the fact would, if desired, attend 'the trial. The despatch being read to the court, Brown arose in person and denied that there was insanity in his father's family, but admitted that on his mother's side there had been instances of it. But he refused to allow the plea of insanity to be put in, and remarked to the court, " I am perfectly unconscious of insanity, and re ject so far as I am capable, any attempt to interfere in my behalf with that plea." After further efforts to secure delay, which were overruled, the jury was sworn, and his prosecution opened. The facts expected to be proved in the case were presented in detail by the prosecuting attorneys. The attorneys for the defense each fol lowed in strong addresses. Mr. Green warned the jury that no previous confession of the prisoner should influence them, that under our code " no conviction can be made on con fession not made in open court, " and in court Brown had pleaded " not guilty." As to the charge of treason, specific acts of treason must be proved; and it required two distinct wit nesses to prove each and every act of treason; also it must be shown that he attempted to set up a separate and distinct government, and what was the purpose of the treasonable acts. Mr. Botts solemnly warned the jury not to be influenced by preconceived opinions and pre judices. He proceeded substantially over the ground taken by Mr. Green on each of the counts of the indictment; treason, in surrection and murder. Both gentlemen showed a determination to avail themselves of every advantage of the law, and to faith fully and earnestly defend the prisoner. A large number of witnesses were examined, many of them subpoenaed at the instance of Brown. On the morning of the 28th Mr. Geo. H. Hoyt of Boston, arrived to act as counsel for Brown, and after presenting satisfactory credentials, was permitted to enter the case. During the examination of witnesses Brown made frequent admissions as to papers and signatures, as he said, to save time. Several
witnesses for the prisoner being called did not respond promptly to their names, though most of them were within call. Brown be came nervous, and addressed the court to the effect that his witnesses had not been sub poenaed, that he had no counsel in whom he felt confidence, and felt that he could not have a fair trial without time for counsel to arrive. Mr. Hoyt of Boston, who had been sitting in close conference with Brown, also appealed for time to acquaint himself with the case, though expressing every confidence in the gentlemen who had been conducting the de fense. At this point, both Mr. Green and Mr. Botts requested permission to withdraw from the case, in view of the prisoner having de clared his lack of confidence in them. The court assented to the withdrawal, and thereupon adjourned for the day. On the morning of the 29th, the fourth day of the trial, there arrived as additional counsel for Brown, Mr. Samuel Chilton of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Henry Griswold, of Cleveland, Ohio. The court, at request of these gentle men, delayed the trial a few hours to allow them time to consult the prisoner, and get acquainted with the proceedings. The wit nesses for the defense all appeared and testi fied. The remainder of the day was con sumed in examination of witnesses, and the opening addresses of the prosecution. On Monday, the 30th, Mr. Griswold opened for the defense in a temperate and master ful argument, followed by Mr. Chilton along much the same line. Both expressed them selves as pleased at the straightforward testi mony of the witnesses, and the fair and im partial rulings of the court. Hon. Andrew Hunter closed for the State with an elaborate summary of the facts proven, and a logical and forceful citation of the laws of Virginia applicable to the same. Mr. Chilton acting upon the point called to his attention and first advanced by Mr. Green, asked the court to instruct the jury " that if they believed the prisoner was not a citizen
