This text is part of:
[115]
the King.
Before his election to the new Council, he had been appointed one of the judges of the Superior Court.
His associate, Judge Sewall, in his Journal, thus refers to his appointment: “Tuesday Dec. 6, [1692.] A very dark cold day; is the day appointed for chusing of Judges.
Wm. Stoughton Esq. is chosen Chief Justice, 15 votes (all then present): Tho. Danforth Esq., 12: Major Richards, 7: Major-Genl. Winthrop, 7: S. S.,1 7. . . . . This was in Col. Page's2 rooms, by papers on Wednesday, Xr. 7th, 1692.”
3 “Dec. 8, Mr. Danforth is invited to dinner, and after pressed to accept his place.”
This place, which he seems to have accepted with some hesitation, he retained through life, and presided in a court at Bristol, less than two months before his death.
It is due to the reputation of Danforth, to state emphatically, that he was not a member of the court which tried and condemned the unhappy persons accused of witchcraft.
That special Court of Oyer and Terminer, appointed by Governor Phips and his Council, May 27, 1692, consisted of William Stoughton, John Richards, Nathanael Saltonstall, Wait Winthrop, Bartholomew Gedney, Samuel Sewall, John Hathorne, Jonathan Corwin, and Peter Sargeant;4 and it completed its bloody work before the next December, when the Superior Court was organized, of which Danforth was a member.
Notwithstanding he held no judicial office during this period (except that he was one of the first Justices of the Peace and Quorum), the name of Danforth has often been very improperly associated with the witchcraft tragedy.
Even Savage, familiarly acquainted as he was with the history of that period, was so forgetful as to say that he was appointed “in 1692, judge of Sup. Court for the horrible proceedings against witches.”
5 The only connection he had with those proceedings, so far as I have ascertained, is mentioned by Hutchinson.6 Before the arrival of Governor Phips, he presided as Deputy-governor, over a Court of Assistants at Salem, April 11, 1692, for the examination of accused persons,—not for their trial.
There is no evidence that he was satisfied with the result of that examination, which, according to Hutchinson's account, seems to have been conducted chiefly if not entirely by Rev. Samuel Parris.7 On the
3 Two days, it seems, were devoted to this selection of judges.
4 Council Records. It is said that Saltonstall left the court, being dissatisfied with its proceedings.
7 Mr. Poole says,— “Mr. Parris on no occasion was employed to examine the accused. At the request of the magistrates, he took down the evidence, he being a rapid and accurate penman. On the occasion mentioned in the next paragraph, Danforth put the questions, and the record is, ‘Mr. Parris being desired and appointed to write out the examination, did take the same, and also read it before the council in public.’ ” —Gen. Reg., XXIV. 395. Mr. Upham also says,— “The deputy-governor first called to the stand John Indian, and plied him, as was the course pursued on all these occasions, with leading questions.” —Salem Witchcraft, II. 102. But, after quoting from Hutchinson a part of the examination, Mr. Upham adds,— “I would call attention to the form of the foregoing questions. Hutchinson says that ‘Mr. Parris was over-officious: most of the examinations, although in the presence of one or more magistrates, were taken by him.’ He put the questions. They show, on this occasion, a minute knowledge beforehand of what the witnesses are to say, which it cannot be supposed Danforth, Russell, Addington, Appleton, and Sewall, strangers, as they were, to the place and the details of the affair, could have had.” —Ibid., p. 104. For this reason, even if there were not many others, it seems most probable that the “leading questions” were put by Parris, and not by Danforth.
Boston. Houghton and Mifflin. 1877.
Tufts University provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.