doomed to death should be protect-
 ed by the law from all unofficial assaults, and that
 the same law should allow the life  of a man pre-
 sumed to be innocent to  be assailed  by the hired
 representative of the  avenger of blood, even in the
 very temple  of justice!   W/ our Constitution and
 laws the accused are  allowed to defend themselves
 against official assailment, and even furnished with
 the means of  doing so—they shall be  heard by their
 counsel, and if they are unable to  employ counsel,
 counsel shall be  assigned them by  the Court—the*1
 shall be confronted by the witnesses  against them
 —they shall have compulsory process  to compel the
 attendance of witnesses in their behalf.   The jury,
 the judge, the sheriff and the Commonwealth'3 At-
 torney  shall be unbiassed—all shall be unbiassed—
 and yet the hired counsel of the avenger,  and hs
 alone, is tb be  irresponsible, and may aim his poison-
 ed arrows with impunity, nay, lawfully as he would
 have it, at the hearts of the accused—he is to be the
 only licensed homicide in the whole judicial coterie
 —he alone among all in the  court-house may, pe*
fas, ant nefas, kill  the accuseddf he can, with im-
 punity.  Can the law, I would ask you, gentlemen
 of the jury, license such  a  procedure against  the
 accused?  Ought it to do so?  Would it be fair that • 
(Ill)
 it should?  No,  gentlemen—no—it neither is, nor
 ought to be the law.   It is a vicious and foul excres-
 cence, which, like missletoe upon the oak, deforms
 and distempers the trunk  upon which it fastens it-
 self.
   It is an erroneous notion, that when a man has a
 license to practice law he  may  annoy and harrass
 whom he pleases, in  his professional character—no
 man has a right in virtue of his law-license to har-
 rass one man by assailing him with even a civil suit,
 in the name of another, without a warrant of at-
 torney from that other.—See Munroe's Rep. 189.
 Then let me ask the gentleman  where is  his war-
 rant of  attorney to prosecute in this case—he has
 no authority from the Government, which alone
 could give it.  The commission of the Common-
 wealth's Attorney is  his  authority  to prosecute;
 but the  gentleman has no authority whatever. The
 judge cannot give it: he can confer the power only
 in the absence of the Commonwealth's Attorney,
 and then only according  to the provisions of the
 Act of Assembly in  that  case provided.   But if he
 could confer the power, he cannot decently appoint
 a man who had taken a fee of 1,000 dollars to con-
 vict the accused,  if  possible, guilty  or innocent.
 He would be bound in honor to appoint some disin-
 terested gentleman of the profession, whose weight
 of character would be a pledge  to the accused, and
 to the community, that he would conduct the prose-
 cution fairly and justly.
   Now I ask if it be reasonable to suppose that the
 law which denies  to  the  licensed lawyer the bad
 privilege of annoying his neighbor  in a civil action,
 without warrant of attorney from the  plaintiff,
 would allow him  without a warrant of  attorney
 from the Government or  from  any  authoritative
 power whatever, to obtf ude himself into a prosecu-
 tion and exert all the powers of his mind not mere-
 ly to annoy or harrass, but to destroy the life of the
 accused?
   Can it be believed that the law would guard the
 citizens so scrupulously,in reference to thexx property,
 against the avarice of the bar, and  leave their lives
 a  prey to that cormorant passion?
   There is no statutory inhibition against such a (
 course, by a hired lawyer against the life of his fel-
 low, and only because the inhibition was to be found
 in the statutes penned by the finger of Heaven upon
 the human heart. The Legislature could not  sup-
 pose that gentlemen of the bar would give into a
 practice so obviously  contrary  to the  laws of na-
 ture—a practice reprobated alike by the  unvitiated
 feelings of the human heart and the spirit of Chris-
 tianity.   Grotius, p. 421, after  having commended
 nations  for giving  commissions  to their  national
 vessels, authorizing them to destroy  pirates, com-
mends also the practice  of a pointing,  by commis-
sion, prosecutors of crime, "when not any one, who
 has a mind to it, is allowed to be a prosecutor; but
 only some particular men, who are appointed by pub-
 lic authority.   That so no man  may contribute  to-
 wards the effusion  of his  neighbor's blood; but only
 he who is obliged  to it, by his office.   Agreeable to
 this  is  that cannon  of the Council of Elibous:—If
 any believer be an informer, and another by Ida  in-
 formation be  either proscribed or put to death,  we
 have thought fit to forbid him the sacrament, even
 to the  last."   Gentlemen  of the Jury—comment
 upon  this passage is unnecessary.  It  speaks the
 language of humanity, as well as of Christianity.
 Its import applies  to  the prosecution  of the life of
 one man by another, who has no commission from
 his Government to do so.  Here  the talented gentle-
 man who is hired  to prosecute pretends to no such
 authority.  The circumstance that the accused are
 strangers, from a  sister  state,  should (if nothing
 else could) have restrained him.  Gentlemen, the
 word  stranger addresses  the  ear of every generous
 and benevolent man, and more  especially of every
 Christian, in a tone of peculiar emphasis—it is a
 word  of consecrated import—consecrated by the
 Founder of our most holy religion.   He enjoined
 upon all his followers sympathy for, and courtesy to-
 wards strangers—"I was a  stranger  and ye took
 me not  in," etc.  Gentlemen  of the Jury—I set out
 with telling you that it was in the first place unlaw
 ful for a lawyer to  appear for money against the life
 of his fellow man;  and second, that it  was immoral
 for him  to do so. I have been laboring (and I hope
 not without effect) to prove the first point, viz.: the
 unlawfulness of the act.  I have, to  some extent,
 in discussing it, anticipated the  second—but it was
 unavoidable—for the laws are rides of moral duty;
 though  they do not embrace defence, and enforce the
 imperfect obligations of morality, such  as charity,
 benevolence,  gratitude, &c.   They enjoin only the
 duties of perfecLobligation.
  I contend that the counsel who is  now hired to
convict  his fellow men, in a capital case, violates, in
 the very act of being so hired, all the imperfect obli-
gations of morality; and if his efforts  produce con-
viction,  he violates the most important of all the
rules of perfect moral obligation.  "Thou shalt not
commit  murder," is the rule to which I allude; and
I urge that there are more modes than one of com-
mitting  that crime. A man's life may  be destroyed
by false  swearing,  or by erroneous and impassioned
pleading, as well as by the stiletto; and  the man who
deliberately destroys life, by false swearing or by er-
roneous and impassioned pleading, is not less guilty
at the bar of conscience than  the  man who delibe-
rately perpetrated the same deed by the dagger.  The
accused  are prosecuted for murder; suppose them to
be innocent, and suppose  ''■.' 'y  tlie  eff t!-  -f the
hired cujni.-11  they  shai.  oe convicted arm uAcoutud,
 would he not  bs guilty, in a  moral point of view, 
(112)
and  at  the  bar  of conscience,  of the  very crime
which he had imputed to them?  You must answer
in the affirmative—and he, (but for the illusion into
which he seems  to have fallen upon this subject,)
would be constrained to answer, as David did to the
prophet, "that  man is  surely guilty,  &c."—and
might it not, in  the words of Nathan,  be replied,
thou  art the man.   I wish I could disenchant and re-
deem his mind from  the illusion in which the sorce-
ries of avarice have enthralled it; I wish I could
convince him and the few among our lawyers, who,
influenced by his example  (and the example of one
or two other lawyers of distinction) have been sedu-
ced into the practice of receiving fees to assail the
lives of their fellow men; but I  almost despair—
the habit with him has become too inveterate—yet,
in the hope of restraining the younger members of
the bar  from a practice which detracts so much from
their professional, and, (according to my.notion,) so
much degrades their personal character, I will pursue
the subject—for it is in this view, mainly, that I have
already devoted so much attention to it.  I will not
deny, however, that I had the further view of en-
deavoring to convince you, gentlemen of the jury,
that  you ought to  distinguish between the efforts of
Mr.  Bullock, the  accredited organ of the Govern-
ment, and those of the gentleman who has (influen-
ced by a $1000 fee) obtruded himself into this prose-
cution;  and to regard  those of the one as a stream
emanating from the  pure fountain of public justice,
but a little discolored by the excitement from which
even official posture is unable to redeem our  frail
nature.   Those of the other as  a turbid and muddy
stream  of large volume emanating from the foetid
marshes of exuberant avarice, betraying its source
by the noxious effluvia which it emits  in he course.
The one as the fountain of health and of life to the
innocent;  the other,  as the Bohan Upas,  destroying
indiscriminately by  its poisonous breath all whom
chance  or accident shall  have  thrown within its
grasp.
  But dropping the figurative, let me discuss further,
in plain prose the moral position of the lawyer who
appears for  fee against the life of his fellow-man.
He is employed to devote all his talents and attain-
ments,  to the destruction of the accused, that is the
object at which the avenger of blood  aims—to a-
chieve that object he gives the $1,000, for that  sum
the lawyer engages to take the lives of the accused,
if by the weight of  his character and force of his
talents  he can possibly do it—if the death of the ac-
cused could have been effected justly, by the opera-
lion  of the laws  and the agency of the public func-
tionaries, then the $1,000 would not have been given,
the purpose of the avenger would have been attained
without so large an expenditure on his part.  It was
then, to destroy the accused, guilty or innocent, that
the counsel was engaged.  The engagement mart
have been either to  convict or acquit the accused.
Bat the  avenger would not have given $1,000 to
counsel to procure their acquittal.   It must then
have been given to destroy them—to take their lives,
and*it  must have been  received by the lawyer to
effect the purpose for which it was given—namely,
to fake the lives of the accused, or, to convict them,
which is identic with taking their lives.   Gentlemen
of the Jury, if this  is the fair conclusion, and I feel
so sure that it is, that it cannot be,.rqeisted, then, I
would ask you, I would ask casuists, I would even
ask the venerable and distinguished lawyer himself,
to tell  me what is the difference of the -moral guilt
between taking a man's life for his money, and taking
money to take his  life?   I declare solemnly, that if
there be  a difference in  the moral guilt I have not
brains to comprehend, or perceive that difference. I
can readily perceive, that in reference to the exte
rior aspect of the two cases, the former would seem
to have the advantage of the latter, in the fact that
with it  are associated  a  boldness and daring of
which  the  latter is entirely destitute.  The high-
wayman in taking  the life of another for his money
hazards his own life.  He may himself be slain, and
if he should not he  may be apprehended, convicted,
and expire on the gallows.  He incurs the hazard of
all these events. There is in chivalry,  a charm,a
fascination, I  had  almost said a witchery, which
gilds,  and  to  some  small extent mitigates crime
itself.   But in the latter case there is not one miti-
gating, not one redeeming trait. The hired law-
yer knows  before  he contracts to take  the lives of
the  accused, that they are  not  only without arms,
but bound hand and foot  by the cords of the law;
aye, and dumb too.  He has  nothing to fear from
them.  He has but  to compound with his own con-
science, and without any  hazard whatever,  fall tc
work upon his victims. But still it would seem to me
that the heart of the lawyer thus engaged, must be-
come strangelycallous to enable him to proceed in the
work of death, with the levity and sportiveness with
which it has been conducted in this case. And yet
the  gentleman tells us, and quotes Burns in affirma-
tion of the sentiment, "that the heart is ai, the part
ai, that is right or wrong." Does the gentleman ex-
pect us to take as a facsimile of a right heart, the
feelings and sentiments which  he  has displayed
throughout the management of this case?  It is not
by such sentiments and  feelings that the Scottish
Bard illustrates his conception of a heart that's right;
let me refer the gentleman to the  following deli-
cious morceau  upon the subject of the  heart from
the  same poet.
    "The sr.cred low of weel placed love,
    Luxuriously indulge it,
    But never tempt the illicit vow,
    Tho' nothing shou'd divulge it; 
(113)
    I Waive the quantum of the sin
    The hazard of concealing,
    But ah, it hardens all within
    And petrifies the feeling.
  Here we see how the heart is hardened, and the
feelings petrified, by indulging a passion less sordid
than avarice.  Burns thus shows how the heart may
be rendered wrong: let me refer  the gentleman to
another poet,who,like Burns, ministered at the altar
of nature.  He thus  instructs us how  to keep  the
heart aright a i.
    Be thine the feeling of the mind,
   ■ That wakes at honor's, friendship's call,
    Benevolence, that unconfined—
    Extends her liberal hand to all;
    By sympathy's untutored voice
    He taught her social laws to keep;
    Rejoice, if human heart rejoice,
    And weep if human eye shall weep.
    Who feels for other's' woes,
    Shall feel each selfish sorrow less,
    His breast, who happiness bestows
    Reflected happiness shall  bless.
   Which, gentlemen of the jury,  is the right heart;
the one displayed by  the lawyer, who permits him-
self to be  employed to degrade and destroy the ac-
cused, or  the one pourtrayed  and  recommended by
the Poets, just quoted?  I will not insult you by af-
fecting  not to know what  your answer will be, or
rather what it is—I should ask your pardon for hav-
ing asked you the question.   The precepts of the
Poets of nature, like  those of the Gospel, in refer-
ence to the  feelings of the heart, are but principles
of fitness resulting from the nature of man, and his
social relations.   Human life is at  best but a tissue
of hopes and  fears, of  cross  purposes and inquie-
tudes, of alternated sickness  and health, of sorrows
and joys, and the reciprocation of kind offices and
sympathies of the heart by men in their social con-
dition, alleviate the sorrows, mitigate the woes and
increase and heighten the joys of each.  Man is not
a solitary animal—he cannot live alone—his organic
bias  and natural aptitudes  are all social, but with
them all,  without the fine sensibilities of the heart,
society  would be a curse to him, for without them
there would be  no conscience—and without con-
science there could be no virtue, and without virtue
there could be no happiness.  Hence those who per-
mit inordinate avarice, or the extreme of any other
passion, to petrify their hearts and harden their feel-
ings, are warring with  the purposes of nature, in
reference  to the social condition  of man -man's
long state of infantile imbecility and  helplessness,
and his dependence, during all that time,  upon the
sympathies of the heart for  existence and  suste-
nance,  mdicate the high  estimate which nature
places  upon them.  Infancy  is the period of the
heart's pupilage  in the divine  science of sympathy—
our first lessons are received in the nursery—they

                            15
fall from the lips of maternal affection upon our in-
tant hearts, as gently as the dews of heaven descend
upon the tender grass.  It  is thus the virtues are
planted in the heart, and take root, and grow in its
sensibilities—it is liere, in  the nursery,  that valoT
too, the associate and  protector of his sister virtues,
germinates and unfolds its  nascent energies—stern
and vigorous, bold, and daring as it becomes, it ia
like the  other virtues, the offspring of weak but
lovely woman.  By a wise arrangement of nature,
the ladies are made to grow, and to admire it,  be-
cause they constantly need  its protecting influence.
They respect it in their husbands, and cultivate it
in their sons.  The  little boy,  but just emerged
from his cradle into his first pantalons, while  he
listens to the tale of female distress, or  injured in-
nocence from the lips of his fond mother,  feels  the
germ of valor glow in  his bosom,  and distend  his
little chest,  and while she tells him that the fair
damsel was rescued  from brutal violence  by some
chivalrous knight, struts across the floor in steps of
measured pride, and  pants to  be a  man; that he
also may signalize himfelf by deeds of valor and  be-
nignity.  The mother rejoices to see in the flashing
eyes of her lovely  boy the scintillations of his fa-
ther's  spirit—a spirit in the full and protecting ra-
dience of which, and the blessing of heaven,  she
and her little ones have thus far  rested securely.
   Gentlemen of the Jury—it is thus  the  heart is
trained, and  its sympathies and feelings  schooled
in each successive generation to the performance of
the social duties and the practice  of the virtues-
yes, gentlemen, it is from the physical weakness of
woman, that man derives his moral strength;  and
shall her lessons be set at naught, and contemned
with impunity?—will not the gentlemen who receiv-
ed money to destroy the lives of their fellow men
be signally rebuked by public sentiment?—will not
the ladies take cognizance of the subject, and place
their withering veto upon a practice so repugnant to
all their feelings and inculcations?  The venerable
gentleman has humorously, wittily, and even pret-
tily, protested against a change of venue in this case,
from the jury to  the assemblage of beauty,  taste,
and intelligence,  with which this trial is honored,
and the bench of the judge adorned—and assigns,
as the reason for this protest, first, that the venue
has been once changed and cannot be changed again.
And, secondly, that he would not be at home before
that fair tribunal,  by reason of the  want,  on his
part, of  imposing personal presence, and  the apti-
tudes, manners, and attractions, suited to such an
assemblage.   This little  sally on  his  part,   was
intended for the  ladies,  and  designed to  divert
their attention from the repulsive  posture which
he occupied; and to  conceal  its moral  deformi-
ty, from  their view.  1 tell the ladies, that every 
(114)
 question  involving morals, belongs in an emphatic
 manner to them, let the law of the case be decided as
 it may by courts of law—the morale of it must,  di-
 rectly or  indirectly, be finally settled by their tri-
 bunal in its appellate character.  But I have occu-
 pied  too much of your attention upon this prelimi-
 nary point, and perhaps have been too divergent and
 diffusive in the discussion of it.  But impressed as I
 am with its importance to the  profession of the law
 and to the community, I could not pretermit it.—
 What I have said is not in any spirit of unkindness
 towards the venerable, and very talented gentle-
 man, who has been employed by the avenger against
 the lives of the accused.  I have  no  unkind feeling
 toward him.  I claim no right to rebuke him person-
 ally.  I have no motive to do so;  but I have a right
 to reprobate the practice, and  I regret I cannot  do
 it in the abstract.  My observations are intended
 to be applied, not to him personally, but to the prac-'
 lice personified by  him.  It is true, and pity it is 'tis
 true, that  he is not the only distinguished lawyer in
 the Union, who has permitted himself to be employ-
 ed against the lives of his fellow-men.  A few, and
 I am glad to say very few, others, have lent the sanc-
 tion of their talents and weight of character, to this
 odious and inhuman practice.  I feel concerned that
 it should be put down, and regret that our courts
 have permitted it.  The Judge should denounce it
 as unlawful  and unfair, and refuse  to permit it.—
 The prosecuting attorney  should feel himself dis-
 paraged by any attempt to  associate with him a
 lawyer, hired, not to represent  the Government, but
 the revengeful spirit of the avenger  of blood. He
 should feel that he is the organ of the law, minis-
 tering at the altar of justice;  and to  maintain the
 sanctity of his position and his own competency,
 he should exclaim to the mercenary representatives
 of the avenger "procul—0 procul estate prophani,"
 and such I am sure would have been the course of
 the prosecuting attorney in this  instance, had he
 not felt .restrained by that diffidence  which is inse-
 parable  from youthful talents, in  the inception  of
 its official course.  But let me tell that  young gen-
 tlemen,  that the competency, which he has display-
 ed in the management of this case, will  leave him
 without apology, or excuse, should  he,  hereafter,
 Bubmit to the like intrusion.
  Gentlemen  of the Jury—you  must have  per-
 ceived that  I   commenced'  with  the topic  with
 which Mr. Hardin closed.  He  would  have you
 convict  and  sacrifice the accused, for  the pur-
 pose of  putting down, if for nothing  else, the
 practice  of wearing  Bowie-knives,  and thereby
checking the torrent of corruption,  which, as he
would have you believe, emanates from that practice
and threatens the subversion of our free institutions.
I would have you believe that the practice of taking
 money  to take the lives of his fellow-men in oot
 courts of justice, as he does professionally, is greatly
 more unseemly  and corrupting in its tendencies,
 than that of wearing Bowie-knives.  That  the lat-
 ter is matter of constitutional right—while the form-
 er violates the constitution  and laws of the land,
 and every precept of Christian morals.  You have
 heard us both, and will judge between us.  What I
 have said however upon  this point, is intended by
 me rather as a  kind of nuncupative legacy to the
 junior members of the Bar, many of whom are at-
 tending this  trial,and are the sons of my old friends,
 than for your consideration  as jurors in this case.
   I would say to them, that their license to practice
 law invests them  with no powers to violate the
 social duties; that by becoming lawyers they have
 not ceased to be men.  That the high and honora-
 ble profession which  they have  chosen,  imposes
 upon them increased  obligations  to cherish  and
 promote those feelings of the heart, upon which the
 virtues and of course the happiness of mankind so
 generally depend—that every political community
 consists of an indefinite number of domiciliary com-
 munities—the number of which are united to each
 other by ties of affection—not similated, but natu-
 ral, emanating from the heart—the  relations  of the
 members of  the political body are artificial—that
 the artificial ought not,indeed cannot  absorb or ex-
 tinguish the natural.  In the family  circle the vir-
 tues and charities which exalt, embellish and  adorn
 our nature,  are reared under  the fostering care of
 maternal  kindness,  moistened and bedewed from
 the sacred fount of the maternal storge,  as I have
 already told you.  That in  their sacred domiciliary
 circles, the hearts of all are reciprocally  united to
 that of each other, by ties which, though of gossamer
 texture, are stronger than hempen cords;  and that
 whenever a citizen is destroyed—a husband,a father,
 a son or a brother, is torn from  this family cluster,
 by a disruption of all the ligaments  which bound
 their hearts together; that  the heart of each bleedi
 with agony, and that of the mother is broken.  Now
 if there  is  any meaning in the  divine precept "do
 unto  others  as  you would  that  they should do
 unto you," how can any lawyer who  is a husband,
 father, son, or brother, (and every lawyer  must
 come under some one or other of these denomina-
 tions) reconcile it to himself  to take  a fee  to take
 the life of a  man  sustaining the  relations I have
 mentioned, and thus incur not only the moral guilt
 of homicide, but with  it that of inflicting in many
 instances widowhood and orphanage, and agony of
feeling in every instance upon some circle of domi-
ciliary affection;  for every man (I repeat) belongs to
a circle of that kind.  I would say therefore in con-
clusion upon this point to  every junior of the pro-
 fession, touch not, handle  not,  the price of such 
(115)
complicated cruelty—degrade not your profession, ,
 harden not your feelings by an act so revolting and
 remorseless.
   I will not, gentlemen of thejury, apologize to you
 for having detained you upon this preliminary point
 so long—a point not involved in the cause you are
 sworn to try, but yet, as I think, of sufficient im-
 portance to  the community to plead in  its import-
 ance, my excuse for the time I have directed to it.
 The question in issue, and the only question, is,
 were the accused placed under the necessity, by the
 conduct of the unfortunate Rothwell, Meeks, and
 others, of taking the lives of those  two misguided
 men, in defence of their own?  Gentlemen, the mo-
 ment the testimony was closed  on  the  part of the
 Commonwealth, I perceived distinctly  from your
 countenances, that you had even upon that exparte
 and adverse testimony, decided the question in favor
 of the accused.  I have perceived,also, that up to the
 moment, when I rose to address you,  your decision
 remained unshaken,unaltered, and therefore, it was,
 that I lingered so long at  the threshold of the real
 subject of your enquiry; my clients I knew would
 excuse me; they felt no apprehension; they had ob-
 tained all they desired, an enlightened and impar- |
 tialjury; their acquittal (they knew)  would follow j
 of course.  But if the case had  needed the utmost j
 and the ablest discussion, they saw, and heard the
 efforts, in their behalf, of my friend Col.  Robertson,
 an aged, experienced, and talented lawyer—of young
 Mr. Thompson, whose display in this case may be
 considered by his friends as a pleasing presage and
 sure pledge of his future professional eminence; and
 they must have been delighted, as you,  and I, and
 all around us were, with the sun-shine lustre shed
 upon the law  and facts  of this case by  the tran-
 scendent genius of their friend, and  fellow Mis-
 sissippian, Mr. Prentiss.   I must,  however,  more
 because it is expected  of me, than needed by the
case, re-touch some of the topics which they ana-
 lyzed  so well  and discussed so ably.  But  I do it
 with my intellectual vision dimmed by the reflect-
ed light of the genius which has beamed upon them,
as our ocular vision  is  sometimes blinded  for a
time, by the strongly reflected rays of the sun.  In-
deed, were it not that  Mr. Hardin,  (of whose  pos-
ture in this prosecution I have discoursed you,) has
given some  distorted views of the  testimony  and
the  facts, and  in some degree misconstrued, as I
think, the law, I would not have said a word to you
upon the main subject,  believing, as I have already
told you, that your verdict  had been, long since,
virtually formed  in their favor, and that so far as
speaking might be.thought  necessary,  more  had
been said and better said, than any thing I could
say.                   (
  Gentlemen of the jury, let me, before I make any
comments, exhibit a condensed view of the lead-
ing facts of the case.  They are, that, Judge Wilk-
inson, with his two friends,  was at  the Gait House
in Louisville, on his  way to Bardstown to marry
Mis3 Crozier, an accomplished young lady of tliat
place, whose affection and, consent he had previous-  -
ly won.  The day  fixed for the marriage was  the
Tuesday next succeeding the day of the catastro-
phe which gave rise to this prosecution;  his brother
Doctor Wilkinson, and his young friend, Mr. Mur-
daugh, had come with him as friends on this occa-
sion, and they remained in Louisville  a few daya
to  replenish and fit their wardrobe for  it; in  the
doing of which,  they became acquainted with the
witness, Mr. Redding, a tailor of  that place.  He
made a coat for the  Doctor—it did not fit him—a
dispute arose between  him and Judge Wilkinson,
upon that subject—some blows were exchanged—
they separated—the Judge,  his brother, and friend,
went to  their  lodgings  at the Gait House.  This
happened about 4 o'clock, P. M. on the day of the
catastrophe.  Redding was much enraged at what
he  supposed was the ill-treatment he had  received
from the Judge, who had snatched up a poker  and
aimed a blow at hia head with it, which, as he ward-
ed it off, took effect  without hurt or injury of  any
kind upon  his arm.  Redding  went to the Mayor's
office to obtain  process against the three,  for the
Doctor  and Murdaugh had, during the scuffle be-
tween  him  and the  Judge, drawn their Spanish
knives.  The clerk of the court told him  that he
could not issue  process until furnished with their
names—he  promised the clerk that he would  get
the names  and return.  He, and  his unfortunate
brother-in-law,  Rothwell,  went   together in  the
evening about dark,or a little before,to the bar-room
of the Gait House, to  obtain the names, (as he says,)
of the Mississippians—having  obtained  them upon
a slip of paper from Mr. Everett, he remained in the
bar-room for some 15 or 20 minutes, when Judge
Wilkinson entered.   Whereupon, Redding accosted
him, by asking him, if he was not the man, or gen-
tleman, who had struck him  with a poker—and
commenced abusing  him in a most  vituperative
manner—calling him rascal, liar, scoundreI,coward,
poor pitiful Mississippi  Judge-and  stating  that
he could whip them all three, if  they would lay aside
their weapons,  and go into a room or the street—
the Judge replied, only, that he  would have nothing
to do with a man of  his profession—that if he laid
his hand upon him he would kill  him—and after'
listening for some time, as he walked  backward
and fo»vard across the room, to the foul abuse of
Redding, retired, accompanied by  Mr. Everett, to
his own room, on the second floor—after remaining 
W)
                                             (1

