The ways of the hour

by James Fenimore Cooper

Mr. District Attorney then proceeded to give a narrative of the events as he supposed them to have occurred. He spoke of the Goodwins as “poor, but honest” people, a sort of illustration that is in much favour, and deservedly so, when true. “It seems, gentlemen,” the District Attorney continued, “that the wife had a propensity, or a fancy, to collect gold pieces, no doubt as a store against the wants of age. This money was kept in a stocking, according to the practice of country ladies, and was often exhibited to the neighbours. We may have occasion, gentlemen, to show you that some fifteen or twenty persons, at different times, have seen and handled this gold. You need not be told what natural curiosity is, but must all know how closely persons little accustomed to see money of this sort, would be apt to examine the more rare pieces, in particular. There happened to be several of these pieces among the gold of Mrs. Goodwin; and one of them was an Italian or a Dutch coin, of the value of four dollars, which commonly goes by the name of the king whose likeness is on the piece. This Dutch or Italian coin, no matter which, or William, was seen, and handled, and examined by several persons, as we shall show you.

“Now, gentlemen, the stocking that contained the gold coins, was kept in a bureau, which bureau was saved from the fire, with all its contents: but the stocking and the gold were missing! These facts will be shown to you by proof that puts them beyond a peradventure. We shall next show to you, gentlemen, that on a public examination of the prisoner at the bar, the contents of her purse were laid open, and the Dutch or Italian coin I have mentioned was found, along with more than a hundred dollars of other pieces, which being in American coin, cannot so readily be identified.

“The prosecution relies, in a great degree, on the proof that will be offered in connection with this piece of money, to establish the guilt of the prisoner. We are aware that, when this piece of money was found on her person, she affirmed it was hers; that she had been possessed of two such pieces, and that the one seen in Mrs. Goodwin’s stocking had been a present from herself to that unfortunate woman.

“Gentlemen, if persons accused of crimes could vindicate themselves by their own naked statements, there would be very few convictions. Reason tells us that proof must be met by proof. Assertions will not be received, as against the accused, nor will they be taken in her favour. Your own good sense will tell you, gentlemen, that if it be shown that Dorothy Goodwin possessed this particular piece of gold, valued it highly, and was in the practice of hoarding all the gold she could lay her hands on lawfully; that the said Dorothy Goodwin’s residence was burned, she herself murdered by a savage and cruel blow or blows on the occiput, or head; that Mary Monson, the prisoner at the bar, knew of the existence of this little stock of gold coins, had seen it, handled it, and doubtless coveted it; residing in the same house, with easy access to the bedside of the unhappy couple, with easy access to the bureau, to the keys which opened that bureau, for its drawers were found locked, just as Mrs. Goodwin was in the habit of leaving them;—but, gentlemen, if all this be shown to you, and we then trace the aforesaid piece or coin to the pocket of Mary Monson, we make out a prima facie case of guilt, as I conceive; a case that will throw on her the onus of showing that she came in possession of the said piece of coin lawfully, and by no improper means. Failing of this, your duty will be plain.

“It is incumbent on the prosecution to make out its case, either by direct proof, on the oaths of credible witnesses, or by such circumstances as shall leave no doubt in your minds of the guilt of the accused. It is also incumbent that we show that the crimes, of which the prisoner is accused, have been committed, and committed by her.

“Gentlemen, we shall offer you this proof. We shall show you that the skeletons of which I have spoken, and which lie under that pall, sad remains of a most ruthless scene, are beyond all question the skeletons of Peter and Dorothy Goodwin. This will be shown to you by proof; though all who knew the parties, can almost see the likeness in these sad relics of mortality. Peter Goodwin, as will be shown to you, was a very short, but sturdy man, while Dorothy, his wife, was a woman of large size. The skeletons meet this description exactly. They were found on the charred wood of the bedstead the unhappy couple habitually used, and on the very spot where they had passed so many previous nights in security and peace. Everything goes to corroborate the identity of the persons whose remains have been found, and I regret it should be my duty to add, that everything goes to fasten the guilt of these murders on the prisoner at the bar.

