CO' ' -t c: ccc< ^^ S5:>^?<0c: r ifcc c MEMORIAL //>^ C/«xf of 1901 . <: ^ cxcc«r^ re otrcc rccotrcfc t<< •^.. <;.K\ X< CC * ^;;'^ 7>r «-<: <--«r c CiCCC In the criminal court of the District of Columbia, No. — John H. Surratt. j And thereupon the defendant saith the said motion is bad in law and in sub- stance. The facts stated do not constitute any ground in law for a challenge of the array. BRADLEY & MERRICK, For Defendant. Mr. PiERREPONT. We join in the demurrer. Mr. Merrick. When the motion was made on yesterday, the high respect that I entertained for the learned counsel upon the other side induced me to ap- prehend that it involved a question of some difficulty, especially in view of the assurance, which I was exceedingly glad to hear given by the United States dis- trict attorney, that the motion was not for the purpose of delay, but upon an exam- ination of the question my apprehension of any difficulty involved in it as a legal proposition was speedily removed, and I beg to suggest to my learned brothers upon the other side, and your honor, that if there is anything in the motion, and it should prevail as a valid objection to a petit jury, the same ob- jection will apply to the grand jury that found the indictment, and on the deci- sion of your honor, should it be to sustain the ground of challenge to the petit jury, we may deem it expedient to change the plea of not guilty and to plead specially to the indictment. It is therefore, in point of substance, as to the re- sult not so very material to the prisoner, for the success of the motion of my learned i'riends on the other side may put him at large. It is somewhat remarkable that the objection now presented to the regularity of the manner in which this jury was drawn should be presented for the first time at this late day. Since the passage of the act of 1862, as Mr. Douglass tells us, the jurors have been uniformly drawn, and the lists iiniformly prepared in the same manner in which the list of this jury was prepared, and in the same manner this jury was drawn ; and if this jury is illegally constituted, and not authorized to return a verdict, your honor has been dealing somewhat inconsiderately with the lives and liberties of the citizens of this country ever since 1863, when your honor came upon the bench. You have hung one man and sentenced scores to the penitentiary, and you are now to be gratified with the intelligence that in all these acts in the taking of human life you were guilty of simply killing, and in all these adjudications inflicting the penalty of incarceration you have pronounced upon ofienders, you are guilty of participation in the act of folse imprisonment. A pleasing reflection to your honor, and a matter for serious consideration for the jurors who participated with you in these crimes. But I apprehend there is no such result following from a just construction of this statute, and I shall very briefly submit to your honor the views that have suggested themselves to me. The first question that avises is upon the construction of the statute. My learned brothers upon the other side contend that the selection of the names that are to be deposited in the jury box is a duty devolving by the law upon the register of Washington city, the clerk of Georgetown, and the clerk of the levy court of the county, and that this duty must be performed by all three conjointly, and that a part of this duty having been performed by one of the three, the duty TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 19 •was illegally performed, and the conclusion of that duty are null and void. Your honor will observe that the first section of the act provides : " That it shall be the duty of the register of Washington city, and of the respective clerks of the city of Georgetown and the levy court of Washington county, in the District of Columbia, within one month after the passage of this act, and on or before the first day of February in each year thereafter, to make a list of such of the white male citizens, tax-payers, residing within their respective jurisdictions as they shall judge best qualified to serve as jurors in the courts of said District." This requirement of the law is addressed to these officials respectively. The register of Washington is to make a list of such of the white male citizens, tax- payers, as he thinks best qualified to serve as jurors. So far as the making of the list itself in the first instance is concerned, it cannot be pretended that any part of the duty in regard to it has devolved upon any one else than the register as to the list of Washington, the clerk of Georgetown as to the list for Georgetown, and the clerk of the levy court as to the list for the county, and in the prepara- tion of that list there is a discretionary power left with these several officers to ^ be exercised by each severally, independent of the other within the territory over which the law requires him to perform his duty. The register of Wash- ington has to select from the white male citizens of Washington, tax-payers, such persons as he may think in his judgment best qualified. Your honor will ob- serve that the law does not say that he shall select all that are qualified. It does not say what proportion of those that are qualified he shall select. It does not say how many shall constitute his list, but it provides that he shall make a list of those he deems best qualified ; and in the execution of the duty imposed by this law he is required to leave out some, because he cannot select those who are best qualified, without leaving out those who are more indifferently quali- fied. So with the clerk of Georgetown — so with the clerk of the levy court. In this first section, then, there is no pretence, there is no ground to maintain that the duty imposed upon these officers is to be performed by them conjointly. The second section provides "that the officers aforesaid shall select from the list of theregisterofWashingtonthenamesof four hundred persons ; fi'onithatofthe clerk of Georgetown eighty persons, and from that of the clerk of the levy court forty persons, which proportion after the year 1863 may be varied from year to year," &c. My learned brethren, while they will concede, and must concede the posi- tion advanced in regard to the meaning of the first section, contend that the second section, however, imposed the duty of selecting from the