friend, brother from the arm of brother. There the father takes the last look at the body of his cherished son. There the dot ing mother, day by day and night, moistens with her tears the clod that embraces her darling infant in its bosom. "Stoics may reason, philosophers may speculate, the hardened may scoff, the thoughtless may smile, but there is a voice from the grave that speaks, that will be heard, in every human heart. But awful as is this fear of death, the grave, and the future, the history of our race illustrates nothing more clearly than that man is still prone to error and crime. Arson still applies the midnight torch; burglary still breaks stealthily into our dwellings; insati ate lust still preys upon the young and beautiful; murder still stalks abroad unde tected and unpunished. Hence, gentlemen, you see at a glance the very foundation of our criminal law; it is based upon the necessities of our condition; it is founded upon the very first principle of moral ethics, and is designed to be in subserviency to the laws of God. The rule of ethics is that every man is entitled to do what he pleases, so long as he does not interfere with or trespass upon the rights and equal privi leges of others. Hence, our laws, both civil and criminal, are based upon the neces sities which arise from social organization, or from the very idea of government." The trial of William Radcliffe, a black smith, for the murder of David Ross, cre ated more feeling than did that of Mary Ann Wheeler. Mr. Arnold defended Rad cliffe, and although the case for the State was represented by able counsel, secured his acquittal. While the evidence in this case was mainly circumstantial, the proofs seemed so convincing that the trial judge, when he asked the foreman of the jury if that was their verdict, being one finding the
defendant not guilty, and being answered that it was, was induced to reply: "Then may God have mercy on your consciences." Mr. Arnold excelled in his conception of defenses in criminal cases, and in his exe cution of them as well. It is said, too, although very skillful in the examination of witnesses, he never was abusive, and he treated them and the Court and opposing counsel with the utmost deference and re spect. Mr. Arnold was the chief counsel for the defendant in the trial of the impeachment of Judge Levi Hubbell before the Wiscon sin Legislature in 1853. The case was vigorously, it might be said with truth that it was bitterly, prosecuted, and was vigor ously defended. Mr. Arnold's defense was masterly and he secured the acquittal of his client. Judge Hubbell was charged with "corrupt conduct in office and with crimes and misdemeanors, " as provided by the constitution of the State. There were, how ever, eleven distinct charges in the articles of impeachment, and sixty-nine specifica tions. It was the first and only impeach ment of a public officer under the constitu tion, consumed more than a month in its trial, was thoroughly exhaustive on both sides, and was conducted with great ability. It is not the purpose of the writer to go into the history of this case, which is but little less notable than that of the impeach ment of President Andrew Johnson. The limitations of space forbid that. But there are some things in Mr. Arnold's arguments in both of them, which appear so eminently sound, that the opportunity to present some of them cannot be entirely ignored. Mr. Arnold had not proceeded far in his opening argument before the Senate of Wis consin, which, by the way, followed the opening argument for the managers and their testimony-in-chief, when he said:
