This sentiment, notwithstanding the feelings of almost all present were in favor of Holden, was so decidedly patriotic, that it met the most favorable reception, and there was a general whispering and rustling among the audience.  After the sensation had subsided, Justice Miller, with some hesitation, decided to receive the testimony for the present.  “It is different,” he said, “from allowing evidence to go to a jury.  I am both court and jury, and will think it over, and reject it, if I think it should be.”  With this decision the counsel were obliged to acquiesce, and Tippit proceeded with his testimony.

It was easier to prove the good character of Holden than the exact occurrence at the meeting.  Judge Bernard, Mr. Armstrong, who came into the court in the afternoon, Pownal, and many others, testified to his irreproachable reputation, and were certain that his conduct proceeded from no evil intent.

After the testimony had all been taken, followed the speeches of the counsel.  Ketchum, who, as prosecutor, was entitled to the opening and closing arguments, rose and stated that, as the days were short, and it was growing late, he would waive his right of opening, and reserve what he had to say to the time when his brother Tippit had concluded.  To this arrangement Tippit strenuously objected, insisting that the State had made out so poor a case, that he hardly knew what to reply to, and that in all fairness the counsel for the State ought to enlighten him.  The court, however, decided, that although it was a strange thing for a lawyer to desire to be excused from making a speech, yet it was a course he felt much obliged to Mr. Ketchum for adopting, and hoped that he would not revenge himself for the abstinence by putting two speeches into one, at the conclusion.

Smiles and applauding whispers among the audience rewarded the Justice for this brilliant display of wit.

Hereupon Mr. Tippit rose and addressed the court.  He begun by hinting at the embarrassment he felt in not having the advantage, to use his own language, of what his brother Ketchum intended to say.  For his own part, he had carefully considered the law and evidence, and could not find the shadow of a pretext for detaining the prisoner.  He then went on to speak of the prisoner himself, his age, his harmless life, and the excellent character he sustained.  All this, he argued, went to show the improbability of his having uttered the language considered most objectionable.  He contended that although he would most cheerfully admit that the prisoner had said something in the conference-room, it was impossible to determine accurately what that something was; that if in this state of things the court not be satisfied what the words were exactly, it was as if no words at all had been uttered, and there were none to be passed upon.  But what were the words?  Here the learned counsel minutely examined the evidence, and arrived at the conclusion, that it was impossible to ascertain them.