Brown's party arrived at the Hicklan home at midnight, forced the door open, and with pointed revolvers intimidated Hicklan, and proceeded to plunder the establishment. Mr. Gill, who appears to have been in charge of the ethics of the occasion, says, that in spite of his efforts to restrain the men, they took practically everything that was in sight. "Some of our men," he said, "proved to be mere adventurers, ready to take from friend or foe as opportunity offered." This statement, by one who knew whereof he spoke, is the clearest exposition of the character of Brown's thefts that has been made. The robbery on the night of December 20, 1858, was his final transaction of that character. All of the property stolen by him during that night belonged to pro-slavery men. Therefore, Mr. Gill's knowledge that "some of their number were mere adventurers, ready to take from friend or foe as opportunity offered" could not have been derived from their conduct on this occasion. The statement is explicit evidence that Brown and his men were not moved or controlled by any sentiment relating to slavery; or by any political bias in their thefts, but that they were common thieves, operating under the protection of Free-State sentiment while they robbed and plundered Free-State men and pro-slavery men, without discrimination as opportunity offered. It may be said, in general terms, that all horses look alike to a horse thief. It is the horse, _per se_, that appeals to the thief, rather than the political affiliations of the owner. In the absence of competent testimony to the contrary, it would be said, promptly, of Brown, that he was an exception to this rule, as well as to all other rules, that control human actions; that he was moved by loftier motives than those which control the actions of the ordinary horse thief; that he confined his plundering to pro-slavery men, and robbed them, only, as a private duty, by and with the consent of the Almighty. But this direct evidence against him, and the men whom he controlled, is competent and quite conclusive. It has been said that Brown made restitution to Hicklan of some of his property. But that statement belongs in the class of a long line of personal statements, that have been put forward from time to time, in palliation of the enormity of Brown's crimes, or in attempts to justify them, or in efforts to make it appear that he was engaged in an unselfish warfare against slavery. Mr. Villard swept away a lot of this rubbish by the keen logic of his exposition concerning many of the stories which were made current about the Pottawatomie matter. So this statement, about returning to Hicklan some of his property, and Mr. Gill's statement that the raid on the night of the 20th, was inspired by the "Jim Daniels story," belong in the same general class of rubbish. Mr. Hicklan stated, in 1888, that nothing that was taken was ever recovered. He said: