“Under cover of storm and darkness he escaped with his plunder, to some point north of X—­where doubtless he boarded (unperceived) the freight train, and at some convenient point slipped into a wooded country, and made his way to Pennsylvania.  Why were valuable bonds untouched?  Because they might aid in betraying him.  What conceivable interest had he in the destruction of Gen’l Darrington’s will?  It is in evidence, that the lamp was burning, and the contents of that envelope could have possessed no value for a man ignorant of the provisions of the will; and the superscription it was impossible to misread.  Suppose that this mysterious person was fully cognizant of the family secrets of the Darringtons?  Suppose that he knew that Mrs. Brentano and her daughter would inherit a large fortune, if Gen’l Darrington died intestate?  If he had wooed and won the heart of the daughter, and believed that her rights had been sacrificed to promote the aggrandizement of an alien, the adopted step-son Prince, had not such a man, the accepted lover of the daughter, a personal interest in the provisions of a will which disinherited Mrs. Brentano, and her child?  Have you not now, motive, means, and opportunity, and links of evidence that point to this man as the real agent, the guilty author of the awful crime we are all leagued in solemn, legal covenant to punish?  Suppose that fully aware of the prisoner’s mission to X—­, he had secretly followed her, and supplemented her afternoon visit, by the fatal interview of the night?  Doubtless he had intended escorting her home, but when the frightful tragedy was completed, the curse of Cain drove him, in terror, to instant flight; and he sought safety in western wilds, leaving his innocent and hapless betrothed to bear the penalty of his crime.  The handkerchief used to administer chloroform, bore her initials; was doubtless a souvenir given in days gone by to that unworthy miscreant, as a token of affection, by the trusting woman he deserted in the hour of peril.  In this solution of an awful enigma, is there an undue strain upon credylity; is there any antagonism of facts which the torn envelope, the pipe, the twenty-dollar gold pieces in Pennsylvania, do not reconcile?

“A justly celebrated writer on the law of evidence has wisely said:  ’In criminal cases, the statement made by the accused is of essential importance in some points of view.  Such is the complexity of human affairs, and so infinite the combinations of circumstances, that the true hypothesis which is capable of explaining and reuniting all the apparently conflicting circumstances of the case, may escape the acutest penetration:  but the prisoner, so far as he alone is concerned, can always afford a clue to them; and though he may be unable to support his statement by evidence, his account of the transaction is, for this purpose, always most material and important.  The effect may be to suggest a view, which consists with the innocence of the accused, and might otherwise have escaped observation.’