“Gentlemen, although we rely mainly on the possession of the Dutch or Italian coin, no matter which, to establish the case for the state, we shall offer you a great deal of sustaining and secondary proof. In the first place, the fact that a female, young, handsome, well, nay, expensively educated, coming from nobody knows whence, to go nobody knows whither, should suddenly appear in a place as retired as the house of Peter Goodwin, why no one can say, are in themselves very suspicious. Gentlemen, ‘all is not gold that glitters.’ Many a man, and many a woman, in places large as New York, are not what they seem to be. They dress, and laugh, and sing, and appear to be among the gayest of the gay, when they do not know where to lay their heads at night. Large towns are moral blotches, they say, on the face of the community, and they conceal many things that will not bear the light. From one of these large towns, it is to be presumed from her dress, manners, education, amusements, and all belonging to her, came Mary Monson, to ask an asylum in the dwelling of the Goodwins. Gentlemen, why did she come? Had she heard of the hoard of Mrs. Goodwin, and did she crave the possession of the gold? These questions it will be your duty to answer in your verdict. Should the reply be in the affirmative, you obtain, at once, a direct clue to the motives for the murder.

“Among the collateral proof that will be offered are the following circumstances, to which I now ask your particular attention, in order that you may give to the testimony its proper value. It will be shown that Mary Monson had a large sum in gold in her possession, after the arson and murders, and consequently after the robbery, but no one knew of her having any before. It will be shown that she has money in abundance, scattering it right and left, as we suppose to procure her acquittal, and this money we believe she took from the bureau of Mrs. Goodwin—how much, is not known. It is thought that the sum was very large; the gold alone amounted to near a thousand dollars, and two witnesses will testify to a still larger amount in bank notes. The Goodwins talked of purchasing a farm, valued at five thousand dollars; and as they were known never to run in debt, the fair inference is, that they must have had at least that sum by them. A legacy was left Dorothy Goodwin within the last six months, which we hear was very considerable, and we hope to be able to put a witness on the stand who will tell you all about it.

“But, gentlemen, a circumstance worthy of all attention in an investigation like this, is connected with an answer to this question—Who is Mary Monson? What are her parentage, birthplace, occupation, and place of residence? Why did she come to Biberry at all? In a word, what is her past history? Let this be satisfactorily explained, and a great step is taken towards her vindication from these most grave charges. Shall we have witnesses to character? No one will be happier to listen to them than myself. My duty is far from pleasant. I sincerely hope the prisoner will find lawful means to convince you of her innocence. There is not one within the walls of this building who will hear such a verdict, if sustained by law and evidence, with greater pleasure than it will be heard by me.”

After pursuing this vein some time longer, the worthy functionary of the state showed a little of that cloven foot which seems to grow on all, even to the cleanest heels, who look to the popular voice for preferment. No matter who the man is, rich or poor, young or old, foolish or wise, he bows down before the idol of Numbers, and there worships. Votes being the one thing wanted, must be bought by sacrifices on the altar of conscience. Now it is by wild, and, half the time, impracticable schemes of philanthropy, that while they seem to work good to the majority, are quite likely to disregard the rights of the minority; now they are flourishes against negro slavery, or a revolution in favour of the oppressed inhabitants of Crim-Tartary, of the real state of which country we are all as ignorant as its inhabitants are ignorant of us; now, it’s an exemption law, to enable a man to escape from the payment of his just debts, directly in the teeth of the sound policy, not to say morality, that if a man owe he should be made to pay as long as he has anything to do it with; now, it is a hymn in praise of a liberty that the poet neither comprehends nor cares to look into farther than may suit his own selfish patriotism; and now, it is some other of the thousand modes adopted by the designing to delude the masses and advance themselves.