360 Southern Historical Society Papers.
that time anything by way of argument or explanation not imme- diately connected with the particular issue to be tried, and to march straight forward to the attainment, so far as may be in our power, of the ends of justice, by either convicting or acquitting the prisoners at the bar. He then calmly and forcibly stated the law of treason against the State the crime of conspiracy and inciting insurrection. The witnesses were then called and the examination commenced this was the second day and continued till 7 o'clock in the evening, when the court adjourned. On the third day George H. Hoyt, of Boston, appeared as associate counsel for Brown.* The testimony was resumed, and continued for the prosecution until late in the afternoon. The defense then called witnesses. During this session of the court Brown addressed the court as follows: "I discover that notwithstanding all the assurances I have received of a fair trial, nothing like a fair trial is to be given me as it would seem," and he continued in that strain for some time, complaining that his witnesses had not been subpoenaed; but it turned out that he was mistaken for they had been served, and subsequently appeared in court, and such of them as were deemed important were examined. On the 4th day, Hon. Samuel Chilton, then of Washington, D. C, but who had served in Congress from the present Eighth District of Virginia a lawyer of great power and ability and Harry Griswold, of Cleveland, Ohio, appeared as counsel for the prisoner, and Messrs. Botts and Green withdrew from the case, having been dismissed by Brown the day before. Both made appeals for delay on the ground of recent employment in the case and consequent want of prepara- tion, but the court directed the case to proceed. This was Satur- day. The testimony was closed, and the case opened to the jury by Mr. Harding for the prosecution. When he concluded, the court adjourned to Monday following at 9 A. M. Upon assembling, pur- suant to adjournment, Mr. Griswold opened for the defense and made as able an argument as almost any one could have made under the circumstances, and never once complained of the fairness of the trial. He argued that treason against the State of Virginia could not be committed by Brown, because Brown was not a citizen or resident. His arguments on the other points was such as is usual in criminal cases of a desperate character, and dwelt upon the doc- trine of reasonable doubt. In Brown's confession, or statement of
- Hon. D. W. Voorhees states that George Semat, from Boston, accom-
panied him as like counsel.