in his room for about 15 minutes, they came down
into the bar-room  to be inTreadiness for supper,
which was nearly ready.  When the Judge retired,
Redding exclaimed, the damned coward has fled—
and when the Judge returned to the bar-room with
the Doctor  and Murdaugh on their way to supper,
Redding having retired during the Judge's absence,
immediately entered the bar-room after  them, and
exclaimed in a high voice, they are all  three here
now, and accosted Murdaugh, saying, you are the
gentleman who drew a knife, or a bowie knife, upon
me at my shop  to  day.  Murdaugh replied, who-
ever says,  I  drew a bowie knife upon you, is a
damned liar, and displayed in his right hand a white
handled Spanish dirk knite, telling him to stand off,
and swearing  that he would kill  the first man
that laid his hands  upon him; whereupon,  Meeks
seized the wrist of his  knife hand, exclaiming, you
nre the damned little rascal!  Striking him over the
head with the butt-end of a cow-hide, when  several
persons rushed  up,  and  Rothwell struck him over
the head with a hickory club, and cut his head
badly.   Murdaugh took the knife into his left hand
and stabbed with  it  at- Meeks, who retreated, strik-
ing Murdaugh with the cow-hide—Murdaugh stuck
to Meeks, although stricken and pressed by others,
until  his right hand,  extricated from  the grasp1 of
Meeks, had gained  the knife,  and  with it he gave
the fatal stab to Meeks. During this time;Dr. Wilk-
inson was  knocked down and beaten  by Holmes
and others, almost  to a jelly;  Judge Wilkinson had
also been struck, and stabbed with a narrow blade
knife,  or a  sword cane,  which  some  one  of the
friends of Redding used on the occasion.   While the
Doctor lay helpk S3 and nearly lifeless on the floor
in another  part  ofvthe room, Rothwell joined those
who. were beating  him, and commenced upon him
with his, hickory club—while beating him, the Judge
to relieve, or rather  save his brother, stabbed Roth-
well with a bowie knife in two places, one stab in
the side, and the other more towards his back than
front. He also, with the same knife, stabbed Holmes
through the arm.   The Judge having relieved  his
brother, retreated,, (keeping  him and  Murdaugh
before him,) through  the passage and up stairs
to his room, keeping  between the  mob and them,
and protecting  them  and himself by  brandish-
ing his .bowie-knife.   They  were pursued  to the
staircase and struck  with eliairs, and  as they  as-
eended, shot at  by Oldham.   Redding disappeared
as soon as the affray commenced, and was not seen
until it closed.  The accused were unknown  to any
of those who assaulted them—had never seen nor
conversed with any of them.  The friends of Red-
ding, who had, all except Rothwell, (who  accom-
panied Redding) dropped in at the Gait House sea-
sonably, were Holmes, Halbert, Oldham, Johnson,
Meeks, &c.  The first five were among the stoutest
men in the valley of the Misbissippi.  Redding was
armed with a dirk, which he had borrowed on that
evening on his way to the Gait House, Rothwell had
a large seasoned  hickory  stick—Oldham  had a
loaded  pistol  and bowie knife -Meeks a cow-hide
with a  knot tied upon the small  end of it,  and a
Spaniidj knife—the knife however was surrendered
to Oliver his  friend, before  the onset.  After Judge
Wilkinson had left Redding and retired to his room,
these men assembled in the passage, and Rothweil
proposed that they should go up to the Judge's room,
take out the damned rascals and give them hell.
Mr. Everett one of the proprietors of the house, left
the bar, in which he was, when the rush was made
by these men upon the Mississippians,  (which was
instantly upon the annunciation  by Redding, that
they were all three present) under the full convic-
tion that a scene was to ensue, which he had no
inclination to witness.
  Gentlemen of the jury, these are leading  facts
which have been proved  in the case.  I have omit-
ted many incidental, and  subordinate facts, to avoid
consuming your time, by a tedious repetition.  They
have all been  stated with accuracy, and commented
upon with ability, by my associate predecessors in
the defence.
  Now we alledge, first, that there was a regularly
formed concertion  between Redding and his asso-
ciates, to beat, and degrade the defendants, if not
to destroy  therri   And, secondly, whether  such
conspiracy had or had  not been formed, the accused
were placed under the  necessity,  by the conduct of
Rothwell and Meeks of destroying  them, to save
their own lives, and so were justifiable by the law
of nature, and the laws of  the land, in doing the
acts, with which they are charged in these  indict-
ments.
  And, gentlemen, first  of the  conspiracy.  Yon
find that Redding was much  enraged by the affair
at his shop; that he was further inflamed by John-
son, the butcher, who spoke to him of the insult
he had received, in aggravated terms, vaunted of his
own manhood, by tleclaring that  he was as good's
piece of stuff as  ever  was wrapped up in so much
hide, and declared that they would get  Bill Holmes
and his party and give  them the Devil.  Redding at
the instant declined the proposal, but declared that
he would have satisfaction.  He  and Johnson left
the shop and went together to  the Mayor's office,
when Redding applied for process and promised to
return  with their names and obtain  the process.
Here Johnson and  Redding separated—the  latter
went by the shop of his brother-in-law, the unfortu-
nate Rothwell, took  him along with him, and re-
turned (by what route we cannot know exactly) to
his own shop, which is but a short distance from
the Gait House.  Where Johnson went we do not
know—the next place we meet with  him is  at the 
(117)
bead of the  Market-house, in company with Bill i
Holmes,  Halbert, &c.  The same coterie  is after-
wards, late  in the  evening, seen  on Main  street
near the  Gait House—these men are all at  the Gait
House and unite  in making  the attack upon the
Mississippians.
  Now gentlemen of the  jury, weigh these facts,
ponder upon them, and ask yourselves if they could
all be the result of accident.  Mark  that  Redding
declared  that he would have satisfaction.   Johnson
and .Meeks urged himtoit,and prescribed the mode,
which was ultimately adopted, to get Bill Holmes
and his party and drub or  Lynch them.  Did Red-
ding pursue the plan of obtaining satisfaction which
he had proposed?   Did he  when Everett gave him
the names of the Mississippians return to the May-
or's  office as  he had promised the clerk?  On the
contrary, did he  not linger at  the bar until Judge
Wilkinson came in, which  was  some time, and
after  he  had seen the Judge and vented his venom
upon him, did he then, after the Judge had retired
to his room, return to the  clerk  and sue out the
process in furtherance of his ostensible  purpose.
No,  gentlemen —and why did  he not?  Evidently
because  either his proposition to seek satisfaction at
law  was a  mere pretence, to cover the conspiracy
proposed by Johnson, namely, to get Bill Holmes
and  his party and give them hell—or, if he was sin-
cere in his proposition, he was  led to abandon it,
and adopt that of Johnson; that it was his primary
or ultimate design cannot be  doubted, for Bill
Holmes and his party were there and united with
Redding and his party in making the onset.  Meeks,
Johnson and Rothwell were of Redding's  party.
How cam3  they  all to meet at the Gait House on
that evening, and about  the  same time of the eve-
ning—and what is remarkable,  animated by the
same spirit, a spirit  of hostility towards the Mis-
sissippians? How came they all to understand the
watch-word pronounced by Redding upon  their en-
tering the bar-room?  For you  remember that the
n.oment  they entered  he  exclaimed, "tliey are all
three  here now"—and instantly the rush was made.
Mark,   gentlemen,  their malicious design was
against the Mississippians, and they were  three.
The words, all, three and now, are to be construed
in reference to the interview which had taken place
between the Judge  and  Redding  about fifteen
minutes  before.   Then there  was  but one;  the
three  are here now.  Their vengeance would not
have  been slaked,  their purpose to punish and de-
grade all would not have been accomplished by ac-
tion then; but now they are all  three present  their
purpose may be  effected.   Mark, too, gentlemen of
the jury, that Redding was the only man of the
conspiracy who knew the Mississippians personally.
They had conspired  to act upon the men  who had
insulted  Redding;  but they did not know  them.
Redding did—no other man in the house could have
given the signal  but  Redding.  They alone of all
the men in the house could understand the signal—
and how could  they  understand  it  unless by pre-
vious concert?  Messrs. Redding and Johnson there-
fore are not to be believed when they swear that there
was  no conspiracy against the Mississippians, no
concert to do violence  to  them on  that evening;
and  they  illustrate most  forcibly the proposition
cited by Mr. Hardin, and to which I agree, namely,
it  is not always that  which is sworn that is evi-
dence—what they have sworn in relation  to this
matter is  most emphatically not  evidence of the
proposition to which they depose.
  Their condition  is certainly a very  unenviable
one.   The lawless conspiracy  which they formed
to destroy the accused resulted  in the death of, two
of their co-conspirators—and to avoid the imputa-
tion of the moral guilt of the murder  of their friends
they are obliged to deny the conspiracy, upon oath,
notwithstanding they cannot flatter themselves that
there is in existence one honest man who can believe
them—alas!  for the frailty of human nature.
   There is, gentlemen,  fortunately for the interests
and  happiness of mankind,  an impress upon truth
which we discern as it were by intuition.  Man is
a rational  being—he acts  from motive, and  when
he aims at any end, whether good or bad, he selects
and adapts the means to the end.  The means to be
suitable must be homogeneous, otherwise instead of
prompting his design they  will neutralize  their
force by antogonism and fail in their efficiency.   A
good  purpose is promoted by good  means—a bad
purpose by  bad  means.  Here we  may learn the
purpose of the agent from the complexion of the
means he has employed to achieve it, and hence we
can ascertain the character of the means from the
known character of the purpose.  Therefore when a
witness swears  positively against  the inference
which every rational mind would draw from estab-
lished  or known  facts, he is  not to  be  believed.
The known or established facts cannot lie.  When
those facts consist of acts done by men, as the agents
were rational, we can infer their motives from their
acts—and  if the acts were simultaneous and concur-
rent, by agents  living remote from each other, and
pursuing different avocations,  we  can, we must
infer that they agreed  or  concerted to act  together
and at the same time, though they should all  swear
positively  to the contrary.  In the moral as in the
physical world,homogeneous matter alone coalesces.
   Now it was  quite unnatural that Bill  Holmes
should have left his boat and with his party gone
to the Gait House, to beat and degrade three Mis-
sissippians who had never wronged him in word  or
deed, whom he did not  know, and of whom he had
never heard.  It was equally so in relation to all the
others  except Redding, who alone knew them, and 
(118)
 had, or supposed he had cause of complaint against
 them.  Holmes and the others must therefore have
 been informed of the grievance of Redding, and must
 have agreed upon  the  time, place and manner of
 avenging it, by their joint agency; therefore what
 the two witnesses have sworn is negatived by the
 unvarying laws of nature,as displayed in the agency
 of man—what they  have deposed upon this matter
 not  only lacks the congruity and  symmetry of
 truth, but  is stamped with the  unglossed impress
 of a  vile and execrable counterfeit.  Yes, gentle-
 men—if every  man concerned in  that  nefarious
 transaction were to swear that there was no concert,
 no conspiracy, they  wouhl not  under the state of
 facts disclosed in this case, they could not be believ-
 ed.   You  have heard  the  law  read from Foster,
 p. 256,  relative to  the  killing of a conspirator by
 the person  conspired against.  If the conspiracy be
 not to take his life, but  only to beat him, he may
 lawfully kill  the conspirators.  It is not, as  in the
 case of an  assault by an individual,  necessary that
 the person assaulted should flee to a wall, or have
 no mode left of saving  himself from death or great
 bodily harm before he may lawfully kill the assail-
 ant,  but he may slay the conspirators upon the first
 assault, and without retreating—so abhorred by the
 law  is a conspiracy.   One reason of this abhorrence
 is evident:  in a conspiracy many are united against
 one,  or a few, and  no  calculation  can safely be
 made upon  forbearance or retreat.  There is, too,
 unfairness as well as wickedness in combination for
 Buch  unlawful purposes.
   Gentlemen—obvious and plain as the conspiracy in
 that case must appear from the facts to which I have
 referred you, and the proof direct of severalt witness-
es on the part  of the defence, Mr. Hardin has the
 modesty to  deny it  and to urge  upon you that it
 cannot have existed without the knowledge of Red-
ding  and Johnson, (par nobile fratrum,) and  that,
 as they have sworn it did.not exist, therefore  there
 was no conspiracy—that I have attempted to  show
 you is a non sequiter.  In the same spirit of modest
assurance, that gentleman, as if unwilling that the
 case should  be without a conspiracy, furnishes you
with one, the coinage of his own fruitful fancy.  He
 tells  you that when Judge Wilkinson  got  to his
 room, after his interview with Redding, he related
 to his brother and Murdaugh the  abuse  which he
 had received from Redding, and forthwith formed a
 conspiracy with them to  descend  to the bar-room
 and murder Rothwell and Meeks,  or perhaps  Red-
 ding.  The -gentleman did not give personal speci-
 fication to the infant of  his brain.  Why, Mr. Har-
 din,  do  you think this  conspiracy was  formed by
 those gentlemen?  Because they told Mr. Everett
 to send them  up pistols, and because  they  came
down armed, the Judge with a bowie-knife and each
of the others with a  Spanish dirk-knife—and be-
 cause instead  of  entering  the  dining-room by  a
 private door they chose to pass to supper  through
 the bar-room,  and through the large folding doors
 that were labelled dining-room door—and because
 they came down to  supper  two or three minutes
 before the supper-bell was about to be rung.  Gen-
 tlemen, let me  request your attention for  a moment
 to  Mr. H's. conspiracy.   Mark, gentlemen, that he
 relies upon inference in support of his proposition-
 he  does not pretend to have any proof of it as, a  dis-
 tinctive fact.   Now  an inference to be availing
 must be rational.  They wanted pistols, therefore
 they meditated an attack.  Upon whom was  the
 attack meditated?  Not against  Mr. Redding—the
 Judge alone had, only fifteen minutes before, awed
 him, and might have killed him had he been so in-
 clined—not upon  Bill Holmes and his party com-
 bined with Redding and his friends.  It is  unreason-
 able to suppose that three feeble  men, strangers in
 a strange country, should conspire to kill some eight
 or ten of the stoutest men in the land, and that  too
 without any assignable motive.   With the exception
 of Redding they were all strangers.   Again,  those
 men, Holmes, &c, were there either as conspirators
 with Redding or they were not.   If as conspirators,
 then the pistols were necessary for defence—if they
 were not, then  in that character they were not want-
 ed to assail them, and I have shown that they were
 not wanted to  assail Redding—that purpose would
 have been absurd  and foolish—besides he was not
 assailed.  Then  they were wanted for defence against
 the real conspirators, Holmes, Rothwell,  &c, and
 the demand of  them  is an additional proof of the
 real conspiracy by Redding, Holmes, &c, against
 them. It is proved that the Judge, as well as every
 body in the room, had inferred from the appearance,
 manner and conduct of those  men,  that they had
 assembled to inflict violence upon the three Missis-
 sippians.
  But, Gentlemen  of the Jury, is it reasonable-to
 suppose that these  three gentlemen, strangers from
 a distant state, one of them  to be  married within
 four or five days, would form a conspiracy to assault
 some eight or ten  giant Kentuckians.  They have
 been proved to be intelligent, well-bred gentlemen,
 of pacific habits.  One of them has been a Judge
 of the Superior Court in the  state of his residence,
 and  of course a conservator, not a  breaker of the
 peace, and a member of the Legislature, and to be
 now a Commissioner, appointed by his state, to ne-
 gotiate for her a loan in Europe.   I repeat the ques-
 tion—Is it reasonable to suppose  that such men,
 under any circumstances,  and especially under such
as I have named,  would form such a conspiracy?
  Gentlemen;  when the excitement, was  raging
 in Louisville  upon this unhappy subject, I  asked
Mr.  Coleman  Daniel, a  very  respectable, honest,
and  wealthy mechanic  of  that city, if he also 
1119)
Was excited against the strangers.   He replied,
"No, sir, it would  be hard to persuade me that
an intelligent  gentleman, who had  come  all the
way from the state of Mississippi to this state to be
married, would, upon the eve of his  marriage, of
choice, and without  a necessity for it, get into a
such a scrape."  Your answer will be like his. You
will say, with  him, that no man of common sense,
and still less a well-bred gentleman, would willing-
ly present himself at the Altar of Hymen, with
his eyes blacked and his face lacerated and bruised.
   When a man is about to  be married his  mind is
far otherwise disposed; his feelings are joyous and
pacific, attuned by his prospects to purposes of hap-
piness, harmony  and peace—not  to  jars, tumults .
and broils.  Virtue enlarges her empire in his soul, I
 by presenting  new  topics of thought and new sub- j
jects of aspiration.  He feels that  his nature is un-
 dergoing an ameliorating process, and anticipates
 from the event to which his heart is devoted ten
 thousand felicities, all of which will perhaps  never
 be realized—(but I am too old to recollect  much
 about this  matter)—1 will barely say that the anti-
 cipated pleasures  of the lover are  not realized only
 because they  are too sublimated for the matter-of-
 fact condition  of  even the happiest state of matri-
 monial life—and  the matrimonial is the only happy
 condition of life.   It  cannot therefore be  believed
 for a moment  that  Judge Wilkinson  would sacri-
 fice all his prospects of matrimonial bliss to a scheme
 so wild, so visionary, so sanguinary, and so imprac-
 ticable: the very  nature of such a conspiracy as Mr.
 Hardin ascribes  to  the three Mississippians is too
 absurd to be entertained seriously by even that gen-
 tleman himself.  He, notwithstanding, still persists
 in urging it upon you, and as an additional proof of
 it he urges their  having chosen to pass through the
 bar-room to supper.  Here, gentlemen, Mr. Hardin
 expatiated at great length upon  the structure of
 the Gait  House—its public and  private ways, its
 high ways and by-ways, its dining and supping as
 well as  its culinary regulations, and especially
 called your attention to a private  entrance into the
 dining-room through which the Judge, the Doctor
 and Murdaugh   might  have  passed  to supper in
 safety, and would, as he contends, have done so if
 they had not formed a conspiracy  in their room be-
 fore they left it  to  kill Rothwell  and Meeks, &c.
 He does not seem to understand the principle upon
 which mobs are formed—that it is a principle of cow-
 ardice which aims to effect its bad purpose without
 hazard or exposure to personal danger.  It confides
 in numbers for security, and therefore all  mobs are
 of several against one or of many  against  a few.
 A mob of one against several is a solecism, and a
 mob of three against a dozen is equally absurd; and
 in this case the absurdity is aggravated by the con-
' eideration, that the three men were of frail physical
structure and entire strangers.  Again, such a com-
bination must have had for its principle of cohesion
and action  the  most determined courage in each,
and of course must have been a natural affinity be-
tween brave spirits, for the purpose, not of assault,
but of mutual defence.  Mr. Hardin's conspiracy is
destitute of all the essential ingredients necessary
to its formation—it is  without soul and body both.
There was neither cowardice nor  number  there—
the elements of such an existence  as he tancies
were  absent.  Gentlemen,  I  repeat, emphatically,
that cowardice is the element and basis of all delibe-
rate mobs—that they originate in and emanate from '
a principle of cowardice—hence brave men as mem-
bers of a mob or conspiracy,  not relying upon their
own  firm spirits,  but infected by the principle of
their  union, play the dastard, and hence  the man
who shall be assailed by  a  mob, must, if he hopes
to escape its danger, meet and defy it.  He must, to
save his life expose it, he must beard and conquer the
danger—he need not hope to soothe it by addressing
its reason,  it has none; it is all passion, and passion
never listens to reason.   An appeal  to  its  magna-
nimity would be equally unavailing.  It is a coward
and has no generosity or magnanimity.  Flight in-
spirits it and increases the danger.  I repeat, then,
that  his only hope is in defying it.   I speak, gentle-
men,  not only from  observation  through life, but
from experience in the early part of my life.
   Now, what  is to be rationally inferred from the
 facts upon  which Mr.  Hardin relies as the basis of his
 concluding argument in favor of his alleged conspi-
 racy?  Why, evidently  that the Judge and his two
 friends, had strong  reasons to believe that a mob
 had assembled  in the bar-room,to assault,abuse, and
 degrade, if not destroy them.  What were they to
 do were they to take council from fear, and remain
 in their room  supperless, or slip dowrt the stairs
 quietly, and silently, and  creep to supper through
 the private door,  to the dining room, of which Mr.
 Hardin speaks, or say to themselves, and each other,
 we will arm ourselves  with pistols if we can get
 them, and if we cannot get pistols, we will arm our-
 selves with the knives which we have worn in tra-
 velling, and we will go to our supper  as usual, and
 by the usual way—the way pointed out  to  stran-
 gers by the  index upon the door?   What less could
 they say, what less ought they to have said; what
 other course could they have taken, and retain their
 own self-respect, and  the  respect  of  honorable
 men?   There is no  proof that  they  knew  of
 this  private access  to  the   supper-tab.e,  even if
 they had been  capable  of skulking through  it.
 Mr. Hardin may have known  it, for he  tells you
 that he spends half his time at that house; and
 it would  seem from the very detailed account  he
 has  given of  the culinary and  table  regulations,
 that his  powers of explanation had been whet- 
(120)
 ted by his gastronomic impulses.  But I will sup-
 pose, for the sake of argument, that  they knew of
 this private way, and door, to the supper room, what
 then?  Had they  not a rigid to go along the public
 way—to . nter the supper room by the public door?
 And if they had a right to do so, you cannot infer
 criminality  from  the exercise of their right.  But
 gentlemen, I contend that they could not as men of
 honor under these circumstances,"have gone to sup-
 per by any other way.   When Judge Wilkinson left
 the bar-room only fifteen minutes before, Redding
 exclaimed, see  the damned coward has fled—what
 would have been said by  Redding  and his co-con-
 spirators, if they had  remained in their room, or
 glided stealthily from it to the supper-room, by the
private way?  What would  the community have
 said, and more particularly the people of Mississippi?
 How could they have returned to their own State?
 And, which  is  of more  importance than all other
 considerations,  what would  their own consciences
 have said to them?  The reproaches of their fellow
 men,  they could  avoid to some extent, by retire-
 ment and seclusion.  But they could have no refuge
 from themselves.  But gentlemen there was ahother
 obligation stronger, if possible, than any, than all I
 have mentioned, upon Judge Wilkinson,  to take the
 course through  the bar-room, to the public door of
 the supper-room.  It is in proof that  he was to be
 married on the  Tuesday following—to a beautiful
 and accomplished young lady—cpuld he if he had
 skulked, have dared to present himself to her, and
 to her venerable mother, the widow of a gentleman
 of known gallantry, and the sister of  Gen. Hynes,
 who is the pink of valor—whose fame is identified
 with that of Jackson, Adair,  and the other heroes
 of the victory at New Orleans, and next in splendor
 of fame  to  the  two  I have named.  I repeat, how
 could he have dared to form a marriage  connexion
 with such a  lady, and  such a  family.  If having
 acted otherwise than he did act, he had dared to pre-
 sent himself, he would have been rejected with scorn
 and contempt.    I speak from a long and inti-
 mate  acquaintance  with the  family.   Gentle-
 men, had he hesitated, (and I am proud to believe he
 did not), all these considerations would .have pre-
 sented themselves to his mind, and his soul would
 have rebuked him for his hesitancy. There was but
 one course for them to pursue.  There was but one
 sentiment which could animate them-  That course
 was the pathway of honor— that sentiment is (with
 them  and all  honorable men) that  others are as
 much bound  to  fear and avoid us, as we them.—
 There is, there  can be no  obligation on one man to
 fear another.  Men  politically equal—equals, in
 rights  and  duties, ought  not in the  moral, as
 equals in the  natural world  cannot control  or
 detrude each other from their positions; and there-
 fore equals ought  not to fear each other.  Conscious
 of this, a sensible man will not annoy another, and
 a brave man will not submit to annoyance.  This
 sentiment is very pithily inculcated by Fingal, upon
 his grandson Oscar—"Never search thou for battle, \
 my son, nor shun it, when it comes."  Gentlemen,
 can  you think  of a consideration,  which  would j
 have (I will not say justified,) palliated the conduct
 of Judge Wilkinson and his friends, had they acted
 conformably to  the philosophy  of  Mr. Hardin.—
 This part,  and indeed -^very part  of the case, I
 would very willingly submit  to  the decision of the
 ladies.  They admire men who  can protect them,.!
 and of course detest cowards.  It is as I have said
 in another part of the case, their high prerogative,
 to give  law  to the world, upon the subject of char-
 acter.  They ordained in the infancy of the world
 that valor was the sine qua now of excellence in the
 character of man.  That ordinance  has continued,
 and will continue unreversed till the end of time.
 To that ordinance in all its import, the accused con-
 formed throughout the complicated scene we have
 been  examining.  Away then  with  the  rules of
 action which Mr. Hardin has been prescribing for
 the accused, under the circumstances of this case.
 They had" learned other lessons. They consulted
 nature, and obeyed her oracular responses.  They
 had been taught to assert and vindicate their own
 rights, while they scrupulously observed the rights
 of others,  and abstained from violating them-, that
 they could not consistently with self-respect, be de-
 terred from exercising their own rights, more than
 they  could consistently with honor, and honesty,
 violate  the rights of others.   These  responses of
 nature  were embodied  in the ordinance  which I
 have  just  told you was enacted by the ladies in
 olden time, or rather when  time was very young.
 Conformably to that ordinance,  the accused came
 as they had usually done, to their supper,  through
 the bar-room.  They acted, as I have no doubt they
 agreed, or conspired (if Mr. Hardin likes the word)
 to do, before they left the room. That was  to med-
 dle with nobody, but to defend themselves to the
utmost against any and  every assault that might be
 made upon them.  And gentlemen, they meddled
 with nobody—they assailed nobody—but they were
 assniled, and they did defend themselves  bravely,
 nobly, efficiently.  I might here ask,  why those
 men remained so long in the bar-room, if there was
 no concert among them, to make  the assault which '
 was so nobly arrested.   But upon the subject of the
 conspiracy, I have said enough, perhaps too much.
  Gentlemen, Mr. Hardin tells  you, that he has
 lately returned  from the state of Mississippi, and
 from  the graphic and glowing description  he  has
 given you of the battle scenes he stumbled upon,
 in a short  excursion which he made from  Vicks-
 burgh into the country, one would be almost tempt-
ed to believe that a  horror of dirks,  pistols, and  J 
  bowie-knjjires, had seized upon  his feelings and dis-
  tempered his imagination.  Hence he can  see noth-
  ing commendable in the character of the people of
  that  State.  He portrays them as irritable, vindic-
  tive,  and sanguinary;—as a lordly people who look
;  down with  contempt  upon  mechanics and  the
  laboring classes  of  mankind.   He  kindly suppo-
  ses in their behalf,  that the  climate in which they
  live may produce these obnoxious biases  of char-
  acter.  If  they  are attributable to the  climate,
  it  is  unphilosophic to  complain of them, for it
  was settled in the case of Nebuchadnezzer, that the
  Heavens  must rule.   But do the facts, as he has re-
  presented them, exist in reality, or are they the off-
  spring of  his own heated fancy in this case?—he
  must allow me  to suppose them  factitious. I too
  visited that State more, than once, and continued
  long enough in it to become acquainted to some ex-
  tent, with the neople, their manners, habits, and
  customs—on my last visit, which was about three
  years ago, I spent near a month at the seat of gov-
  ernment during  the  session  of the Legislature;
  during that time I saw and became acquainted with
  many of her citizens, and among others With Judge
  Wilkinson, and Mr. Prentiss, the gentleman, with
  the witchery of whose eloquence,  and power of ar-
  gument we have just been delighted, instructed, and
  let me add convinced,—they were both members
  and  leading  members of the Legislature.  I saw
  nothing of the ferocious, or sanguinary about the
  people of that State. They treated me with the ut-
  most civility, and politeness, and with marked hos-
  pitality.   The members of the  Legislature, and
  many of the  respectable citizens who  were on a
  visit to  the capitol, overlooking all political party
  distinctions, united in pressing upon the distinguish-
  ed stranger (as  they were pleased  to denominate
  me,) from Kentucky, a most splendid public dinner.
  Gentlemen, I have  been  much concerned  through
  life in legislation, and  of course, my acquaintance
  with political  men, legislators, and others has been
  extensive, and I can say that I never in my lite saw
  a more respectable,  orderly, and intelligent legisla-
  tive  assembly convened, either in my own or any
  other State—nor did I ever see a more intelligent,
  polite, hospitable, and highminded  people than the
  people of that State. They detest knaves and cow-
  ards—and are prompt  to fraternize  with honorable
  meI1_to support, assist, and  uphold men of that
  character, without inquiry into their avocations-
  mechanics, agriculturists, or laborers, makes no dif-
  ference with them.  If  he be honest and honorable
  in his transactions,  and industrious and temperate
  in his habits, whether poor or rich, it makes no dif-
  ference.  If poor, they  enable him to become rich.
  Gentlemen:  the people of Kentucky  should be
  among the very last, to make, or sanction such im-
  putations aga i nst the people of Mississippi.  For all
  the Kcntuckians  of good character  who have gone
to that State (and very many have gone,) have been
kindly received,  and when they needed, generously
assisted with  loans,  both of money and  credit,
whereby they have become rich.  They went there
most of them, mechanics or laborers; they are now
rich planters.  The gentleman says, they look down
upon poor mechanics—it is true they do so, but it is
to discern their merit, and if they possess it, to lift
them up—to elevate, support, and sustain them in
.their exaltation.  But the other day, they looked
down upon  Mr. Henderson, a shoemaker; saw his
merit, and elevated him to a seat in the Senate of
the United States.  But  that is not  the only in-
stance; they looked  down  upon Mr. Prentiss, who
had travelled from  the far East, and was engaged
in teaching school among them—an obscure peda-
gogue—no, I cannot say he was obscure.  He could
not be obscure any where;  the eruptive flashes of his
great mind, like those  of Mtna, threw a bla*ze of
light around him, which attracted, or rather exacted
their gaze and admiration. They sent him  as their
representative to the Congress of the United  States.
Mr. Prentiss must  pardon me for thus going into
 his private history—I was myself an humble peda-
gogue. The difference in our condition  is,  that in
my case the people of Kentucky honored me; in his
the people of Mississippi honored themselves. They
looked down  upon  Judge Wilkinson; they discern-
ed his talents and his worth,  and elected him to the
Legislature, elevated him to the Bench, and con-
ferred upon him the commission to negotiate a loan
in Europe for purposes of internal improvement, as
you have heard from the  proof in the cause.  In-
stances are innumerable;  I  will not go into detail.
But they carry  bowie-knives, and the  blade of a
bowie-knife is so long, and so broad,and the  edge so
sharp, and it has such a terrific glitter,  that they
must  be a bloody-minded, hot-headed people.  Be-
sides,  they fight the most desperate duels.   Gentle-
men, arms of some kind are worn more or less in
all countries.  They are in all countries used by the
coward to assassinate, and by the brave for  defence
against assassins.  If you want  to  put down the
use of bowie-knives, extinguish robbers and assas-
sins, and the use will fall of itself.  But as long as
good men may be assailed in their persons  or pro-
perty, by dishonest  and  dastardly men, the lattur
must be allowed the appropriate means of defence—
and the arms for defence cannot be considered ap-
propriate, unless they are at least equal in efficiency,
to those of the assailants.  But the wearing of arms
whether bowie-knives,  pistols, or whatever else,
does not at all alter the rights of the citizens.  For
assault they should not be wanted, for defence, when
occasion  requires,  they are  of great value.  The
right of self-defence rerhains^under all. circumstan-
ces the same.  It is a primary element of our iden-
tity.   Nai «re gave  it, art cannot take it-away—is
derived from  nature, it  is limited to the useofnq
                         16 
(122)
  particular species  of turns,  and  embraced every
  species.  It is limited only by the obligation of be-
  nevolence on the part of the assailed, towards the
  assaflant-Xand benevolence does not' reduire him to
  love ,his fellow  man  more  than  nlmself.   A
  man's  rigfct of self-defence  does  not result from
  the  degree of..criminality in the one  who assails
  him.'  It is personal.inherent,and inseparably united
  with his own exclusive individuality—a  person may
  in many instances exert this right to the destruction
  of an innooent man.  A madman  (for  instance}*
  who is-;iincapable of crime, but capable physically, of
  destroying a man, may be slain justifiably,  in the
  exertion of this right—so may a somnambulist, un-
  der the same circumstances.  In  the case of a ship-
  wreck, when two of the passengers are struggling
  for a plank, which will sustain but one of them; the
  one  may justifiably kill the other to save his own
  life.. This,.gentlemen, is the lav/ of nature, in rela-
  tion to all animal existences,and the municipal law,
  in relation toman.  SeeGrotius,p. 25.
   Theii, gentlemen, why this denunciation of bowie-
  knives and pistols, for it can  make no  odds, if the
  killing was  done justifiably, whether it was done
  with the one or the other,or with a simple jack-knife.
  The question is not, whether either,or what weapon
  was  used, but  whether with, or  without  weapons,
  the killing was justified,  or excused  by the law—
  all that has been  said,  therefore,  by Mr. Hardin
  upon tho subject of carrying and employing arms
  is foreign from this case.  It must have been inten-
  ded ad captandam, or rather ad exitandum.  Equak
  ly foreign from the case is all that he has said about
  Mississippi, and the Mississippians—whether  the
 •killing was done by  a citizen of Kentucky, or by
  citizens of any other State.  The question,stiIl is
  was  the killing criminal, or innocent?  That it was
' innocent in these  gentlemen^, because necessary to
  protect themselves from  a  band of conspirators—
 from a mob—we have urged, and, I am  now insist-
 ing.
   But, gentlemen, as Mr. Hardin  has  spoken so
 much at large upon the depraving consequences of
 the habit of carrying armsdet me  give you my opin-
 ion upon that subject.  I am now an old  man—I
 was  in  this  country when every man  carried  his
 rifle and his tomahawk, and his knife,,wherever he
 went.  He  carried  his arms  to defend  himself
 against the Indians, whose  inf.ursions were con-
 stantly apprehended-—and during all that time there
 were no.'Horoicides, no man killed by his fellow-
 no man apprehended danger from his fellow-man.
 How happened this?  The rifle, the tomahawk, and
 the scalping-knife,  were, at least, as formidable in-
 struments of death, andas depraving as  the bowie-
 knife and pistol—yet  it  never entered the mind of
 any one that men were mpre depraved, or more fe-
 rocious by the practice of carrying arms.  The true
of
  reason is, that there was  not  then in Kentucky $
  single coward.  The men,  aye,  and vtomen toM,
  were all brave—a coward could not remain in Ken^
  tucky.   The danger from the Indians was too con
  tinuous, imminent  and  proximate.   He could not
  breast it.  He could not bear the scorn and derision
  of the men and of the women, and  children  too
  and had  to leave the country.
   After the Indian war had closed—which was im
  17p4—the. people of Kentucky  laid aside their arms. |
  People from every quarter rushed in crowds  into
  Kentucky, and jars  and  bickerings resulted for.a
  time, from the intercourse of people of different hab-$
  its.  They were settled, mostly, by an appeal to the
  prowess  of pugilism. There were some  suits of
  slander,"and of assault and  battery.   Kentuckians
  gradually amalgamated with the immigrants,andwe
  got along very well for  many years—among the
  professional men, there was occasionally a duel.—
  There were no homicides, no  assassinations, until
  the Legislature ,of Kentucky, in an evil hour, influ-
  enced, unconsciously, by  a mistaken policy, enac-
  ted, what is generally denominated  the  anti-duel-
  ing law.  That law  required  every officer in  the
  State, civil and military, from a constable up to the
 governor, including members of the legislature, and
 lawyers, and from a sergeant to a major-general, to
 swear solemnly that he would  neither give nor ac-
 cept a challenge to fight with  any deadly weapon?♦
 within,  or  out of the State  of Kentucky.   It was
 a law  most evidently for  the benefit  of cowards-^j
 who, without  the oath, would  never  have  fought-
 nor accepted a challenge to fight a duel.   But who
 by the administration of the oath were palmed upon
 the community, and upon themselves too, as men
 of spirit.  Before the passage  of this  law,  a man
 who might finance  to be irritated with another,
 would, before he published a libel, "or slander against
 him, pause and reflect, that if he persisted, he would
 be challenged, and must either fight, or be disgraced,
 and would wisely desist.   He knew that the same
 cobseejuence would follow from any personal vio-
 lence to which hja.irritation might prompt him, and*
 the effect was the  same.  But  upon the passage of
 this law, dastards, when they had  taken  the oath,
 or aspired to offices which  they could not fill, with-
 out jaTiing the oath,  filled their bosoms with dirks"
 and their jiockets with pistols, annoyed society with* {!
 the insa&nceof mock  heroism, insulted their brave
 competitors^ and when about to be chastised,retrealfr'
 ed to the  wall,  and killed  the gentlemen they had
 wantonly insulted,a -la-mode Mr. Hardin 'slaw. The ,,
 vicious and depraved  portion of the people  having
 been thus licensed  to wear arms, the remaining^
 portion were constrained  to wear them in self-
 defence.  The consequence is, that  the community
has been yery much annoyed, and vulgarized by the
 short sighted policy  of the Legislature.  Sirs, the 
(123)
 pistol was in the times I speak of, and had been for
 ages throughout the civilized world, not only a
 most effectual polisher of manners and morals,  but
 a most efficient, though sad peacemaker.  It held
 all who aspired to be gentlemen, and were of course
jprnenable to its  tribunal, under a strong recogni-
 zance for their good behaviour.  It is a tribunal in-
 stituted by  nature, as  an auxiliary,  to  the politi-
 cal institutions of society.  It  was  a misdirected
 humanity,  which  influenced  Kentucky, and  fjpe
 States of the Union, who  following her example.
 have attempted to suppress it.  The object  was to
 prevent the effusion of  blood.  The effect has been
 to increase it tenfold.   Just as  the legislation to re-
 press gaming by fines and penalties,  has increased
 it one hundredfold, when  a  short act, making all
 sums fairly won,  recoverable by  law, would have
 diminished  the evil, and improved the morals of
 the people.  Do not mistake me gentlemen, as to
 dueling;  I am no advocate for it, I would not sanc-
 tion it by  law—but  I  would reluctantly connive at
 it,  as an evil less, greatly less, than that legion of
 evils which supply its place. As I prefer a Jaigh and
 honorable, to a low and degraded spirit—fair, open,
 manly, and honorable conflict, to dastardly  and
 cruel assassination, so  I would leave it, as England
 and all wise  nations  have  it,  by reluctant  con-
 nivance.  Perhaps my  notions upon these subjects
 are erroneous, but they are my deliberate views,
 and I do not wish to conceal them.  Every duel is a
 lesson, more or less impressive, as it shall eventuate
 in favor of good morals,  and  polished  manners—
 and although  the  fall  of  one, or both of the com-
 batants must inflict pain and sorrow Upon their im-
 mediate  connexions, yet the effect is wonderfully
 beneficial   to the community  in  every  view, and
 strengthening to virtue.  The price pi*i by the com-
 munity is very great,'but the purchase is inestim-
 ably val uable.  The good effects of this lamentable
 practice, cannot be obtained at a less price, nor in
 any other  known mod'e—nor  cart it  be  suppressed
 by human legislation.
    But, gentlemen, to return to the case from which
 I have been  diverted by Mr. Hardin's discursive-
 ness.  I trust you have been satisfied that the ac-
 cused were assailed by a band of conspirators, and
 that they were justifiable  by the law of the land in
 .acting as  they did, and leave that part of the subject
 with you.
    Mr. Hardin's  conspiracy, on the part-of the de-
 fendants, is too unfeasible and preposterous, to re-
 quire further notice, than  has  bej&n wasted upon it.
 Indeed, it is  unworthy of the attention it has re-
 ceived; I  therefore dismiss .it also—and will  now
 consider the case  of the defendants, (for argument
 sake) as though there had been no conspiracy against
 them, upon the insulated ground of self-defence.  I
 will suppose that they entered the bar-room, on their
way, and by thepublic way, (like other citizens and
boarders) to  the supper-table, and that immediately
upon their entry they were assailed respectively, as
it has beefr, proved they were.   The question is,
was Mr. Murdaugh  justifiable in taking the life of
Meeks, and was Judge  Wilkinson justifiable in
taking the life of Rothwell?—for, against the Doc-
tor there is  no proof.  The proofyin reference to
what Rothwell was doi-ng  when he-was stabbed by
the Judge, is not entirely free from apparent discre-
pancy. *Mr. Pope says, he (Rothwell,) was-tftnding
close to where Dr. Wilkinson was lyi«ej,on theefloor,
under the blows  of Holmes and others; that he was
apparently leaning over the prostrate doctor,  when
he was stabbed by the Judge; Mr.  Hardin would
have you believe, that his proximity to the doctor,    ,
and his stooping position  over him,  were produced
by his endeavoring to pull Holmes off the doctor and
release him.  But Jope tells you that he was among
the first to assail Murdaugh, with his club.   Iff that
he displayed no  amicable, or  pacific disposition to-
wards the doctor, for it is evident from all the tes-  '
timpny, tliat his feeling^owards Murdaugh, may be
fairly taken as  the sample of his feeling, towards
each of .'the others.   He did  not attempt to rescue
 Murdaugh from the  rush that was made upon him;
 on the contrary, he  struck him with his-cudgel. It
 was not therefore,  to release the doctor  from the
!giant grasp of Holmes, that he  was leaning over
 him.'Jfor  what then, gentlemen, let me ask you,
 was he standing stooped over him?  General Chant-
ers gives  the answer.  He had  struck the doctor
 with his hickory stick, and  was balancing it in tus
 hand to repeat the blow, when the Judge stabbed
 him. Qeneral Chambers did not speak of his stooping,
 yet he may have been, and probably was stooping,
-as Mr.  Pope  states, and t^e General not  have no-  ;<
 ticed it.   Pope may  not  have noticed  the stick in
 his hand and the stroke  inflicted with it upon the
 doctor just before  he was  waking the effort tp
 readjust his  grasp  of it for another  blow.   To
 strike the doctor, who was,lying on the floor under
 Holmes, be must have stooped, to avoid  striking
 Holmes,  Pope saw him standing near the pros-
 trate doctor, b.ut did not see him strike, nor did he
 notice the  stick in  his hand."  General  Chambers
 saw him in the  same position, (with the exception,
 of the stoop)  strike  at thef doctor, and preparing to
 strike him again—they both saw the-stabs inflict -
 ed.  The testimony then of  both the gentlemen is
 correct, and  may  be easily reconciled.  They both
 saw the same transaction, but  did not both see aR
 of it.  And the testimony of each,  instead of con-
 tradicting,  corroborates that of the other—much
 took place  in that scene,, which was not seen by any   „
 body, and much of what  was seen,  was seen impe*i
 fectly, amid the turmoil and confusion, and appre-  ,
 hension which  the affair produced—some things 
(124)
-v
 were seen by  one and not  by another—hnd some
 important facts were not seen by any.  Mr. Raily,,
 who was a stranger to  all  the parties,  saw some
 man striking  with a  sword-cane—who  struck, or
 who was struck with it, he did not know; but he
 saw the scabbard end of the cane fall off and leave
 the sword bare.  No other witness saw that. Judge
 Wilkinson was  stabbed in trfe back obliquely, be-
 tween the shoulders, to the depth  of three inches,1
 With an instrument narrower in the blade than any
 weapon known  to be employed on that occasion?*
 .unless it were  the sword-cane.  The wound, accord-
 ing to'the opinion of Doctor McDowel, who exam-
 ined it, looked as if it  might have.becn  made with
 such  a  sword—such  too,  was the character  of a
 wound which Rothwell  had received in his breast,
 and nobody knows how, or  from whom he received
 it; and which, according to. the testimony of the
 Doctors, was  /the immediate caiise  of  his death.
 Judge Wilkinson, too, received"*several blows, as
 was apparent from contusions on his face and head;
 pand yet, with what weapon, or by  whom inflicted,
 nobody knows but he or they who  inflicted them.
 I mention these facts, gentlemen, to shew jjpu trftt
 as much occurred which was  not seen at all; so, of,
 what? was seen, many parts jnight.have escaped ob-
 servation or been  seen  very imperfectly.  AlLthe
 witnesses, however, saw that the Doctor was knock-
 ed  down and  beaten most  unmercifully.  Oldham
 claims .the cr%dit of knocking Jbim  down—Holmes
 is proved by all  who saw  the transaction^ to.have
 been upon him and engaged in beating him, assisted
 by Rothwell,  when  the latter  was stabbed by twk
 Judgej  Halbert claims  the^redit of having contri-
 buted several bloway You see whatajgtafct Oldhani
 is,  and it is proved that Halbert and;Holmes were
 larger, and RothweJJ as large as h& and  all of them
 at  least as stout—can you hesitate to believe that
 the Doctor must have perished under their ■viokncey
 if theladge had  not come to  his rescue at.thenrory
 moment when he stabbed Rothwell?  Holhies was
 arso stabbed with a bowie-knife through  the r.ight.
 arm—the Judge only*used a kni(e of that kind on
 that ■ evening, and,  therefore,  must have stabbed
 Holmes, though nobody saw him stabbed, or kifew
 who stabbed him. By  the use of Ifis bowie-knife
  upon Rothwell and Holmes', he  saved the life of his
 brother, and in all probability* his own life and that
 of Murdaugfe.' A           • ->
    It  is very^rpbable, that, infuriated by the death
 of Meeks, they would, with the aid of their madden-
■ cd associates,  have killed the Judge and  Murdaugh,
  .«- 'well as the Doctor.   '■-,■■
    But it is contended by the Counsel for the prosecu-
  tion; first, that the Doctor's li^is was not in danger;
' and, «x:qndly,ttiat if it was,the Judge could not law-
  tfifly kill the  nss:iilants to  save his life.'  Upon the
  first of .these points, I  will* not detain you.  It is a
matter, upon which you  have heard  the evidence,
which all converges to prove,  that  his life was in
imminent danger, and that it  was only saved, as I
have stated, by the seasonable and intrepid interposi-
tion of the Judge.  He had been already' beaten to a "*
mummy,  and was, at the instant of his rescuejUje-
ing farther beaten by the cudgel of Rothwell, ana the
ox-like knuckles of Holmes.  The second is a mat
ter of law upon which I did not suppose there could.
have existed a doubt in the mind of any lawyer, nor^i
im* el, of any human being of properly organised
medriff; for it seems to me that nature proclaims in
the unvitiated feelings of.evcry  man's heart, what
the law is  upon this  subject—the lectnre given by
the father to Ids sons,  and illustrated by-the bundle-!
ofrodsinthe spelling-book of Old Dilworth, incul
cates the true law upon this subject.  But, gentlemen
of the jury, let me call your attention  to the law of
England;  and of this Country; and of all communi-
ties, barbarous^ as well as civilized, upon the same
point; for .it is  a law of nature, and of course uni;
versal: In Bkckston, 21st n. p. 181, speaking of the
right of self-defence, that author states that "they
■cannot, therefore, exercise this r%ht of preventive \
defence, but, in sudden and violent cases, when cer-
tain and  immediate suffering  would be the  conse-
quence of waiting for the  assistance  of the law;*"
and having In the next page laid it down as a law of
.universal justice, that a man, when the attacklsso
fierce that he jcannot retreat without manifest das-it
ger of his life, or eiwrmous bodily harm, may, in Ins
defence,kill the assailant instantly."  In page 186,he
states, that "under this  excuse of ^self-defence (re-
ferring to the law I have  read,) the principal, civil
andnatural relations  are comprehended; therefore,
master and servant, parent and child,  nusbaruPand
wife, killing an assailant in the necessary defend of
each other respectively^are excused; t|ie ^ict of the
relation assisting being<  construed the same as the
act of the  party himself.''  Now, I ask, if the rela-
tion of brother with brother,is not a natural relation?
Uitis,then it is comprehended in tfyeiaw I have just
rtaad to you from Blackston.e.  The counsel for the
prosecution, seem to  think 'because this relation is
hot specifically named by Blackstone, that it is  not
within, the principles laid down by him-  They have J
erred (they will pardon me), in construing his words^ J
There are but two kinds of relationship which can v
exist among mankind; the first is the natural.  The
second polUtcal, or civil.   The author illustrates the
last, viz: the civil, first, by the example  of master ;<
and servant; and the natural, by the examples of
parent and child, husband and  wife.  He does not
pretend to enumerate all the relations of either kind
bat gives  examples, one of the civil, and two of the
natural.  They outrage nature, by giving  to the*
artificial relation  of  master  and' servant, the as-
cendancy  over the natural and endearing relation 
>'t
tf-
(125)
   of brothers and  sisters with each otheV.  I say thfy t law, which  is pronaulged in the passages from
   outrage nature; for what man in his senses can be-1 Blackstone and Hale, which I have just read to
   lieve, that the servant is under greater and stronger  you.  Namely, that you  may justifiably, nay, that
   obligations to defend the master, and  the master I you ought to defend  the ljfc'of even your fellow-
*.lthe servant, than the brother is  under  to defend-his | citizen, by taking the  'life of mm who  attempts to
brother or his sister?  Feeling, it wouldj3eeni*to"m
decides this question at once by intuition—bift upon
the (supposition (for argument) that my interpreta-
tion of Blackstone is wrong, still the gentleman
will have gained nothing—for the relation offer 4 ier
♦destroy it.  Hence I argue tlmt.it was not only thev
 right, but the.duty of each of*these three gentle-
 men, who were friends in their ow.r state1, aneHn
 their travel to this state, to defend tl;e lifjg of each
 other, by taking thevlife of tfiose who assailed it.
with brother is  at least a civil relation.  A brother  •*-' Suppose they had travelled  by the, old route Irom
jn the absence of other heritable relations, can under
the law of the land, inherit the estate of his deceased
brother.   But I go farther, and assert that the rela-
tion of citizen to citizen is a civil relation,  within
the meaning of Blackstone, and a mere citizen may,
to save the life  of his' fellow citizen, slay the man
who assails it.  And»I will add  to  the authority of
Blackstone,  that of Lord Hale.  That great and
good Judge, in the 1st Vol. of his-Plea#of the Crown,
at p. 484, speaks  thus upon thispoiirt.  "If A, B
and C be of company  together  and walking the
field, C assaults.Bj Who flies, C pursues him, and is
in dahger tokilWpm, unlesspresent,h&lfL±A,there-
upon kills C in defence of the life of B.  It seems
that in this  case of such inevitable danger  of the
life of B, this occision of C, by A,  is m the jnatjure
of se defendendo, <$-c."   And agairi,the author-In the
same page  proceeds, "If A  be travelling,  and B-
came to rob  him,  ifC fall into  the  coniparty^ne
 may kill B  in defence  of A and therefore, much
more, ifhccodhe  to kill him,  and such his intention
be apparent.  For in such case of a felony attempted,
as  well as of a felony committed, every man is thus
far an officer, that at least his killing of the attempter,
in case of necessity puis him in the condition of se
 the place of their residence to th^j state, and had
 been assailed by  the same persons, with^he same
 violence af*d*ferOeity,at an intermediate tavern, in-
 stead of at the  Gait'House.  To make  the ease
 stronger, suppose tfrat tavern had been in the wil-
 derness,within the Indian territory,where there was
 neither government or laws, might  not the  Judge
 in that'case hay e"i defended the fives of his friends
 and associates?   They  will perhaps yield that he
 might, because of the absence of leguL_ protection.—
 I reply that if he might on thaj accounting right to
 dpso, must be derived from  the law of nlttire, and
 government ^aves all her citizens in the full pos-
 sesion of the natural right of self-protection, where
 she cannpt or does not protect them.  Well, at the
 Gait House they  were as unprotected by  the laws
 as. they would'have been in the  case  supposed.—
 Therefore,both by the municipal law, and the laws
 of nature, the Judg*h'ad the right to lull lloihwell
 to save poctor Wilkinson from great bodily harm,
 ^ir t,he loss of his life, eve"h if he  Bad been uncon-
nected with him by tjoe ties of brotherhood—and
 therefore each might-Jiave destroyed the assailant
 of the life of the others.  And-if the party assailing
 them were acting upon concert,between themselves
defendendo, in defending his neighbor:"  So you  for tliat purposes, each of the assailed,'rnjghl the mo-
see, Gentlemen of the Jury, that the counsel for the(
prosecution have misconceived or misrepresented
the law: I hope they misconceived it.  Let me refer'
you to a law from recollection, not under the deno-
mination of v law, but arable.  I  read it when a boy
in Dilworth's spelling-book—"two friends'(I quote
from  memory) setting out on a journey tegethet,  [ed-by the assault, helfciay kill the assailant..The
agreed in case of any danger, to stand by and assist
 each other.  They were assailed  by a large bear, ('and stated  by Mr. Pre
 one fled and climbed a  tree, the. other not  being
 able  to  escape,  nor sjpne to defend himself,  fell
 down and pretended to be  dead.  The bear came up
 and smelted him, and from his silence »<nd motion-
 less posture, supposing him to be really dead, walk-
 ed off and left him unharmed;  When the bear had
gdisappeared, his companion descended from thotree(
 and asked  him what the bear had whispered in his
 ear—he replied that the  bear had  cautioned him
 againsftbnfiding (through the balance of his$fe)
 in the promises of a false friend."   This fable in-
 culcates the same principle of natural,and municipal
ment one was assaulted, have killed as many of the ••
conspirators  as ho could, and he *would have been
justified by law in doing so.  But I  have spoken of
the' conspiracy, and? am consideririg the cases',''as
though none'had been formed.  When the person as^
saidted, honestly believes that his  life is endangef •
law to that effect has bedji  read by Col. Rjobertson
                            Mr."Hardin scouts at
this statemehf of the law, and as.cribef to-the inex-
perience oif the young man, as he isptijased to style
him, his erroneous notion of the law.  Gentlemen,
you find it both in words and  import as Col. Rob-
ertson read and  as Mr Prentiss has stated^ it.  It
could not in the nature oQhings be otherwise the
man assailed has* not time under the presst&e of the
assault, to consult others as to the degree of danger
to his life1 "tesultjngf from any particular stage of
the assault, or degree of its violence.  No one eh»
could judge so well, no one so much' interestedTti
judging correctly as himself; he might loose his life 
(126)
by intermitting  his defensive  energies, while he
sought the opinion of others—his life was commit-
ted by nature to his own protection, to the protection
of his own mind and muscles* and not to the opinion
of others.  And man, I repeat, in the absence of the
protection of the  law continues, in this  respect, in
the condition  in  which  nature placed  him.   It is
upon  the honest, not feignedbelief of danger to his
life, or of great bodily harm that he may destroy his
assailant.  Mr. Hardin says, it will not do that the
assailed honestly believe the danger to be present
and urgent, it must be really -so.  Let rne>suppose a
case.  A and B quarrel, high words pass, A swears
that he will kill B,  draws a pistol from  his pocket,
and presents it cocked, to, his  breast;  B instantly
thereupon draws his pistol,  and shoots A through
the heart, and upon examination it turns out  that
the pistol of A was empty when-he drew it and
presented it to the breast of B.  In this case it is evi-
dent  that B was in no real danger from the pistol
of A.  Shall B be condemned and executed for  the
murder of A, because his life was In no real danger,
or shall he be acquitted  upon  the ground, that he
believed his life to be in danger, from the pistol of
A, and  therefore justifiable in  killing  him under
that belief?  Can any man, even Mr.Hardin, enter-
tain a doubt  upon  this case?   Mr. Prentiss there-
fore, stated the law as it really is, and  as it must
from the "necessity of  our nature, always continue
to be.  Men are not equal  in moral and physical
courage; a timid and a brave  man would destroy
 well, and Halbert, .were inflicting upon him. Roth-
 well had struck  him  with the  club,  as General
 Chambers proves, and was stamping him with his
 feet, (as Mr. Pearson proves) when the Judge stab-
 bed him.  But Mr. Hardin thinks he should be pun-
 ished for stabbing him in the back.  The gentleman
 has high notions  of  chivalry,  and is shocked at its
 violation in this instance by the judge.  He forgets
 that this assault  was not commenced in a chivalric
•spirit'? nor upon any principle of fairness known to-'
 chivalric men.  When the judge came to the relief*
 of his brother,  that brother one  and alone, was> »
 under the fists, feet, and clubs of three of the largest
 and stoutest men in the state, and  yet  Mr. Har-
 din will have it,  that the judge should have waited,
 until the three had killed his brother,  and until it
 was convenient  for Rothwell  thereafter to present
 his breast.  Or perhaps, according to Mr. Hardin's
 notion of gallantry the Judge should have  asked
 him to  present  his breast, that he might approach
 him a-la-mode.    If such be his  taste, he may
 consider  the first thrust  to have been an efficient/
 request .to that effect.   And the second, to have
 been made when he  had,  according to the inti-
 mation of the first,  turned  towards the- judge, to
 inquire into its  meaning.  But  a sufficient excuse
 to the cavilings of Mr. Hardin upon the point of
 mobocrajic chivalry, is  that the judge was inexpe-
 rienced in broils,  knew nothing of either their prac-
 tice or theory, that his education and habits of life
 were anti-pugilistic.  He had  neither muscular ap-
their assailants  upon  different degrees of danger jPitudes nor mental asPirations-  for  distinction in
the former upon less imminent danger, than the  that  line, and if  he had possessed all  the excel-,
                                                 lence in chivalry, of which Mr. Hardin can conceive,
                                                 the occasion did not afford an apt theatre for the
                                                 display of it.  And again^ he was acting under the
latter,but each upon an honest belief of its threaten-
ing imminence, upon an honest belief that  his life
was in danger;  shall the one expiate  the weakness
of his nerves upon the gallows, while the other is
justified, and applauded?   Each was under the same
obligation to preserve his life, and each exercised
honestly all' the faculties, with which the great au-
thor of life had endowed him.  The doctrine of Mr.
Hafdin is at war with the Tnature of  man, and the
principles of his social condition.  Then if Judge
Wilkinson  believed honestly,  that   his  brother
was in danger of great bodily harm,  or of  loosing
his life from the assaults made upon Kim, he had a
right to kill the assailants, even if the danger were
not as imminent as he supposed it to be—for a per-
son who kills the assailant of his relation, stands
in contemplation of law, in the place, the assailed
would have stood himself, had he  killed the assail-
ant.  But why  talk of the  belief  of danger in this
case, when there is no reasonable man who has
heard the testimony can doubt of its reality?  The
doctor had  already, when  rescued by the  judge,
suffered enormous  bodily  harm.  He had been de-
prived of the power of self-defence, and was falling
an easy victim  to the violence which Holmes, Roth-
spur of relentless necessity, which left him no choice
of modes of action,.no leisure for the observance of
etiquette.  He had but one purpose, and that was to
save the life of his brother.  That object he achiev-
ed with the greatest  possible economy  of the blood
of the aggressors; he might justifiably  have slain
with his bowie-knife many others, and it is wonder-
ful under the circumstances that he did not.  He
must have been very self-possessed, or  he would
have  killed more than  Rothwell.  It is  evident
from the proof, that he did not aim to hurt any but
Rothwell and Holmes, and it is equally evident from
the proof,  that  by killing one and  wounding the
other, he saved the life of the doctor, and very pro-
bably his own life, and that of Murdaugh.
  Gentlemen, I have not called your attention to the
proof in detail—I shall not attempt'to collate and
analyze it;  that task has  been performed ably and
eloquently  by the gentleman whom I followxjn the.
same side.  You must have  perceived the artifices
by which Mr. Hardin attempted to evade and blunt
the force of the testimony of many of the witness* 
(127)
cs on the  side of the defence.  You could  not fail
to observe, and I hope with indignance, his attempt
to disparage  those  of our  witnesses whose testi-
mony he could not twist to his purpose.  Let me
call to your recollection the instance of Doctor Gra-
ham, a gentleman  of known integrity and high
standing in your county.  The testimony of that
witness satisfied every body who heard it that the
accused were assailed ferociously, and placed under
the  necessity of acting as they did.  How did Mr.
Hardin dispose of it?  Why, by telling you that he
is the owner of the Greenville and Harrodsburgh
Springs; that the Mississippians spend their money
freely,  and that it is a great object with the  doctor
to conciliate them and get their cifstom.  Mr. Raily,
 who is as respectable a man as any in the commu-
nity, and as respectably connected as any man  in
Virginia or Kentucky, whose father was full cousin
to Thomas Jefferson, and whose high intelligence
was evinced by the clear manner in which he gave
his testimony, is branded by Mr. Hardin with cow-
ardice, because as he told you he ascended when the
affray commenced to the sill of one of the windows
 upon which being  an entire stranger he stood and
 looked on.  Mr. Hardin derided that act of pru-
 dence,  as an act of embarrassed timidity, and com-
 pared him standing there to a turkey-buzzard perch*
 fed on the top of an old dead tree.  General Cham-
 bers, whom he knew to be an honorable,' intelli-
 gent and upright man, and one  who would not be
 very patient under any disparagement, he prudent-
 ly passed.  In the same way he passed Mr. Pearson,
 a gentleman of cultivated mind and manners and of
 unimpeachable integrity; and then again he selected
 Mr. Trabue  as a man  of such iron nerves that he
 could look upon blood and carnage with the compo-
 sure of a stoic, and urged you to regard him and Mr.
 Pope as  the  only  witnesses who were composed
 enough to observe calmly and accurately the actings
 and doings of those concerned in the horrific scene;
 and thereby intimating, by implication, that Mont-
 gomery, Chambers, Graham, Pearson and  others,
 were so embarrassed and confused by their fearg as
 to be incapable for the time of correct observation.
   I barely mention these things to show you that
 his zeal to convict the accused  displays itself vin-
 dictively, in some way or other, (awards all the wit-
 nesses whose testimony thwarts jnis main purpose.
   I fear none of the testimony, and wish you to con-
 sider it all and give credit to as much of it as you
 can.   I have before said all I mean to say upon  the
 credibility of the witnesses.  It is not agreeable to
 me to awaken unpleasant sensations in  witnesses
 by  unkind comments   upon their evidence, and
 therefore I forbear to comment upon that of Red-
 ding, Johnson and Oldham.
   Gentlemen of the Jury—I have been endeavoring
 to convince you that Judge Wilkinson, under the in-
controvertible facts proved in this case, was, (apart
from the foul and nefarious conspiracy by which he
and his friends were attempted to be beaten and de-
graded,) justifiable, under the most  rigid operation
of the law, in taking the life of Rothwell, and that
if he had not.done so to save the'life of his brother
he would have justly drawn upon himself the con-
tempt, scorn and derision of all honorable men, and
what is worse, if possible, of the ladies too, for they
,admire a kind not less than a stout heart in man.
  Gentlemen of the Jury—I leave Judge Wilkinson
with you.    I have  not  been  as much  concerned
about; the legal  as the moral aspect of his  case.
 Ills is  not  a common case, for in common cases
 a mere legal acquittal is  the desire  of the accused
 and the, aim of his counsel; but to  a high-minded,
 honorable  man, like the judge,  a  mere acquittal
 upon the dry law of the case  has but little to re-
 commend  it.  A gentleman  who would at  any
 and all times sacrifice his life to preserve his honor,
 can'be but  little pleased with  any efforts  of his
 counsel which, by-overlooking his honor, aim at
 saving his life.  My aim, (and such I am sure has
 beeijk the aim of his counsel who have preceded me,)
 has been to manifest to you and to the public that
 Judge Wilkinson and his friends have  throughout
 this unhappy affair acted up to the most  punctilious
 requisitions not only of natural and municipal law
 but of the strictest honor and the sternest morality.
 Wehjive entertained no fear of a conviction through-
 out ^he case; we represent men  who do not  place
 a very high estimate upon mere animal  life other-
"wise than a? it subserves the higher purposes of hu-
 man existence—men whose lives are in their honor,
 and can only be reached by sullying^it—and I have
 dwelt  longer "upon the Judge's case in the view  to
 rescue him from the slurs attempted to be thrown
 upon his honor by the imputations and envenomed
 inuendos of Mr. Hardin than for any other purpose.
 The case of each of the three is in its. legal aspect
 the case* of all; for  they were all  assailed by the
 same vile coterie and for the same nefarious purpose,
 and they all resisted with a bold and unquailing
 spirit, each as he best  might under the circumstan-
 ces of attack.  The act of each necessarily tended
 to the protection of ajl, and none had cause to re-
 proach the. other with the want of energy or spirit.
    Let us pass from the Judge to Mr. Murdaugh, and
  in doing so we pass  over the Doctor.   There, is no
 proof that he uttered a word, and it is abundantly
 proved that he was disabled by brutal violence from
  performing an act in  this drama—let it be remem-
  bered to his credit that he did not quail—he" did not
  supplicate the merciless mob, and would have died
  in dignified silence had he not been bravely rescued
  by his brother.  Mr.  Hardin  says of Murdaugh,
  that when accosted by Mr. Redding he held up his
  hand showing to all the blade of his white-handled 
(12«)
 knife, and declared with an emphatic oath that he
 Would kill any man who laid hands upon him.  This
 conduct he thinks evinced a sanguinary  intent—a
 bloody purpose.  No doubt of it: but it was a pur-
 pose of defence,  not  assault.  He did not  conceal
 his knife to plunge it by surprise into the breast
 of the first assailant; but openly and bravely show-
 ed it to all, and  warned them at the peril of their
 lives to stand off.
   But Mr. Hardia  finds in his reply to Redding,
 namely, that if he  or any other man said  that he
 had drawn a bowie-knife upon  Redding in his shop
 he told a damned lie, the same or rather a continua-
 tion of the same evil spirit which he had evinced m
 brandishing his drawn knife.»  That he evinced in
 the latter as in the former instance a brave' and de-
 termined spirit I readily adfuit; and the  mob who
 assailed him were silly not to, have perceived and
 been restrained by it.  It was a fearless and defying
 spirit  which he waB happyIn possessing and wise in
 displaying—a spirit which,  instead  of thirsting for
 blood, panted to  avoid the effusion of,it.  Gentle*.
 men, all that is ascribed to Mr. Murdaugh by Mr.
 Hardin, according even to his most unjust interpre-
 tation of it, did not justify  the assault made upon
 him by the  unfortunate Meeks  and Rothwell—
 words do not in  law  justify blows.  They, howev-
 er, according to all the testimony made the assault
 upon  him, hefbre he had done anything  towards
 them  more than to warn them what would be the
 consequence in case they did assault him.  But the
 nature of that assault did  not, in the opinion  df
 Mr. Hardin, justify him in the defence which' he
 made.  Meeks seized his knife-tiand and commenced
 cowhiding him, while Rothwell belabored him over
 the head with a large hijkory'club,  gashing his
 head at each blow as you  perceive by the  scars.
 Where now is the spirit of chivalry which produced
 in the mind of Mr. Hardin such  strong reprobation
 of the stroke which Judge  Wilkinson gave'Ruih-
 well?  Was "it chivalric for the two, Meeks and
 Rothwell, to beat Murdaugh at the  same time, one
 with the cowhideand the' other  with a  cudgel?
 The ono to hold him by his knife-hand and degrade,
.him with a' oowlude while the other was beating him
 to'death with a  chib, and  others (for such is the
 testimony)  beating him with  then* fists?   Surely
 this was not only cruel but cowardly-^-especially in
 the opinion of so gallant a  knight as Mr. Hardin—
 but according,to the/views of that  gentleman, Mr.
 Murdaugh should have run as far as he could before
 he killed his assailant, and he  did not attempt to
 escape by running.   He  read you  the  law  to that
 effect  from Blackstone. Gentlemen,  I  haye always
 contended that the law which he has read, and which
 I admit to be the law of England,  should,''(though
 adopted by our constitution,)  be  construed" $y us
 according to the genius and Jpirit of our free insti-
 tutions.  It should not here, whei c wc arc all eqiial
 and where there is  no distinction but that which '
 exists between the good and bad, be construed to
 require a man to run from his fellow man, for with
 us a free man has no superior.  "The laws of seve-
 ral nations," says my Lord Hale in vol. 1st, p. 489,
 "in. relation to crimes and punishments differ; and
 yet-may be excellently suited to the exigencies and
 conveniences Of every several state, so the laws of
•^Sngland are suited to the conveniences of the English
 Government, &c."  And  even in England, in some
 cases, they give to the law  the construction for
 which' I cOntend—even there when one man assails1]
 another upon the King's highway the assailed need
 not retreat or run.  Every law should be interpre-
 ted not'only according to the nature and genius of
 the government, but to the circumstances in which
 the accused is  placed at tfie time.  The reason he
 need  not  run, there, is, because he is  on the King's
highway, and authorized by the virtual prcseTice of
 His Majesty to protect himself as fully as the king,
 were he really present, could protect him.  Gentle-1
 men," Hup free citizens of America are as much  au-J
 thorized in every part'of the republic to defend their
 lives as the subjects of the King of England are upon,
 His Majesty's  highways.-  The  paths of freemen
 are all sovereign highways or the highways of sove-
 reigns.  Freemen are always in the real presence of j
 majesty—they  are themselves in loco regis.  They
 are themselves sovereigns, and there never  was a
 law which required a sovereign to run from a so«"
 reign. The very idea  is absurd.  Another reasoa
 why the law of England requires a subject to run
 when assaulted out of the real or putative presence
 of  the King,  is that there the  man  is  sunk and
 merged in the  subject.  Here  with us the man is
exalted, to the sovereign—every freeman has around •
him a zone of inviolability, an odour or aroma of
sovereignty.  There, there is a graduated series of
subserviency in the organic structure of the govern-
ment, from the  King down  through the titular \
ranks to the* lowest vassal.  Here jhere is, as I have
already told you, no disparity between men.  There
the King is the fountain of all  honor and possesses
exclusively all  the attributes Of sovereignty.  Here
 the people are  the fountain of honor and the sole
sovereigns.  There  the subject  may  be degraded
without dimming  the  lustre of the diadem—here
the citizens cannot be degraded without  sullying j
the sovereignty of tr}e. nation.
  How long, gentlemen, think you would the free
dom of the people la6t,  after they had been fully
trained to running (according to Mr. Hardin's  view
of the laW) each from the other?  But eui bono re-
cmire him  to run? for when his flight is impeded by
a wall or  any other  impediment  he  may slay his(
pursuer.   Why  may  not  his  honor,  the  spirit of
freedom and the  pride of his own conscious self-
worth, constitute the wall or^mpediment? Can it
be expected of men whose spirits, have been trained
;, 
(129)
to run froai their equals, who hive no honor of their i
own,  that they will rush to the standard of their |
country's honor?  But what is their country's honor?
In what does it inhere, and where is it garnered up?
Let the gentleman answer me these questions, and
then tell me that when he is expose! by the assault
of his fellow citiz°n to  the danger of losing his life,
or of great bodily harm, he should run  from his as-
sailant.
  Sire,  the honor of the country is garnered up in
the breasts of hsr citizens.  It  is the  oxygen  gas
that sustains, animates and warms their souls, and
spurs or allures them  on to enterprises of goodness
and of greatness.  It is a sparkling  nectar quaffed
only  by freemen.   It is  the elixir  of moral life.
Gentlemen, be assured that the man who will  run
from a.domestic, will run from a foreign enemy; for
man  is a unit.  Teach- him by  your laws to  run
away and you will in vain expect him to advance
upon his country's enemies.  In England  the King
makes  war at his pleasure and fights through it
with an army of vassals reduced by discipline into
a mechanical compaction.   There, the army  is a
mass of  automatons,  a mere machine.  Here, the
people declare war and fight through it with armies
of freemen.   There, the sovereign declares war  and
fights its battles with armies of vassals.   Here, the
sovereigns declare war and themselves  constitute
the soldiers who fight its battles.  TAere,bravery or
cowardice in the soldiery is a matter of indifference.
Here, bravery in the soldiery is  essential—is a sine
qua non to success.  Is it wise then,  I would ask
you,  gentlemen, to construe our laws so as to enfee-
ble or extinguish this  spirit of our citizens—a spirit
upon which not only our free  institutions but our
very independence as a  nation depends?-   What
would we say of the wisdom or foresight of the farm-
er ,who, instead of destroying the weeds  which infest-
ed his corn as it grew in  his field, would destroy
his corn and leave them to grow and flourish?  But
this construction of the law for which I am contend-
ing is not necessary for the justification  of Mr. Mur-
daugh.   His  case  does not need it.   He was so
hemmed  in by the conspirator's  and the bar that he
could not run if he would,  and  my word for it he
would not if  he could.   Gentlemen,  these  three
strangers ar8  not  of the running blood.   They are
not from  a state where the running breed is  much
esteemel—where  that spirit is  countenanced  and
propagated.   The state of their residence is not yet
old and degenerate enough to patronize  that descrip-
tion of men—besides,  the sun,  whose  influence is
mighty in the concoction of the fluids of animal as
well as vegetable life, does not in that climate much
favor the concoction and growth of dastardly spirits.
But he could  not,  gentlemen, as you mast be con-
vinced, have  even given back.   He did all that he
could and more than many  men would have  done;
for, under the lash ol  the cow-hide, and the bLws
of the cudgel, and fists  of his assailants,  he took
the knife out of his right hand which was  held by.
Meeks, into his left hand, and by such exertions as
he could, with it extricated his right hand from the
grasp of Meek3, and with it resumed the knife, and
by killing Meeks rescued himself from the vile band
of conspirators who had assailed him; and thus saved
his life.   Was he,under th>3 facts of the casejustifi-
able in doing so?  Could he have done less, or hav-
ing done less, could he have saved his own life?   I
think I hear each  man of you say to himself that
you applaud him for what he did, and only regret as
good citizens thatTrom his feeble structure and the
overpowering odds against him he was unable to
have done more.   I predicate my supposition of your
regret that  he was unable to do more upon what I
know to be  the abhorrence which every good man
feels of lawless conspiracies and  of mobs.   Mr.
Hurdin  has  charged  a mobbish spirit  upon the
Mississippians.   He has overlooked the mob against
the Ursuline Nuns, in  the  land of steady habits,
and the frequent and  triumphant mobs  in  New
York and Baltimore, and fastened his eye upon the
mob which took place at  Vicksburgh, some  years
ago.  He multiplies that into many,  and clothes it
with terriffic horrors.   With him I reprobate all
mobs; but I detest  more especially tliose that are
formed against helpless innocence, as in  the case of
the defenceless Ursulines, or against the tranquility
and good order of society, as  in  New  York and
Baltimore; but it is the  province  of intelligence  to
analyze and graduate even crimes.  I conceive that
there wvre  some palliating circumstances irt the af-
fair at Vicksburgh.   It was  not a deliberate, cold-
blooded conspiracy of the bad against the good citi-
zens of the  place.  It originated in the sudden and
misguided  zeal of orderly citizens against a  con-
spiracy of gamblers—it was  an evil not unmingled
with some of the elements of virtue and goodness.
   Those gamblers had  killed  a  native citizen  of
Ken'ucky,  who was a stranger there, enjoying the
hospitality of the place—irritated with their vocation
and excited so madness by  the tragic  manner  in
which they  had violated the  laws  of the land and
principles of hospitality in the assassination of Doc-
tor Bodly, suddenly, and in a paroxysm of resent-
ment, they hung some two or three of the gamblers.
Judging therefor* of the Vicksburgh mob from its
object ancT'its cause,  I find in it  many  mitigating
circumstances;  but am far, very far from approving
it.  I repeal! that I reprobate all mobs-even those
which are raised and exerted on the side of virtue
and the laws—but what has that  mob  to  do with
this?- how can it mitigate the conduct  of the mob
in this case  or aggravate  the condition  of the de-
fendants?  Does the gentleman wish you to appease
the  manes  of'the gamblers  who  perished in  that 
(130)
case  by sacrificing the lives of Messrs. Wilkinson
and Murdaugh in this, because they are Mississippi-
ans, though not residents of Vicksburgh?  Or is he
attempting to palliate the foul conspiracy in this case
by offsetting it against that, and thereby to weaken
the defence of the accused?  That cannot be his ob-
ject—it would be too absurd. His object must  have
been to excite your indignation against the conduct
of the Mississippians in  that case, and transfer the
odium of it to the accused because they are from that
state.
  But let me tell him that if he hopes to gain any
thing by exciting the passions of this jury he mis-
calculates.  He  is not now amidthe fervors which
this case excited where it happened.  He cannot here
produce the volume of passion which the false and
erroneous  misrepresentations  of the oonspirators
produced there, and to the propagation and  exten-
sion of which, he, by the force of his acknowledged
talents, exerted before the examining court, contri-
buted.  Here he cannot, as there he did, to a conside-
rable  extent,  excite  the mechanics  and working
classes against gentlemen slave-holders and cotton-
planters.  Thanks to a just Legislature, we are now
before a tribunal uninfected by passion and without
any predisposition to take, even by contagion  from
him, the maddening infection.
  He cannot  hope to disparage the accused  before
any rational  tribunal by  inveighing against the
habit of wearing arms.   Strangers  and travellers
have been allowed, in all countries and by all people,
to wear them—and even citizens of the meekest and
purest characters have worn them in their own coun-
try, aye, and  ustd them too, upon occasions far less
urgent than that of  the accused.  It is wise some-
times to wear them in  large  commercial  cities.
Even in Louisville  it is prudent for strangers  to
wear arms.  The knives  of the defendants saved
their lives at  that place beyond all doubt.  Now the
resident population of that city  is  as worthy,  as
peaceable, and as orderly  as the people of any place
whatever; but there is there, as in all other com-
mercial cities,' a floating  mass of people who prowl
the streets, especially at night, from  whom all who
might be supposed  to have money or other  valua-
bles have much  to  apprehend.   When  I  say the
wise and meek  have  carried arms, and used them
too, I allude to the Apostles:  you all remember
that the apostle Peter drew his sword aftd smote off
the ear of the high  priest.  This is anMnstance in
which arms were not only worn, but used to protect
a friend.
  Gentlemen of the Jury—I repeat what I said be-
fore, that the wearing of arms by citizens within the,
jurisdiction of their'state, and iu the bosom of socie-
ty, is an evidence of the weakness and degeneracy
of their government.  The object of government is
to protect the good and the virtuous against the bad
and the vicious  portion of  mankind.  When the*
good wear arms it is evidence that they cannot con-
fide in the government for protection, and are obliged
to rely  upon their own  vigilance and  energies to-
save  themselves  from  the  bad.   And whenever
good men use their arms efficiently and successful-
ly, and tragically if you please, against the mob or '
a conspiracy by which they are  assailed, instead of
the animadversion of the government they are en-
titled to its thanks and its gratitude.  Sirs, I speak
the language of soberness and truth when I tell yom
that the fall of Meeks and Rothwell, (which we all
deplore,) by the arms of the assailed, has done more,
by ten-fold, to repress and put down mobs and con-
spiracies in Louisville, and throughout the state of
Kentucky, than  the  execution of those ill-fated
men by the government for the killing of one or all
of the accused, had the accused fallen by their hands.
There would be no mobs  if it were certain that one
or more of those who form the mob  would certainly
be killed.  The principle  of combination in a mob
is, as I have before told you,  cowardice.  Each
would fear that he might be  slain,  and thus,  and
for the  same reason, every other  man  of them
would abstain from  the combination.  Those  as-
sailed therefore by a mob should be considered by
the people of every state as authorized by the govern-
ment to kill as many as possible of the  assailants;
and so indeed they are to be considered,  under a
wise and just interpretation  of our laws, whichj ,
when they cannot protect  the citizen leave him to
protect  himself under the  paramount authority of •
the law of nature.
  I say boldly, but calmly, that Murdaugh and the'
Judge are  entitled to  the commendation instead of
the reprehension of all good men, who believe  as I
do, and I am sure you must, that they acted each in
defending  himself and friends against the assaults '
of an  infuriated mob—but  I was speaking of the
case of  Murdaugh, so far  as it presents itself as an
individual case, and urging that  in view of the posi-
tion he occupied, and the aggregate force and physi- •
cal  violence with which  he  was assailed, he was
strictly and under the sternest  construction of the '
law justifiable in killing the unfortunate ?*Iecks.
  And, Gentlemen of the Jury,  I cannot pass over
a fact in this case, to which  I have as yet paid  no
special attention;  I mean the attempts to degrade
Mr. Murdaugh,  (and with and through him, the
Judge and the Doctor,) by the stripes which Meeks
repeated upon him with the cowhide.  Recollect the  i
testimony of Oliver, from  which it appears that such
was the determination of the conspirators to degrade,
as well as beat the accused, that Meeks prepared the
cowhide for his grasp, by knotting the small end of it.
You cannot doubt, but that it  had been settled by the
conspirators that he was to apply the cowhide to their
backs while they used their  cudgels,  knives,  and 
(131)
other weapons in protecting him while going through 1
the process.  Hence the rush of  the  conspirators
around Murdaugh when Meeks had seized his knife
hand, and commenced upon him with the cow-
hide, and hence the readiness with which he surren-
dered to Oliver the knife with which he had armed
himself, before the task of uBing  the cowhide  had
been assigned to him.  And hence it was that he  was
selected to use it, being  the  smallest man among
them, to enhance, by his  smallness of stature,  the
 contemplated degradation.
   Now, gentlemen, Mr. Hardin, a Kentuckian, tells
 a Kentucky jury, aloud too, in the hearing of  per-
 haps a  thousand Kentuckians, and what is more
 astonishing, in the presence and hearing of near
 two hundred ladies, matrons and maids, that Mr.
 Murdaugh was in no danger of being hurt by a small
 cowhide in the hand of a small man—that he was in
 no danger of being wounded, maimed or killed by
 the cowhide, and that therefore he had no right to
 kill Meeks for applying it  to his back; and he quotes
 the aforsaid law of England, which requires a liege
 subject to give  back, and fles from his fellow subject
 until obstructed by a wall,  or some insuperable im-
 pediment, before he kills  his assailant, and then he
 can  kill only  to  save his  own  animal life,  and
 not  the life of himself  from  ;he  degratlation of
 being cowhided !! !   Sirs, how did you relish  the
 law and  the  reasoning  of Mr. Hardin upon  this
 ■subject—do  you believe  with him, that the man,
 like the hog,  consists in mere  animal structure?
 that like that animal he suffers  only from violence,
 inflicted upon his  natural  organic  nature?  that
 his pleasures, and his  pains, consist  alone in ani-
 mal sensation, and  that all the  attributes of  ex-
 cellence in  his character are essentially  in bone
 and muscle?
   Ask any of those matrons, who adorn the bench
 above you,  what she would think of a young man,
 who was addressing her daughter, with his  back
 striped by  the  prints  of the cowhide?  Ask  her
 daughter, what she  would think of such  a suitor !
 Can you doubt the reply. Would not such a  man
 be loathed and scorned by both mother  and daugh-
 ter?  Sirs, there are sins  against individuals, as well
 as sin3 against heaven, which can only be expiated
 by blood—an I tli-3 liw of Kentucky is, that the man
 who is attempted to  be cowhided,  not  only may, but
 must, if by any possibility he can, at the time, kill
 the man who attempts thus to degrade him.   I do
  not refer to a law  of Kentucky,  enacted  by the
  Legislature of the State, I mean a law paramount
  to any enacted by the Kentucky  Legislature,  a law
  that emanates from the hearts of  the people of Ken-
  tucky and is sanctioned by their heads—a  law that
  is prom ilgsd  in the  os ad cesium  of every Kentuck-
  ian, and proclaimed in  the sparkling of every eye
  of both sexes and  all  ages-a  law, the force of
which, every one feels,  the import of which every
one perceives  by intuition.  It is a law of Ken-
tucky  instinct—none are so ignorant as not to know
this law; few are so dastardly as to deny its injunc-
tions.
  Gentlemen, in Kentucky, as in all the slave States,
the cowhide has a meaning and associations, which
are not known  in  England and  those of our  own
sister States where slavery does  not prevail;  it is
employed only  to correct slaves—slavery and  free-
dom are  antipodes.  The first, with  us means the
nader of human degradation; the latter, the zenith of
human rights, or rather of political and civil rights.
The  slave is  considered a mere  animal, a biped,
without  any of the attributes of political character.
Whether this relative position of the slave and citi-
zen,  is right, or wrong, is not now to be discussed.
Tha relation of slave and free citizen exists, and we
cannot help it; the destiners so ordered it, and the
sentiment, which I urge as the Kentucky law, is but
a  promulgation of the principles  of fitness, which
result from that relation.  It is a sentiment  iden-
tified with our souls, hearts and heads, and consti-
tutes an essential element of our moral entity.
   Gentlemen, I wish  to be understood upon this
point.  I understand the term man to mean a moral
being, and his animal body to be a mere casket,
made to contain and preserve the jewel, the morale,
which is really and essentially the man.  That the
moral man being immortal, and of celestial origin,
and enclosed in a machine so fearfully and wonder-
fully made, is under a high obligation to vindicate
 the  safety of that machine so  essential to the per-
 formance of his moral  functions, during his occupa-
 tion  of  it;  and I consider the obligation of  man
 to preserve his moral nature from degradation, stron-
 ger than to preserve his animal structure from des-
 truction. Degradation is the destruction of the moral,
 as decollation is the  destruction of the physical
 man.  Now,  Sirs, the health of  our moral na-
 ture  is  generally more necessary  to our comfort,
 and usefulness, than the health and integrity of our
 organic structure; moral health consists mainly in
 sanity of  intellect and unsullied honor.  It  is not
 the wound inflicted upon his body that a man, who
 feels and knows how  to estimate his own intrinsic
 dignity and concious self-worth, regards; he rates
 that comparatively at nothing.  It is the wound
 inflicted upon his character  and upon his conscious
 self-worth—his moral entity, that agonizes him; and
 there is no wound of that kind, that  agonizes and
 ulcerates  like that inflicted by  the cowhide— it is
 incurable; and subjects  him like the disease of the
 leper among  the Jews,  to be driven from the
 society of men.   It does not, and  perhaps cannot,
 kill the body, but it  destroys the  man; and by as
  much as the man is more important and more valu-
 able than the body he occupies, by so much more is 
(132)
it justifiable to destroy the assailant of the former, j
than  the latter;  and yet Mr. Hardin, who here,
admits that a man, to save his animal life, may kill i
the assailant, and  denies that he may, to save his j
moral life,  or rather himseif,  do the same.  Sirs, I
repudiate with all my soul the doctrine that man con-
fists of his mere animal hulk; that he is a mere auto-
maton.  That is the definition of man in bis vassalid
condition, of a slave, whose actions are con troll, d not
by  his own  will,  but by that of bis master, and
might perhaps be true of an oy.-ter or a snail, but
not of. man in a state of freedom.   As a slave, his
entity consists in his mechanical utility to his  pro-
prietor. - Fear with him  is the stimulant, the only
motive  to  action,  and the fear of the laceration of
his body with the  cowhide; but man In his native
freedom, or in the freedom of self-government, isan
etherial, refined,  invisable and sublimated sub-
stance.   He is the divine afflatus, the moral essence,
with which the  organized clay is inspired and an-
imated.  He is the moral being that occupies the
e lay tenement, and wills its motives and its actions,
tut not limited in  his powtrs  and aspirations by its
limited  aptitudes.  The mere animal man cannot
leave the surface  of  his kindred earth.   But the
real man, the moral and immortal essencs, cannot,
wi.l not stay upon earth's  dirty surface; will not be
confined within the narrow limits  of  his  organic
tenement—exce  t  in  reference to the  physical
needs and brases of its nature; as, to all moral pur-
poses he ranges at  large, limited only by the calibre
of his intellectual energies. Newton ranged among
the stars, and Milton made himself familiar with
both the supernal and infernal regions.  But let us
appeal to occurences in human life.  Have you not,
gentlemen, all, or  some of you, esp3cially in early
life, been embarrassed, agitated and confused upon
entering into a  room in which there were ladies?
What produced trje embarrassment—had there been
no  lady in the room, you would not have been thus
affected?   The la 'y was  in a remote corner of the
room, say twenty feet from you, and yet  she em-
barrassed you—how, in what manner, and by what
process?   She did not approach you; she continued
at  the distance of twenty feet from you,  and yet
acted upon you.  But nothing can act, where it is
not;.and therefore she acted out of,  or be)rond the
limits of her animal  identity   S:rs, the ladies with
whose audience we are honored during this trial, have
been exerting a benign influence upon all within this
house proximate or remote.  There is, gentlemen,
jradiating  from  the   ph>sical   structure  of every
individual,, moral energies feebler, or stronger in
proportion to the calibre of  his intellect, which,
like the light and  heat emanating from the sun, act
 upon distant and distinct subjects.  Shall, then, this
 aura,  this  aroma of the soul—shall  the divine
 essence  of volition, be tarnished, sullied,  degraded,
and annihilated by the stripes of a cowhide, becausi
the process does not threaten the destruction of the
body?  But, gentlemen,, this subject ia more  dis-
tinctly and emphatically one of intuitive perception
than of reasoning.  In its metaphysical aspect it is
different, at least to me.  But I do believe that there
never was a  Kentuckian who  would  not rather
perish  than  submit to be cowhided.  It is not a
matter to be  reasoned  about—it is  a settled senti-
ment,  inveterate and hereditary, not to be  altered
by  any law of England, or  o; this  country either.
The man who does not, if he has it in his power, kill
the man who attempts  to cowhide him, had better-<
be slain himself.'  Public sentiment, I repeat, expects
and commands him to do it;  and surely  it is not
necessary to any good political, moral, or religious
purpose, that  the privilege  should  be accorded to
any freeman, to cowhide his  neighbor.  It is un-
qualified ruin to the man who  submits to it,—it
throws him into exile, in the midst of society; he is
shunned by even the refuse and offal  of society,
loathed  and abhored.   The finger of scorn and de-
rision is pointed at him  from  every quarter,and even
by cowards.
  Gentlemen, the stroke of  the cowhide  over the
head and shoulders of Mr. Murdaugh, was au as-
sault upon  his  life more deadly than any, than all
the  assaults made by the mob on that evening.  He
could not run from  the cowhide;  that would have
been disgraceful and dishonorable; and what a man '
cannot do honorab.y, he cannot do at all.  He was
obliged therefore to kill him;  for that, if for no other. '.
cause.   That  was in  itself  a legion  of causes.
But without  that, he  had,  as the  proof evinces,
abundant justifying cause.
  But, gentlemen, let us test the matter by the good'
old  rule, of asking ourselves, how we would have
acted—what we would  have  done in the like case—
what would we do to the man who would attempt i
to cowhide us; what,sirs, would we have our sons do
in such a case?   Let me answer for myself, and I
think my answer will be yours.   I am now  an old
man, and the blood cfcuiates languidly in my veins;
but  languid, as the dullness of age has made me,
I declare solemnly in the face  of h;gh heaven, and
this numerous  crowd, that I would, ifl  could, kill
the man who would attempt to cowhide me; and I
should think it the greatest  misfortune of my life,
not to have it  in my power to  do so, at the time;
for  I could not present myself to my wife and my
children, after  having submitted to disgrace; audi
would have my son  do  so too—to do as  Mr. Mur-
daugh did.  I would rather he should have perished
in attempting to defend his honor, than live disgra-
ced. In the first case,  I should feel bereaved, and
mourn his death, but cherish and respect his mem-
ory; in the last, I should be  mortified and  humbled
among  men.   I  should have  suspected  that his 
(IT))
mother of whose fidelity a doubt had never crossed'
rny mind, had dealt foully with me, and disinherit
him;—and so say you all, gentlemen, In reference
to yourselves and your  sons; so  says every  Ken-
tucky father.
  Do not mistake me, gentlemen; I rate human life
as high as any man in existence;  I would not trifle
with it, I would not have it destroyed on slight cau-
ses.  It is only when a man is in danger of enormous
bodily harm, or of loosing his life that I would ailow'
him to shed'the blood of the assailant; but to spit in
a man's face, to pull his nose, or to cowhide him, is
in my estimation, the most enormous bodily harm—
a harm from the consequences of which, he can
only redeem himself effectually.by instantly demol-
ishing the assailant  if he  can.  To the list of injuries
and assaults which  I have mentioned, I would add
a kick with the foot on the seat of honor; but in front
of these, and  by far the most  to be abhorred, is a
stroke with the  cowhide.  In fine, gentlemen, a
man must preserve  his honor, it is the verdure of hi?
soul—it is theanticipticof his nature—thestrength-
enerand guardian of his morals.  It must, I repeat,
be preserved at all hazards; so says public sentiment,
 the tribunal from which  there is no appeal.
  But I will not farther detain you.  I have already
detained you,  I fear,  too long—and  yet long as I
have detained you, I have not, (nor has any of my
coadjutors,) made any appeal to your feelings.  No
attempt has been made to excite your sympathies—
no invocation of your mercy—here the cases did not |
need, and the high character of the accused forbade |
any such resort,—all they wanted, they  oftained in
you, gentlemen, an intelligent, honorable,  andim-
partial jury. They have been, and so  have  been
their counsel, more concerned about the moral, than
the legal aspecl of the case.  T key knew that they
stood acquitted and justified by the law of  the land
whenever its impartial voice could be heard.  They
did not, therefore  deprecate its  sternest,  its  most
rigid action upon their case; but  like all honorable
men, they  have been keenly  alive to  the moral
aspect of their posture.  Their anxiety is,  and has
constantly  been, that  the public  mind  should,
through this trial, which they are now ut.J- rgoing,
be  disabused in  reference to their conduct.   You
cannot but have perceived, that no  concern for the
mere personal safety of the accused,  has been dis-
played throughout the trial.   The counsel who have
preceded me, have argued the case with wonderful
ability, but evidently with  no apprehension  of a
dangerous result.  In fine, gentlemen, this case has
been argued, through you, to the people—my  argu-
ments, had  I felt concern for the safety of  the gen-
tlemen  I represent, would, I feel sure, have  been
more annalytic and consecutive,  than  they   have
been.  The  gentlemen who had  preceeletl me, had
reaped the field, and left only a few straggling stalks
to be gleaned;  and after such reapers no man could
gather a  respectable sheaf.  I  have  not therefore
attempted to  take up, analyze and apply the testi-
mony; that  had been done ably and demonstrably
by my distinguished and talented coadjutors, and I
could not think of disgusting  you, and tiring out
myself by reiterating it.
  I feel that I have been  irregular and discursive
much more so than had been my wont in years gone
by; and I ascribe it in some degree to the causes I
have just named.   You perhaps may'ascribe it to
the growing weakness  of'senility; and  to  guard
against  farther exposure of weakness from that or
any other cause, this shall be rny last forensic effort.
But before I close it, let me suggest, that it would
be courteous to these already much injured strangers,
and in keeping with just notions of national hospi-
tality, to render  your verdict (which I  know well
will be  one  of acquittal,) without retiring from the
Box.  I barely suggest it.  I ask nothing from you,
but the  performance of your duty—I only suggest
that it is your privilege to give in.your verdict with-
out, retiring.  You will exert  that privilege or not,
at your  pleasure.



  Mr. Bullock, the Prosecuting Attorney,Then rose
and spoke in conclusion as follows :—
    May it please the  Court, and gentlemen  of
the jury:  You, gentlemen,  have not disappointed
the expectations I had formed  of the attention you
 ,\ ould give  to the questions of law, the evidence,
and the arguments of counsel in this great and im-
portant cause.  I feel a pride in  considering that so
intelligent a jury could have been so easily and with
so little exception selected from our jury pannel.   I
feci no less  pride in confiding  to you  the scales of
justice,  which I know you feel it is your duty to hold
up steadily and with an even hand.  It is no small
part of  my  duty to see that nothing be  thrown into
either scale*, which the law says cannot be admitted
as the measure of justice.
  I have listened with great admiration to the splen-
did effort made for the defence by one who has risen
in this Court for the first time, though distinguished
and honored throughout the Union for his unrivalled
powers   of  eloquence.  But,  gentlemen, however
much we may be fascinated,  we must reflect that
the brilliant flowers of language addressed to the
passions, have no sympathising response in the laws
of the land.  All that has been said to  delight  the
fancy and to distract your attention from the sim-
plicity of the facts must be discarded, that your cool
rsason and dispa^sioned judgments may have free
scope.  And I would ask  you,  gentlemen, whether 
 in your efforts to arrive at a just conclusion you will
 be guided by the corruscations of the gentleman's
 fancy, or the sun-light of sober truth and reason.
   Gentlemen of the bar will  figure to themselves
 many foundations for their  assertions, which  exist
 no where but  in their own imaginations.   It  is a
 misfortune to these gentlemen, as it frequently is to
 others, that the law is  not to be meted out to them
 according to their peculiar notions of the standard
 of'measure.   It is no doubt considered by them, too,
 a misfortune, that when they wish to make evidence
 appear improbable,  that does not  exactly suit their
 views, they cannot beat down a witness by facts, but
 are driven to the necessity of exerting talents so
 transcendant  as these of Mr.  Prentiss, in blacken-
 ing,  vilifying, degrading  and  insulting those who
 are defenceless and unarmed  with equal talents, or
 equal opportunities of displaying  them.  Indeed,  it
.seems to  be a  matter of complaint in this defence
 that  these gentlemen  should at all be suspected of
 offence, much less brought  here under the implica-
 tion of crime.  However the counsel for the defence
 may  think it  necessary to resort  to such tortuous
 paths, V, at least, shall not follow their example.  I
 shall endeavor to i edeem a pledge  I made on the
 outset, that I would  not consume your  time by
 travelling out of the straight  path of the evidence
 and the law.
   If  Mr.fPrentiss, or any  other gentleman, believes
 that  in speaking of Mississippians I alluded to their
 country disparagingly, I hasten to remove the un-
 just supposition; and I can with confidence say  that
 in the performance of my duty I know no differ-
 ence  between a Kentuckian and the inhabitant of a
 sister State.   When I used  the appellation it might
 have been in reference to  the  greater relaxation of
 the law there respecting the use  of arms,  but  cer-
 tainly not with a view of raising a prejudice against
 these gentlemen on this trial.
   Gentlemen,  you are not to ask whether they are
 Mississippians or whether  they  are Kentuckians;
 you are to decide according to law and evidence, re-
 gardless of passions, prejudices or  sympathies, or
 the complaisance due to sister States.  You are also
 to disregard the peculiar laws  and customs of those
 sister States, and to decide according to the  laws
 recognized in Kentucky alone.
   I will here  touch upon a point  not urged by Mr.
 Hardin.  It  is on the subject  of character.  One of
 the most felicitous passages in Mr. Prentiss's speech
 was  that in reference to the character of these gen-
 tlemen, and I am  willing to  accord to  it all that
 weight which the law allows—but no more. How-
 ever  high these gentlemen may stand in the estima-
 tion  of the citizens of their own State, yet their
 character is entitled to no more consideration than
 the law allows of in cases of doubt.  But where no
 doubt exists, are you to consider character, however
exalted, an impunity from  punishment, or suffer it
to wipe away from the insulted majesty of the law
the stain fastened upon it by the blood shed by their
hands  in  the Gait  House?  Starkic, 2d vol. page
214 lays down this rule:  "Where the guilt, of an
accused party is doubtful, and the character of the
supposed agent is  involved  in the question, a pre-
sumption  of innocence may arise  from his former
conduct in society.  Such presumptions are, how-
ever, remote from  the fact, and are entitled to little
weight, except in doubtful cases."
  If these gentlemen are entitled to that triumphant
acquittal—to the acquittal by acclamation  invoked
from you—why have their advocates, who are law-
yers of great learning, thrown the character of. their
clients into the defence, when they knew you could
weigh  that subject  only  when guilt or innocence
is  doubtful.   'Tis  only (and  they well knew it)
where the scales are equipoised, that character, like
the sword of the Gaul upon the Roman battlements,
can be thrown  in to make  either preponderate.
Another  thing they  urge is that Judge Wilkinson,
placed  in such delicate circumstances as he was in
regard to  his contemplated marriage, would be the
last to  engage willingly  in  fight or angry contro-
versy.  Unfortunately the Judge's own conduct of-
fers a refutation to this argument.   He displays none
of that forbearance and  unwillingness to  embroil
himself in fight, when without provocation, upon a
slight  and imaginary insult,  he attacks  the poor
tailor in his own shop.
  Judge Rowan  and Mr  Prentiss  would have you
believe that  the common law of  England should be '
made to bend to  the peculiar circumstances  of their
defence.  Will  you, gentlemen, change the law?
Will you warp and bend the common law of Eng-
land,adopted by our constitution^ to which we owe
protection of life, personal liberty and property?  I
am well assured you will not take upon you to judge
how the law ought to be bent, when you are told
and must feel persuaded that you are bound to take
it as it  is.  Were you, indeed, in another place, dele-
gated  to the halls  of your  Legislature, you might
individually make the attempt, unavailing though it
might  be; but here  you cannot—you  ought  not.
Some such notions as those of  the gentlemen, gave
rise, I  have no doubt, to the act of  Assembly which
I will now read—2d vol.  Dig. L. Ky. page  1295,
"Whereas, it is represented to the present General
Assembly that doubts exist, &c,  Therefore, be it
enacted, &-c, That nothing in the before recited act,
or any other act, shall  be construed  to alter or
change the definition and punishment of murder by
the common law, &c."
  Here there is a re-enactment of the common law,
and here your own  Legislature tells you that you
must not be led away by the sophistry of counsel to
believe so  foolish a thing  as  that you are permitted 
(133)
to bend the law to suit their purposes.  Is the law
to be warped because they conceive there is a degra-
dation  in being  struck with a cow-hide?   It is also
a degradation to be called a fool  or a liar, but the
law says words are no excuse for even an assault,
and where are you then to draw the line of demar-
cation?
  There is a spirit of licentiousness abroad, which if
not checked, may lead to  consequences  not to be
contemplated without horror.  This  licentiousness
has already been  suffered to go too  far.  But why
need I stand here to tell you of what you all know,
or to defend the laws, for they defend themselves.
Neither is it necessary that I should stimulate  you
to the  keeping of your oaths, or  to  admonish  you
that you have  sworn solemnly to  administer the
law in justice no less than  in mercy.  I am bound
to take, it for granted  that you will do so.  I have,
indeed, an  admission from the gentlemen, that the
common law of England governs  this case, and not
adventitious notions of what ought to be the com-
mon law.
  I know it is the customary resort of lawyers  to
ask you  as jurors to place yourselves in  the situa-
tion of the accused, and say how you would act un-
der similar circumstances.  My  answer would  be
that with similar motives, 'similar passions, similar
disregard of the  laws, as  well as similar circum-
stances, I would act precisely as they did.
  These gentlemen have taken what I consider an
unwarrantable liberty in  denouncing the practice of
lawyers taking money in  aid of the prosecution, from |
the "friends of the deceased.  Yet  where would now
be  the fame of the greatest lawyer  Kentucky has
ever boasted of, had the precepts of the gentleman's
own ethics applied to his  own practice.  He cannot
see the difference between the man who kills a  man
for his money,  and the man who takes money to
kill another.  That gentleman himself has defeneled
many horse thieves  and  highway robbers, and ac
cepted from their polluted hands  a portion of their
spoils as the reward of his services in snatching
them  from  the  fangs of offended law and justice.
I need refer to  no,stronger case than that of John
Hamilton, who murdered in cold blood for his money
the unfortunate Doctor Saunders.  Has not Judge
 Rowan himself thus fed  and clothed his family, fat-
tened  and grown rich upon the spoils of thieves
and murderers?   But still  I blame him not—"it
was his vocation, Hal."   Why then insult my frit nd,
 Mr. Hardin, on this subject?   I need say no more—
 the argument of course goes for nothing.
   To  return  to the subject of these gentlemen's
 readiness to arm themselves, for battle.  Have  we
 not proved that Murdaugh anil Dr. Wilkinson  upon
 the slightest provocation were prompt in pulling out
 their  weapons almost upon every and all occasions.
 Docs this argue a disposition willing to be driven to
the wall before self-defence renders the use of such
weapons lawful!
  Let me,  before I proceed further, endeavor to
wipe from  the fair fame of Mr.  Redding the foul
and unjust stigma with which it has been branded.
When I attempted  to obtain from respectable wit-
nesses, merchants of Louisville deservedly  of high*
standing, men who could have testitiedto his char-
acter in proof its being esteemed as elevated as that
of any man  in the community to which he belongs,
I was met with the  assurance from  the other side
that they did not intend to question  or impeach his
character.  Yet how unfairly and unhandsomely do
they come in after the evidence had  closed with all
the vituperation of secure malignity to stigmatise
him as a perjurer and murderer.  [Here Col. Robert-
son rose to say  that they committed no breach of
promise, not having assailed Mr. Reddings's pre-
vious character but his false testimony before this
court.]  Mr. Bullock:—What has he stated that is-
not corroborated by others whose  veracity  is un-
questioned?  He stated that he was assaulted  in hie
own store.   Are his details of that transaction un-
supported by other evidence.?  He goes to tW May-
or's office.   Is that untrue?  He asks for a v.'arrant;
is told he must have the names; is offered a warrant
with blanks to  be  filled, up—declines it—says  he
would prefer going/or the names, or ge'tting an offi-
cer to arrest the parties, knowing onty one name—
goes  by  Market street—tells'his  brother-in-law
what happened—is accompanied by him to the Gait
House -says that in the bar-room he got  the names
—asked Judge Wilkinson if he was npt the gentle-
 man  who  had struck him in his  own shop.  All
these things are leading facts, and is he not corrobo-
rated in stating them?  But an attempt is made to
show a disposition to assault Judge Wilkinson in
 that very observation in question.   "I think, sir,
you are the gentleman who assaulted me with the
poker in my own house or shop."   What is there
remarkable in that?   Does it not corroborate and
 fit in with his statement about the names, the blank
 warrant, and many  other things.   Ingctting the
 names he was uncertain of the persons, and to as-
 sure himself asks one if he was not  the person who
 had struck him.  What could be more natural, to
 see that he was right?
   Mr. Hardin has read to you from Foster that no
 words, however opprobrious, are sufficient to justify
 an assault—may I not ask, how much le.»sufficient
 to justify a killing?  However  refined and  subtilo
 Judge Rowan's notions may be of the nature and
 value of human life, the notion entertained of it by
 the law is a surer guide.  The law says that by it
 alone you must be guided and not by vague and in-
 definite elistinctions.
   Mr. Prentiss has made a most ingenious argument
 to prove that a conspiracy existed against these gen- 
1133)
 tlemen: but unfortunately he lays his principal foun-
 dation stone  upon Jackson's testimony, which we
 have proved to4>° a running  quicksand  unworthy
 of trust or confidence.  The  opposite side contend
 that Johnson and Redding are not entitled to credit.
 Well, suppose that were the case—though I am far
 from admitting it—but supppse the case, what then?
 Can we not make them a present of  their  testimony
 and throw it aside with that of Jackson and Oliver,
 however unwilling to  let them into  such  c )i?.pany;
 have we not  an  abundance of evidence  as to  the
 leading facts—and how will the gentlemen contra-
 dict that evidence?  Oldham tells  you that  while
 the affair wag going on he was talking to some one
 about bringing a boat down   the river' from  the
 mouth of the Kentucky, and that he had gone there
 to see that gentleman upon that subject, and had no j
 knowledge of any conspiracy and consequently no i
 idea of joining in it. Johnson tells you plainly how
 he got there—he  had  parted from Redding at  the j
 jail and had gone in search of an  officer; that he |
 went to the. Gait  House merelyfto see the arrest.
 Rothvrsll, it is known, accompanb.i  Redding as his
 brothd™ in law.   Halbert boarded in the Gait House
 and hid as much right to be there as Wilkinson or
 any one else.  Holmes,  who was his bosom friend
 and comrade, was there on  his invitation as  his
 guest.   Might not the gentlemen as well ask how
 came Trabue, Montgomery and others there?  Had
 Montgomery^ who raised a chair, been killed, these
 gentlemen might as well be defended for that killing
 as for that of Meeks and Rothwell.
   Another argument is,  that these gentlemen were
 going down to supper—and I  do not myself think
 they were bound to go through any other than the
 bar-room passage—yet if their object was merely to
 go to supper, why  did Murdaugh come wrapped in
 his overcoat?  I have no doubt that  the witnesses,
 who expected there would be a fight, attended the
 Gait House for no other  reason than that which is
 so common,  throughout Kentucky as well as every
 where else, to be looking on wherever  there is a
 fight;  for people in spite of all  we can say will have
 the curiosity to see what is  going on even in the
^jaws of danger.                             '
 '  I thank  Judge  Rowan for the fine definition he
 has furnished of the value of human life, because I
 may quote what he advances on the subject in proof
 of the yalue of these gentlemen's lives, to  show that
 the lives of Rothwell and Meeks, were to them and
 their friends  no  less  valuable—no  less   precious.
 And will Judge Rowan  say  that  we must throw
 the shield of the  law between these gentlemen and
 their temporary loss of  liberty, yet deny its pro-
 tection of the lives of Rothwell and Meeks, to the
 Commonwealth, when threatened with the loss of
 two valuable citizens.  I tell you,  gentlemen,  it
 matters not whether you believe the law ought to
be other than it is, you are bound to administer it
though the  heavens should fall—you are bound to*f
administer it as it is, for you are sworn to do it.—
How does Mr. Murdaugh stand on that point? who
showed the  first w sapon? who brandished his dirk,
and seemerl to court the combat?
  In reference to the opinions of Mr. Prentiss and
Judge Ro'wan, that a man's right to self-defence
founded upon hii own notions of right, I have a few
observations to make.  If that were really the lawj
how, in the name of common sense, could any man
ever be convicted?  Does the law quoted by them
actually establish such an absurdity? Far from  it,
Their doctrine is too wire-drawn for their purpose.
The words of the law say there must be satisfae*
tory proof that the danger was imminent.  I have
said before, that the law presumes the guilt  of the
slayer until his innocence is  shown; there must  be
evidence, of that innocence where there is ground  to ',
presume guilt.  We have proved the fact that  Roth-
well and Meeks were killed;  must not these gentle-
men who killed them, prove their innocence!
  In rM'orence to a point made against me, if  I said
as is alledged, that a man has no right to kill another
who is slaying his brother, I  meant to say that he
had no more right from the circumstance of relation^
ship, than he had without it;  but I did not  intend  to
deny the right of any man to prevent a  killing by
slaying him  who is in the act of committing  a fel-
ony.  Now,  when Judge Wilkinson made the fatal
stabs with  his knife, is  the fact proved that his
brother was  in such apparent and imminent danger
of immediate death, as to justify  his interfere!
upon the principles of the case read by the gentle
man from Lord Hale.
  Gentlemen, you have been detained a great while
on this trial.  It is  justly considered an important
trial—the manifest anxiety of a crowded court eviB>?
ces it—you  have been  told that owing to peculiar/
circumstances,  you are to bend the law of EnglanoT
common to  this country—that  because a cowhi
has been used, which here is considered a degra
tion; that because of these  things, you are, at
request of these gentlemen's  advocates, not  alone
to acquit  the  prisoners, but  to acquit them with
plaudits,  and to excite  the applause of the crowd^ ,
You are told all this, though it is known you havea
grave and solemn duty to perform; though it is pre-
sumed  you have heard  of the'majesty of the law,
and  though  you see before you that majesty repre
sented  with such dignity  by the presiding Judge  o:
this Court.  These are things not to be overlooked.
If the law is to be vindicated; if  it has been broken,
if it has been violated,  render your verdiet  ic its
vindication.  If you jjelieve these  gentlemen inno-
cent—acquit them, but do it with propriety.   But I
would in treat you to deliberate; and  whether you
vindicate the offended laws or restore the innocent 
(137)
to society unscatched, in  rendering your verdict,
remember that this is  not a theatre, but a solemn
court of justice.  Gentlemen,  the case is with you.
  [Concluded at 55 minutes past three o'clock.]
  The jury remained in consultation exactly fifteen
 minutes, and upon returning to court, and being
 called over, gave in the following verdicts:
  On the indictment for the murder of John Roth-
 Well :—
  " In the case of Edward C. Wilkinson and others,
 for the murder of John  Rothwell,  we of the jury
 rind the within named defendants.and each of them,
 NOT GUILTY of the offence charged  against
 them in the within indictments.
                  ROBERT  ALEXANDER,
                             One of the Jury."
  Same verdict on  the indictment for the murder of
 Alexander H. Meeks.
 <■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■—■■
                 APPENDIX.

