disclosures were made.  Before Joseph had finished his statement, Phippen came to the door; he was soon after admitted.  A short interval ensued, and they went together to the cell of Frank.  Mr. Colman went in by invitation of Phippen; he had come directly from the cell of Joseph, where he had for the first time learned the incidents of the tragedy.  He was incredulous as to some of the facts which he had learned, they were so different from his previous impressions.  He was desirous of knowing whether he could place confidence in what Joseph had told him.  He, therefore, put the questions to Frank, as he has testified before you; in answer to which Frank Knapp informed him,—­

1.  “That the murder took place between ten and eleven o’clock.”

2.  “That Richard Crowninshield was alone in the house.”

3.  “That he, Frank Knapp, went home afterwards.”

4.  “That the club was deposited under the steps of the Howard Street meeting-house, and under the part nearest the burying-ground, in a rat hole.”

5.  “That the dagger or daggers had been worked up at the factory.”

It is said that these five answers just fit the case; that they are just what was wanted, and neither more nor less.  True, they are; but the reason is, because truth always fits.  Truth is always congruous and agrees with itself:  every truth in the universe agrees with every other truth in the universe, whereas falsehoods not only disagree with truths, but usually quarrel among themselves.  Surely Mr. Colman is influenced by no bias, no prejudice; he has no feelings to warp him, except, now that he is contradicted, he may feel an interest to be believed.

If you believe Mr. Colman, then the evidence is fairly in the case.

I shall now proceed on the ground that you do believe Mr. Colman.

When told that Joseph had determined to confess, the defendant said, “It is hard, or unfair, that Joseph should have the benefit of confessing, since the thing was done for his benefit.”  What thing was done for his benefit?  Does not this carry an implication of the guilt of the defendant?  Does it not show that he had a knowledge of the object and history of the murder?

The defendant said, “I told Joseph, when he proposed it, that it was a silly business, and would get us into trouble.”  He knew, then, what this business was; he knew that Joseph proposed it, and that he agreed to it, else he could not get us into trouble; he understood its bearing and its consequences.  Thus much was said, under circumstances that make it clearly evidence against him, before there is any pretence of an inducement held out.  And does not this prove him to have had a knowledge of the conspiracy?