continue everlastingly to dispute about that which is of no essential consequence? I think, Sir, the country calls upon us loudly and imperatively to settle this question. I think that the whole world is looking to see whether this great popular government can get through such a crisis. We are the observed of all observers. It is not to be disputed or doubted, that the eyes of all Christendom are upon us. We have stood through many trials. Can we not stand through this, which takes so much the character of a sectional controversy? Can we stand that? There is no inquiring man in all Europe who does not ask himself that question every day, when he reads the intelligence of the morning. Can this country, with one set of interests at the South, and another set of interests at the North, and these interests supposed, but falsely supposed, to be at variance; can this people see what is so evident to the whole world beside, that this Union is their main hope and greatest benefit, and that their interests in every part are entirely compatible? Can they see, and will they feel, that their prosperity, their respectability among the nations of the earth, and their happiness at home, depend upon the maintenance of their Union and their Constitution? That is the question. I agree that local divisions are apt to warp the understandings of men, and to excite a belligerent feeling between section and section. It is natural, in times of irritation, for one part of the country to say, If you do that, I will do this, and so get up a feeling of hostility and defiance. Then comes belligerent legislation, and then an appeal to arms. The question is, whether we have the true patriotism, the Americanism, necessary to carry us through such a trial. The whole world is looking towards us with extreme anxiety. For myself, I propose, Sir, to abide by the principles. and the purposes which I have avowed. I shall stand by the Union, and by all who stand by it. I shall do justice to the whole country, according to the best of my ability, in all I say, and act for the good of the whole country in all I do. I mean to stand upon the Constitution. I need no other platform. I shall know but one country. The ends I aim at shall be my country's, my God's, and Truth's. I was born an American: I will live an American; I shall die an American; and I intend to perform the duties incumbent upon me in that character to the end of my career. I mean to do this, with absolute disre

gard of personal consequences. What are personal consequences? What is the individual man, with all the good or evil that may betide him, in comparison with the good or evil which may befall a great country in a crisis like this, and in the midst of great transactions which concern that country's fate? Let the consequences be what they will, I am careless. No man can suffer too much, and no man can fall too soon, if he suffer or if he fall in defence of the liberties and Constitution of his country.

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

AND

SPEECHES TO THE JURY.

DEFENCE OF THE KENNISTONS.*

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.†

THE trial of Levi and Laban Kenniston for highway robbery on the person of Major Elijah Putnam Goodridge, in Newbury, in the county of Essex, on the 19th of December, 1816, was one of the most remarkable trials ever had in Massachusetts. It was remarkable not so much for the dramatic character of its incidents, as for the unwearied pertinacity of the principal actor in the grossest falsehood and perjury. It was a trial awful in its instructions, and painfully interesting in the mystery which still hangs like a shroud around the motives of Mr. Goodridge.

A brief statement of the facts will fully exhibit the remarkable power of Mr. Webster in unmasking the hypocrisy which, for a long time, not only imposed upon the whole community, but misled by its subtlety the entire body of the Essex Bar.

Major Goodridge was a young man of good education and respectable connections; of fine personal appearance, gentlemanly deportment, and good character. His place of business was Bangor, Maine, and at the time of the alleged robbery he was on his way to Boston, travelling in a one-horse sleigh, alone, with a considerable sum of money. Before leaving home he procured a pair of pistols, which he discharged and loaded daily, as he said, in some unfrequented piece of woods, for he did not wish it to be known that he was armed. He said, moreover, that he took the precaution to put a private mark upon every piece of money in his possession, so as to be able to identify it if he should be robbed. His somewhat singular reason for these preliminary measures was, that he had heard of a robbery in Maine, not long before.

* An Argument addressed to the Jury, at the Term of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held at Ipswich in April, 1817.

†The following account of this celebrated case was furnished by Stephen W. Marston, Esq., of Newburyport, who, together with Samuel L. Knapp, Esq., of the same place, was associated with Mr. Webster in the defence of the Kennistons.