list prepared in obedience to the first section upon the three officers conjointly. They admit, and must admit, that each officer must prepare his own list, but they say that after the list is so prepared by each officer severally, the three are to meet together and conjointly select the number required, from the list so prepared. I submit to your honor that the same construction which applies to the first section must also apply to the second ; that the clear and distinct language of the first, aids in relieving the apparent obscurity of the second, and the several duty designated to be performed by these officers severally in the first section, re- mains a several duty to be performed by them severally under the second section. Each officer has to select from the list he prepares the number of names he is re- quired to have drawn from each list, and I submit to your honor, that the other officers — the clerks of Georgetown and of the levy court — have nothing to do with the selection to be made from the list prepared by the register of Washington. The law has selected three officers of three distinct corporations ; the corporations of Washington, Georgetown, and the county are distinct. The law has selected these three officers, and these three distinct corporations, to perform certain duties within their corporate limits, and relating to the cor- porators. It has imposed the duty upon these officers because they are pre-, sumed to know better than anybody else of the qualifications and character of the corporators among whom they live, and it would be a most remarkable 20 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. thing if the law should require an officer of the corporation of Washington to enter into the corporation of Georgetown and perform a duty of this character in regard to the corporators of Georgetown. It would he a remarkable thing if the laAV should require an officer of the corporation of Washington, about whom and about whose official position there is nothing to justify the presumption that he is acquainted with the qualifications and character of the citizens of the county, to go into the county and make from among its citizens a selection of a portion of them who are to perform the high and responsible duties of jurors ; but it would be in perfect accordance with reason, common sense, justice, and law, to require the clerk of the levy court of Washington county, who lives in the county, is familiar with the corporators of the county, to select from among those corporators, the persons who are to perform this delicate office, and it is to be presumed from the relation in which these officers stand, that one can in no way aid or assist the other. The reason why they are brought together is, that in the particular of the jury, the jury is to constitue the jury for the three cor- porations, but in order that it should be wisely and judiciously selected, it is to be selected by the men best competent to make it, most likely to be familiar with the people among whom the selection is required to be made — by the officer of that particular corporation. But, your honor, it is not necessary that in this case I should take this ex- treme position in the construction of the law. My second position is, that the three officers, if the construction of my learned brethren be correct, did con- jointly perform the duty of selecting from these lists. On yesterday, when it became apparent from the statement of Mr. Douglass, made in addition to his affidavit, that that affidavit was not entirely accurate, and*that when the jnror names were deposited in the jury box, all three of these officers were present, I objected to the further inquiry as to what particular judgment was exercised by the one or the other in the selection of the names so deposited. My learned brethren on the other side suggested to me that the argument or view I then ex- pressed was applicable to the main question, and should be expressed as an argument upon the main question, and not upon the question of evidence. What- ever might be the view of this statute when that fact was developed, it struck me instantly that my learned brethren on the other side would see at once there was no ground upon which to rest their motion. 1 supposed, although I had never examined the question at all, that when Mr. Douglass stated these three officers were present at the time, my learned brethren on the other side had been misinformed by the affidavit which they had, and that when the fact was de- veloped that all these officers were present acting together in depositing names in the jury box, it was information that would satisfy them that there was no ground for their motion. My reason for so supposing was this familiar principle, that where three individuals are required by law to perform a qt/asi judicial duty, or a discretionary duty, and the duty is performed, you cannot go back beyond the performance of the duty to inquire how far it was performed by each of the three. Your inquiry is stopped the very instant the fiict is developed that the three were present and participated in the duty imposed upon them. How far it appears of what share he had, how far the judgment of one guided the other, and what passed in consultatiim, are not matters of inquiry by your honor. This board, if board you call it, have rights as well as courts. They are entitled to legal presumption as well as the court, and it is the first time in my professional experience, that I have ever seen the attempt made to inquire how far one of the several parties aided in the perfonnance of the duty that was imposed upon them conjointly when it was shown that all were present. The statement of the question is so plain that argument would only tend to obscure. ' I suggest to your honor, as a third consideration, that we are not now inquiring whether these parties (these officers of the law) performed their duty strictly in accordance with requirements of the law, but we are inquiring how far failure TRIAL OP JOHN H. SURRATT. 21 to comply with these requirements vitiates what was done — two very distinct questions ; and I maintain that even if this officer failed to comply in every par- ticular with the strict requirements of the law, and yet the duty was performed, that while they may be liable for a failure to (jbey and observe the law, the act they have done is a valid and binding act. The statute nowhere declares that the p.anel shall be void. The statute nowhere declares that their action shall be nugatory. It directs certain things to be done, and is Avhat is known to the law as a directory statute. As your honor is aware, the courts have gone to a great extent in construing these directory requirements of the law, with a view to uphold what may have been done under the law. I refer the court to Sedg- wick on Statutory Law, from page 37 i to page 377, for a very full collection of cases bearing upon this point. 1 cannot gather from the case decided any fixed general principle, sufficiently clear and distinct, and state to your honor without reference to special cases, other than this, that whenever the court can construe the law as directory, whenever they can uphold the validity of what is done under the law, although not done in conformity to the law, it will construe the statute to be directory. And it has upheld the validity of what has been done, even while punishing the officer for a failure to comply with the mandates of the law. I read from page 377. " By a paving act, commissioners were empowered to enter into contracts for the work, provided that no contract should be made for any longer term than three years ; and the act then went on to declare that ten days' notice of proposals should be given ; that the contracts should specify the work, the price, and the time of completion, and should be signed by at least three of the commissioners, and that copies should be kept. It was held that the proviso as to the term of the contract was imperative, but that all the other clauses Avere merely direc- tory, (Tindal, C. J., saying: "The act says that the contract shall be signed by the commissioners, &c. ; it does not say that they shall be void unless so signed,") and that a contract was good without them. Here it is obvious that provisions inserted by the legislature for the protection of tax-payers, were nul- lified by a judicial decision. * * * 5|c s|c Jj; " In Massachusetts, where a statute required the assessors to assess a tax within thirty days after the vote of the tax being certified to them, it was held that the naming the time for the assessment was to be considered as directory to the as sessors, and not as a limitation of their authority. So in New York, where a school-tax was voted at a meeting of which no notice was given as required by statute, and afterwards levied, the act was held to be directory merely, and the tax to be well laid. A statute requiring a tax to be assessed, and the tax-list therefore to be made out by the trustees, and a proper warrant attached thereto within thirty days after the district meeting in Avhich the tax shall have been voted, is merely directory as to time. * * * * 5fC # " Indeed, the rule has been carried so far as to hold where a statute directed the vote of the common council of the city of New York to be taken by ayes and nays, that the provision is merely directory. And, again, it has been de- cided that the provision of a statute requiring inspectors of corporate elections to take an oath is only directory. The rule has also been applied to popular elections ; an election has been held valid, though the inspectors were sworn not ou the Bible but on some other book, though the}-^ kept open the polls after the time fixed by law, and committed other minor irregularities." This, then, will show to your honor the disposition of the courts to uphold the validity of what may have been done by an officer even where he has not strictly complied with the requirements of the law. The requirements of every law are mandatory and should be obeyed, and he who disregards them must disregard them at his peril. But where the law itself does not declare that to be void which 22 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. he is required to do, and lias not done, in strict accordance with the requirements of the statute, and the doing of the tiling afifects other parties and the puhlic interests. The law will uphold the act as valid, but may punish the officer as derelict in his duty. The general principle thnt statutory provisions may, in certain cases, he treated as purely directory has been recognized in all the States." In regard to capital trials for murder in Michigan, a statute, requiring a circuit judge to assign a day for the trial, has been held clearly directory so far as time is concerned." In this case the statute imperatively required that a day should be assigned for the trial of the capital cases ; the statute was made in favor of the prisoner, in favor of life, and yet the courts uphold the action of one of its officers acting thus in a manifest disregard of this charitable and mandatory requirement of the law. But I do not deem it necessary, as I stated in regard to the first position, to maintain the third to the extent to which I have carried it. The second, as I have indicated to the court, is conclusive upon this subject. These men were present doing the act, and you cannot inquire into what part was done by one and Avhat part by another. It is their act. The list of jurors Avas placed in the box by them, and the certfiicate is signed by thi'ee men. They have therefore ratified by their OAvn signature what was done; they have, by their subsequent act, declared that this box was made up according to law. Now I ask my learned brethren upon the other side to answer me this question : Suppose thi'ee men were to meet together in conclave — suppose the clerk of Georgetown and of the levy coiirt had said to Mr. Douglass, take your list and make out from your list these men from Washington that ought to go in this box, and he had done it, and conjointly Avith the others deposited the names in the box, would your honor come into court and say these men had not performed the duties charged upon them as quasi oi&cial duties? Unquestionably not. But, say my brethren upon the other side, he made out no list. He did make a list, call it by Avhat name you please. He made out four hundred names of those he regarded as best qualified in the city of Washington ; he was not required to make any more. The number of individuals who should be upon that list or who should compose it Avere matters exclusively within his oavu discretion, and when he made out four hundred names it was an exercise of his discretion in the selection of men best