                      A.
  The following is a copy of the petition and accom-
 panying  certificate presented  to the Legislature by
 Defendants in this  cause, for change of venue:—
 To the Honyble, the Speaker of the House of Repre-
  sentatives of the Commonwealth of Kentucky—
  The undersigned,  your petitioners, beg  leave
 most  respectfully  to represent  to  your  honorable
 body, that they are indicted in the  Circuit Court of
 the county of Jefferson  in two  separate cases for
 the crime of murder, and in one case each in the
 Police Court of the  city of Louisville for assault
 and battery.  While your petitioners feel the most
 thorough conviction that the  disaster which led to
 those indictments  was unavoidable on their part,
and forced upon them by the necessity of protecting
 their persons from  violence,  and  as  they believe
 their lives from the most wanton sacrifice, at a time
 when appeal to the laws or refuge to the authorities
 of the country could not be thought  of.   While they
are assured that from an impartial tribunal  they
 can have nothing to fear,  they  yet assert with a
confidence in which they think they cannot be de-
ceived, that the excitement of the public mind of the
eity and county where these causes are pending is
so intense, so deep and  so general, that fair and
 impartial trials are not reasonably to be expected,
and that they look for nothing but injustice and
oppression, unless the venue of every case is changed
by  your  honorable  body to some county not con-
 tiguous to Jefferson, nor liable from its position to
imbibe the prejudices or  catch the contagious feel-
 ing of the populace of * Louisville.  Your petitioner*
are  advised that aid in this matter of the change of
venue can only  be afforded them by your honorable
body—and they therefore pray you will extend that
aid by passing a law for that purpose.
  Convinced as they are that their apprehensions are
not idle or groundless, but the result of a very calm
and careful, though anxious survey of the condition
of public sentiment  with reference to their cause,
since the catastrophe  out of which it  grew to the
present time—and, as in duty bound, they will ever
pray, &c.          EDW'D. C. WILKINSON,
                  JOHN MURDAUGH,
                  BEN. R. WILKINSON.

