of a man without the consent of his conscience, it is an audacious
government, and is taking a step towards its own dissolution. Is
it not possible that an individual may be right and a government
wrong? Are laws to be enforced simply because they were made? or
declared by any number of men to be good, if they are not good?
Is there any necessity for a man's being a tool to perform a deed
of which his better nature disapproves? Is it the intention of
law-makers that good men shall be hung ever? Are judges to interpret
the law according to the letter, and not the spirit? What right
have you to enter into a compact with yourself that you will do
thus or so, against the light within you? Is it for you to make
up your mind,--to form any resolution whatever,--and not accept
the convictions that are forced upon you, and which ever pass
your understanding? I do not believe in lawyers, in that mode of
attacking or defending a man, because you descend to meet the judge
on his own ground, and, in cases of the highest importance, it is
of no consequence whether a man breaks a human law or not. Let
lawyers decide trivial cases. Business men may arrange that among
themselves. If they were the interpreters of the everlasting
laws which rightfully bind man, that would be another thing. A
counterfeiting law-factory, standing half in a slave land and half
in free! What kind of laws for free men can you expect from that?

I am here to plead his cause with you. I plead not for his life,
but for his character,--his immortal life; and so it becomes your
cause wholly, and is not his in the least. Some eighteen hundred
years ago Christ was crucified; this morning, perchance, Captain
Brown was hung. These are the two ends of a chain which is not
without its links. He is not Old Brown any longer; he is an angel
of light.