“N.B.—­The argument being now concluded, and the jury about to go out, some question arose whether the jury should have the written instructions of the court with them; and some inquiry being made as to the practice, one of the jurors observed that in a case in which he had formerly acted as juror the jury had the instructions with them, and he proceeded to tell a funny story about a bottle of rum, told by one of the jurors on that occasion, which story caused him to remember the fact.  It may be observed, by the way, that the proceedings of the United States Criminal Court for the District of Columbia are not distinguished for any remarkable decorum or dignity.  The jury, in this case, were in constant intercourse, during any little intervals in the trial, with the spectators outside the bar.”

The case was given to the jury about three o’clock, P.M., and the court, after waiting half an hour, adjourned.

When the court met, at ten o’clock the next morning, the jury were still out, having remained together all night without being able to agree.  Meanwhile the District Attorney proceeded to try me on another indictment, for stealing three slaves the property of one William H. Upperman.  As this trial was proceeding, about half-past two the jury in the first case came in, and rendered a verdict of GUILTY.  They presented rather a haggard appearance, having been locked up for twenty-four hours, and some of them being perhaps a little troubled in their consciences.  The jury, it was understood, had been divided, from the beginning, four for acquittal and eight for conviction.  These four were all Irishmen, and perhaps they did not consider it consistent with their personal safety and business interests to persist in disappointing the slave-holding public of that verdict which the District Attorney had so imperiously demanded.  The agreement, it was understood, had taken place only a few moments before they came in, and had been reached entirely on the strength of Williams’ testimony to my having said, that had I got off I should have made an independent fortune.  Now, it was a curious coincidence, that at the very moment that this agreement was thus taking place, Williams, again on the stand as a witness on the second trial, wished to take back what he had then sworn to on the first trial, stating that he could not tell whether he had heard me say this, or whether he had heard of my having said it from somebody else.

After the rendition of the verdict of the other jury, the second case was again resumed.  The evidence varied in only a few particulars from that which had been given in the first case.  There was, in addition, the testimony of Upperman, the pretended owner of the woman and her daughters, one of fifteen, the other nine years old, whom I was charged in this indictment with stealing.  This man swore with no less alacrity, and with no less falsehood, than Houver had done before