  Jefferson County Court.—This day came the
parties whose names are affixed to the foregoing
petition and made oath in due form of law that the
matters and things stated in the said petition are
true.  Given  under  my hand and seal, this 14th
day of January, 1839.
             DANIEL C. BANKS, J. P. J. C.
  On an application of Judge Wilkinson, Dr. Wil-
kinson and Mr. Murdaugh, to the Legislature for a
change of venue, on  an indictment found  against
them in the Jefferson Circuit Court for  murder, the
undersigned have been called on to express their
opinions, whether there is a necessity for such change
of venue.  They certify that on no occasion have
they ever witnessed so much excitement as existed
at the time the unfortunate event occurred, and it
continued to exist for  some time.  Since an exami-
tion of the testimony before the committing Judge
has been heard, there is not so much excitement; that
the crowds attending that  excitement for a week or
more, sufficiently manifested the general feeling in
the community.  The undersigned are  of opinion,
that, even at this time, there  would be great uncer-
tainty in obtaining a jury who had not heard the tes-
timony or some part of it, and formed and expressed
an opinion for or against  the accused. And they
are of opinion that the ends of justice, as well as  it
regards the Commonwealth as the accused, would
be better attained by  a change of the place of trial
from this city and county.
                   R. TYLER,
                   J. EVERETT,
                   A. TROCKMORTON,
                   WILLIAM RIDDLE,
                   J. M. CLENDENIN,
                   JOHN I. GRAY,
                   R. S. WARD,
                   ABRAHAM HITE,
                   H. B. HILL,
                   JOHN O. COCHRAN,
                   NATHANIEL WOLFE.
  The foregoing contains a true copy of the peti-
tions presented to the Legislature  of Kentucky at
the last session, for a change of venue, by E.  C. Wil-
kinson, &c, taken from the  originals (on file,)  by
me,  this. 25th April,  1839.
                   JNO. C HERNDON,
                        Assistant Clerk H. R. 
(138)
                (APPENDIX.)-B.


