discovered in any other house in the neighborhood. The two tenements, it
is true, were under the same roof; but they were not on that account the
same tenements. They were as distinct as any other houses. Now, how should
it happen that the several parcels of money should all be found in the
father's possession? He is not suspected, certainly there is no reason to
suspect him, of having had any hand either in the commission of the
robbery or the concealing of the goods. He swears he had no knowledge of
any part of this money being in his house. It is not easy to imagine how
it came there, unless it be supposed to have been put there by some one
who did not know what part of the house belonged to the defendants and
what part did not.

The witnesses on the part of the prosecution have testified that the
defendants, when arrested, manifested great agitation and alarm; paleness
overspread their faces, and drops of sweat stood on their temples. This
satisfied the witnesses of the defendants' guilt, and they now state the
circumstances as being indubitable proof. This argument manifests, in
those who use it, an equal want of sense and sensibility. It is precisely
fitted to the feeling and the intellect of a bum-bailiff. In a court of
justice it deserves nothing but contempt. Is there nothing that can
agitate the frame or excite the blood but the consciousness of guilt? If
the defendants were innocent, would they not feel indignation at this
unjust accusation? If they saw an attempt to produce false evidence
against them, would they not be angry? And, seeing the production of such
evidence, might they not feel fear and alarm? And have indignation, and
anger, and terror, no power to affect the human countenance or the human
frame?

Miserable, miserable, indeed, is the reasoning which would infer any man's
guilt from his agitation when he found himself accused of a heinous