of the defendant, either in
intelligence, memory, language, thought, or anything else. This is a
fine commentary upon the disparagement of color! Looking at the men as
they are, as you will, I say that the testimony exhibited on the part of
the respondent would outweigh a whole theatre of such men as are
exhibited on the part of the complainant. I say nothing here about their
respectability. It would have been proper for the learned counsel on the
part of the plaintiff, if he thought the witnesses on the part of the
respondent unworthy of belief, to have proved them so; but instead of
that, he attempts to bolster up men, who, whether respectable or
otherwise, from their inconsistency, involutions and tergiversations in
regard to this case, produce no possible effect upon the judicial mind,
but that which is unfavorable to themselves. Impartial men, are they?
How do they appear before you? They appear under cover from first to
last; standing upon their right to resist inquiries legitimately
propounded to them; burning up letters since they have arrived,
calculated to shed light upon this subject; and before they come here,
corresponding with and deriving information from a man, an evident
kidnapper, who dare not sign his name and gets his wife to sign hers.
This is the character these men exhibit here before you; clandestinely
meeting together at the tavern, and that to consult in regard to the
identity of a person about whom they know nothing. Can they refer to any
marks by which to identify this person? Nothing at all of the kind. Do
they, with the exception of the first witness examined, state even the
time when she left? Have they produced the letter written by this
kidnapper, showing how he described her? Why, let me ask, is not the
full light allowed to shine on this case? But even with the light they
have shed upon it, I would have been perfectly content to have rested
it, relying upon their testimony alone, for a just decision.

* * * * *

Now, what man among them, professes to have seen this woman for
twenty-one years? Not one. The learned gentleman attempts to sustain his
case, because one of our witnesses, certainly not more than one, has not
seen this woman for about the same length of time: but don't you
perceive, that in this case they all lived in the same State, if not in
the same county--they had intercourse with persons mutually acquainted
with her, and three out of f