   The following is an authenticated copy of the act

 of Legislature authorising the change of venue:—

 "An Act authorizing a change of venue in the case
   of "the Commonwealth  against Edwatd  C.  Wil-
   kinson, Benjamin R. Wilkinson and John  Mur-
   daugh.

  ' 1st.  Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the
 Commonwealth of Kentucky,  That the Judge qf the
 12th Judicial District shall be and he is hereby au-
 thorised and required to hold a special  term of the
 Mercer Circuit Court for  the trial of criminal.ca3es,
 to commence on the 4th day of March next and con-
 tinue for and during twelve judicial days if the bu-
 siness require him so to do..

   2d.  That it shall  be lawful for the Jefferson Cir-
 cuit Court and the Police Court of the city of Louis-
 ville, respectively, on the appearance of Edward G.
 Wilkinson, Benjamin R. Wilkinson and John  Mur-
 daugh, in discharge of their respective  recognizan-
 ces  entered into in* said  Court by reason of indict-
 ments  therein preferred  against them for  murder
 and assault and battery, and upon the said  accused
 persons and each of them directing in open  court
 their election and consent to be entered of record,
 to make an order changing the venue of said  cases
 to the Mercer Circuit Court.

   3d.  That when said order for the change of venue
 shall have been made in conformity with the second
 section of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Judge
 of the Jefferson  Circuit Court and Police Courtjise-
 spectively, to require the said Edward G. WirkuMson,
 Benjamin R. Wilkinson and John Murdaugh, re-
 spectively, to enter into recognizances in such penal-
 ty and with such ."urnty or sureties as may in the
 discretion of said Judges,  respectively, seem proper,
 conditioned for the appearance of the said  Edward
 C. Wilkinson,  Benjamin  "R. Wilkinson and  John
 Murdaugh, severally, at the Mereer Circuit Court on
 the said 4th day of March next.   And it shall also
 be th" duty of snid Ceiurts to recognize the witness-
 es fijr the Commonwealth in  said cases to attend at
 the said Merrter Circuit Courf on the said 4th day of
 March next.  And whtri  the.said changes of venue
 -mil have been  ordered in compliance with the pro-
 vis, -.ns of this-act, it shall be tlie duty of the Clerk
 ot the said Courts, respectively, and they are here-
 by required forthwith to transmit to the Clerk of the
 Mercer Circuit Court the indictments against said
 Wilkinsons and Mhrdaugh, and likewise all bonds,
 writs, recognizances or other papers filed in. said
 cases, together. wtthJull and complete copies of all
 Orders made in said cases by the Sheriff of Jefferson
 County, and the Clerks of said  Courts shall  take
 from the Sheriff a receipt  for the papers so  to him
 delivered.  And it shall be the duty of said Sheriff
 with all possible despatch* to deliver  said pafWs to
 the Clerk of the Mercer Circuit Court and  take his
 receipt for the .<;inv: arid  upon said Sheriff produ-
 cing said rdeeipi to tire Judge of the Jeffereoo- Cir-
'cuit Court,  it shall be., his anty  to make an,.order
 allowing s-aiel Sheriff six  cents  per  mile for  each
 tnije by  him  travelled  m going to  and returning
 from the sa id county o-VMercer, which seid-aRowaare
 shall be paid out of the Treasury, (,

   4th.  That if either of said Clerks  or the Sheriff
 shall fail or-refuse-to comply with or perform the'
  duties imposed upon them and each of them by thi^j
  act, the party so offending shall be subject to a fin"
  of one  hundred dollars, to be adjudged against hir
  or them by the Jefferson Circuit Court upon motion
  by the Attorney for the Commonwealth, upon rea-
  sonable notice being given of said motion.

    5th.  That the Clerk of the Mercer Circuit Court i
  upon receiving  the papers in the said prosecutions'
  shall set the said cases for trial on the said 4th dap;
  of March,  and  issue a venire facias  and subpoenas
  for witnesses as if the said  indictments had been
  originally found in said Court.   And  the Judge of
  the Mercer Circuit-Court shall have as full and com-
  plete jurisdiction of said cases, and as plenary pow-
  er to try land determine the same, as if the offences,
  Wherewith  the said parties  stand  charged  had'
  been been committed in the  said county.   And
  it shall be theduty of said Court in his discration to «
  make all such orders in said eases that he might aft- 1
  cording to law make where the indictments had beeara
  found in said Court.'  And the Judge of the said.~
  Mercer Circuit C^urt shall upqn<the parting of the
  jury pronounce  final sentence  of condemnation or
  acquittal or setasyjft-tfafi verdict, or verdicts jhat. may '
  be rendered on said trial and grant a new trial or trf-  "
  als,  if the justice of the case requires it, in like nf an-,
  ner  as  if the offences  had been committed within
  the jurisdiction  of said Court.

   That the Judge of the  said Mercer Circuit Court
  shall be, and he is hereby authorized and empower-
  eel to recognize the witnesses on the part of the Com-
  monwealth to appear from time to time as the said
  case may be continued; and shall proceed upon all
  recognizances in the same manner as if the same
  had been entered into in  said Court.   And in cs
  the indictment  or  indictments  heretofore foo
  against  said  Edward C.  Wilkinson,  Benjamin  m
  Wilkinson and John Murdaugh' or either of them
  shall be founder quashed, or the judgments thereon
  arrested, the said  persons so accused shall not for
  that cause be discharged, but a Grand Jury shall be
  summoned and the case or cases again submitted to
  them to be acted upon by them as if the offence had
  been committed within the jurisdiction of said Court;
 and  upon  the  finding  of another  indictment or
 other indictments,  the said parties shall be agaMn
 put upon their trial and the case or cases proceea»4g_
 in in all respects as if the said offences charged, taftj
 been committed  within the jurisdiction of the #*J>|
 Court.                            '            **£

   That the Sheriff, Clerk and Jailor shall perform
 all the duties pertaining to their respective offices in'
 the progress of said trial as if the said cases had:pro*!"'
 perly originated within, the jurisdiction of said.CopA„»,
 And witnesses attending the said Mercer County^
 Court in consequence  of this  change of venue;
 upon recognizance  or  subpoena  shall  receive the
 same compensation that is allowed by law to other
 witnesses going out of l£eir counties  upon legal
 process.

   That  no  number of continuances granted by the;
 Judge, pf the said  Mercer Circuit Court at the in-
 stance of the Commonwealth shall operate the dis-
 charge or acquittal of the said Edward C. Wilkin-
j son^Benjiimim R.  Wilkinson, John  Murdaugh,, or
j any one of them."

   A  copy from the original, which has passed both"
 branches of the Legislature.   January 28th, 1839.
   .  Attest:          T  J. HELM, C. H. R.,   .
             By      JNO. C. HERNDON, AstH. 
139)
APPENDIX.)-C.
CONCLUSION.
  When  the printing of this pamphlet was com-
menced r it was not anticipated that the evidence and
speeches, when written out, would occupy so many
pages.  It has been found that  they have left no
room for the synopsis of the proceedings and exam-
inations at the Examining Court, which were inten-
ded to complete this appendix. To enlarge the size
of the  pamphlet  and increase the price, would be
disadvantages  not adequately counterbalanced by
the synopsis alluded to, and it has therefore been
deemed best to relinquish the promised account of
what occured at the Examining Court.  The fulfill-
ment of this promise, it is hoped, will not be found
any important omission, when it is stated that the
evidence in the Examaning Court and that of the Cir-
cuit Court in Harrodsburgh,  did not differ in any
material  point.  Nine tenths of the testimony  at
the Examining Court, would be  merely the re-echo
of that given on the trial,   t
W.
ADDENDA.
       PUBLICATION OF THIS REPORT.

    During the preparative of this Report for publica-
  tion, a rumour prevailed in town that I would be sub-
  jected to prosecution for libel, by reiterating the
  remarks made by counsel for defence, on Mr. Red-
  ding's character.  Independent  of my determina-
  tion to conduct this publication with strict neutrality,
  a determination which I trust  it will be acknowl-
  edged I have adhered to—I could of course have no
  disposition to place myself in any situation of diffi-
  culty with respect to either party concerned in the
  trial; indeed every principle  of fair play .seemed to
  urge that I should avoid doing injustice to any one.
  I was therefore not much surprised by the following
  official communication from  Mr. Redding, convey-
  ing as will be seen, a request, which, my own sense
  of propriety, no less than safety, as a publisher, told
  me  I could not with justice,  refuse.   I therefore
  publish this communication here, having taken the
  liberty of leaving out such expressions in Mr. Red-
  ding's letter as  I have not considered myself bound
  to publish.                          T- E* B'

                  " Louisville, April 10, 1839.
  " To the  Editor of the Gazette and Reporter:
 1  " Sib-  I observe in your prospectus of the Report
  tf the Harrodsburgh trial, that you intend giving
  the speeches of counsel in fall; if so, you will neces;
' sarily reiterate libels on my. character,
  *   '*     *    *    *    *    indulged in by the
       el    *    *    *  • *    *         *    *
  forThe defence.  Were the circulation of your pamph-
  let likely to be confined to the city of Louisville,
  where lam known
I should not care; but the publication is calculated
to  have an extensive circulation throughout the
whole Union, and the libela I complain of, may affect
my character where I am not known. ^As a matter
of  right and justice, I,  therefore, claim from you a
space in your book, in which the enclosed certificate
of  my character and standing in Louisville, and the
State of Kentucky in which I have spent my whole
life, may1 be placed in contrast with the slanders    *
****     *    *    *    *    *    *
   ****     *****
    With much respect, I remain Sir,          «
               Your obedient servant,
                      JOHN W. REDDING."
  " We the undersigned,, inhabitants of Louisville,
certify that we have known Mr. Jno. W. Redding aa
a citizen of this State, and resident in the city of
Louisville, for a number of years, and that his uni-
form character and standing in society has always
been, and continues  to this moment to be, of the
very highest  order for integrity, industry, veracity
and unimpeachable honor.
 Louisville, ky.,' April 9,1839W
  Thomas A.  M'Grath,  Thomas Kajte,
  J. Chamberlin,        E. C.  Beard,
  James I. Lemon,    .  James Rudd,
  Wm. Read,           Thomas G. Rowland,
  Joseph Metcalfe,     George J. Rowland,
  C. M. Thruston,      Silas Field,
  Robert Tyler,       Wm.  M'Crum,
  J. Guthrie,          Samuel Casseday,
  Wm. Sale,            J. Reinhard,
  Thomas Joyes,        Wm. Bell,
  Thomas Coleman,     J. Gore,
  Theodore S. Bell,    W. N. Merriwether,
  Isaac Everett,        A. Throckmorton,
  Wm. Riddle,         R. S. Swearingen,
  J. P. Bull,            Coleman Daniel,
  John M. Talbot,      James Harrison,
  E. H. Lewis,          D. Heran,
  Willis Stewart,      J  B. Bland,
  J. C. Btckles,         S. Penn, Jr.
  John I. Jacob,         James M'Crum,
  Wm. Garvin,          W. H. Pope,
  L. D. Addison,         Geo. C. Gwathmet,
  C. N. Patterson,       James Stewart,
  Charles Quirey,       Wm. R. Wanton,
  Ormsby Hite,         S. Gwathmey,
  Wm. Fellowes,        W. W. Worsley, .
  George D. Prentice,    B. G. Cotter,
  J. H. Cutter,          Hugh Ferguson,
  Levi Tyler,           L. B. Clark,      ,, •
               Fr. Johnson."               - .
rFINIS.]
               PRINTEB bt
     T.  E.  BROWNE  &  CO.,
           AT THE OFFICE OF THE
'DAILY GAZETTE AND  REPORTER."
                  Pearl Street, F^ovisville, Ky. 
NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE

[«id&& -£»'
NLM023253949