Select Speeches of Daniel Webster | Page 9

heard the physicians.
Two of them have no doubt it was all feigned. Dr. Spofford spoke in a
more guarded manner, but it was very evident his opinion agreed with
theirs. In the height of his raving, the physician who was present said to
others, that he could find nothing the matter with the man, and that his
pulse was perfectly regular. But consider the facts which Dr. Balch

testifies. He suspected the whole of this illness and delirium to be
feigned. He wished to ascertain the truth. While he or others were
present, Goodridge appeared to be in the greatest pains and agony from
his wounds. He could not turn himself in bed, nor be turned by others,
without infinite distress. His mind, too, was as much disordered as his
body. He was constantly raving about robbery and murder. At length
the physicians and others withdrew, and left him alone in the room. Dr.
Balch returned softly to the door, which he had left partly open, and
there he had a full view of his patient, unobserved by him. Goodridge
was then very quiet. His incoherent exclamations had ceased. Dr. Balch
saw him turn over without inconvenience. Pretty soon he sat up in bed,
and adjusted his neckcloth and his hair. Then, hearing footsteps on the
staircase, he instantly sunk into the bed again; his pains all returned,
and he cried out against robbers and murderers as loud as ever. Now,
these facts are all sworn to by an intelligent witness, who cannot be
mistaken in them; a respectable physician, whose veracity or accuracy
is in no way impeached or questioned. After this, it is difficult to retain
any good opinion of the prosecutor. Robbed or not robbed, this was his
conduct; and such conduct necessarily takes away all claim to
sympathy and respect. The jury will consider whether it does not also
take away all right to be believed in anything. For if they should be of
opinion that in any one point he has intentionally misrepresented facts,
he can be believed in nothing. No man is to be convicted on the
testimony of a witness whom the jury has found wilfully violating the
truth in any particular.
The next part of the case is the conduct of the prosecutor in attempting
to find out the robbers, after he had recovered from his illness. He
suspected Mr. Pearson, a very honest, respectable man, who keeps the
tavern at the bridge. He searched his house and premises. He sent for a
conjuror to come, with his metallic rods and witch-hazel, to find the
stolen money. Goodridge says now, that he thought he should find it, if
the conjuror's instruments were properly prepared. He professes to have
full faith in the art. Was this folly, or fraud, or a strange mixture of both?
Pretty soon after the last search, gold pieces were actually found near
Mr. pearson's house, in the manner stated by the female witness. How
came they there? Did the robber deposit them there? That is not
possible. Did he accidentally leave them there? Why should not a

robber take as good care of his money as others? It is certain, too, that
the gold pieces were not put there at the time of the robbery, because
the ground was then bare; but when these pieces were found, there were
several inches of snow below them. When Goodridge searched here
with his conjuror, he was on this spot, alone and unobserved, as he
thought. Whether he did not, at that time, drop his gold into the snow,
the jury will judge. When he came to this search, he proposed
something very ridiculous. He proposed that all persons about to assist
in the search should be examined, to see that they had nothing which
they could put into Pearson's possession, for the purpose of being found
there. But how was this examination to be made? Why, truly,
Goodridge proposed that every man should examine himself, and that,
among others, he would examine himself, till he was satisfied he had
nothing in his pockets which he could leave at pearson's, with the
fraudulent design of being afterwards found there, as evidence against
pearson. What construction would be given to such conduct?
As to Jackman, Goodridge went to New York and arrested him. In his
room he says he found paper coverings of gold, with his own figures on
them, and pieces of an old and useless receipt, which he can identify,
and which he had in his possession at the time of the robbery. He found
these things lying on the floor in Jackman's room. What should induce
the robbers, when they left all other papers, to take this receipt? And
what should induce Jackman to carry it to New York, and