qualified to serve as jurors. But I am consuming time unnecessarily, for the case is definitely settled by the judges of England in their unanimous opinion in the famous case of Daniel O'Connell. I refer to 11 Clark and Finnelly, page 167. Daniel O'Connell being indicted of high crimes and misdemeanors, applied his challenge to the array of jurors, and your honor will perceive that the refusal to grant him the ben- efit of the challenge to this array was a A'ery hard and possibly a very harsh one. The challenge of the defendant, Daniel O'Connell, was as follows . " And the said Daniel O'Connell thereupon, in his own proper person, challenges the array of the said panel, because, he says, that at the special sessions heretofore holden in and for the county of the city of Dublin on the 14th of November, 1S43, before the right honorable Frederick ShaAV, recorder of the said city, for the purpose of examining the list of jurors for the said city for the now current year 1844, pursuant to the statutable enactments in such case made and pro- A-ided, the clerks of the peace in and for the said city duly laid before the re- corder divers, to wit : Twenty lists theretofore duly furnished to the clerks of the peace by the scA-eral collectors of grand jury cess within the city, in that be- half duly authorized to make such lists, containing or purporting to contain a true list of every man residing Avithin their respectiA-e districts." Now, your honor, the law under Avhich this challenge was interposed, and ac- cording to the requirements by which it was expected to be made aA'ailable, pro- vided the clerks of the peace for the city of Dublin should lay before the re- TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 23 corder certain lists whicli were to be furuislied to the clerks of tlie peace by the several collectors of the grand jury cess. The lists were to be made by the col- lectors of persons qualified to act as jurors. The collectors having made out the list were to furnish them to the clerks of the peace, the clerks of the peace were to furnish them to the recoi'der, the recorder was to certify to the qualification, and from these lists the jury book was to be made out, and from the juiy book the sheriff was to collect the panel. This was the law. Now the challenge set forth what I have read to your honor, and goes on to say : "And that the said several lists respectively were at the special sessions duly corrected, allowed, and signed by the said recorder, pursuant, &c. ; and that the several persons whose names are hereinafter mentioned were then and there adjudged by the recorder to have the qualifications hereinafter named, and that the names of the several persons were then and there contained in the said seve- ral lists so corrected, allowed, and signed as aforesaid." Your honor will observe you have now got your list from the collectors of the grand jury cess to the clerks of the peace, from the clerks of the peace to the recorder, and your lists are certified and approved by the recorder. He goes on : "But that the recorder did not, as by the said statutable enactments is directed, cause to be made out from the said several last-mentioned lists one general list containing the names of all persons whose qualifications had been so allowed, arranged according to rank and property ; nor did the recorder thereupon, or at all, deliver such general list containing such names to the clei'ks of the peace, to be fairly copied by the said clerks of the peace in the same order as by the said statutable enactments is directed, but on the contrary thereof omitted so to do ; and that a certain paper writing, purporting to be a general list, purporting to be made out from such several lists so corrected, allowed, and signed as afore- said, was illegally and fraudulently made out by some person or persons un- known ; and that the said paper writing, purporting to be such general list as aforesaid, did not contain the names of all the persons whose qualifications had been allowed upon the correcting, allowing, and signing of said lists as aforesaid by the recorder, but omitted the names of divers, to wit, fifty-nine persons." Following your list then from the collector of the grand jury cess and clerks of the peace to the recorder, and the recorder having, as your honor ob- serves, approved and ratified these lists, it then appears that the recorder failed to make out a general list and make a copy of the list which he had approved, but that some unknown party made out a list omitting fifty-nine names that were upon the lists approved by the recorder, and that this had been done fraudulently and illegally. "And the said Daniel O'Connell further says that the several persons whose names were so omitted from the fraudulent paper writing, purporting to be the general list, were, at the time of the return of the collectors' lists, and at the time of the special sessions, and still are severally residents within the said city, and were at the several times, aud now are, duly qualified to be, and should and ought to have bc-en placed upon the general list ; and that from the fraudu- lent paper writing purporting to be such general list as aforesaid, a certain book, purporting to be the jurors' book of the said city for the current calendar year, 1844, was made up and framed." Your honor will see that the jury book was formed from this fraudulent list, and that on that ground the challenge was interposed. The demui'rer was filed conceding all the facts — conceding that the lists made out had not been made up by the recorder, that it had been made up by some person unknown, that it h:ul been fraudulently made up for this case, and that from the very list thus fraudulently made up the jurors' list had been taken, and the jury had been summoned by the sheriff. The court below sustained the demurrer. The case went up to the House of Lords, aud the lords called upon the judges of England for their counsel. The 24 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUREA.TT. judges of England were unanimous in favor of the demurrer, and the lords co-operated with them. The opinion held by Chief Justice D. Tindal. giving the unanimous judgment on the part of the judges will afford to your honor an easy and clear solution of the difficulty presented to you here, while the lord chancellor in giving his opinion coincides with Chief Justice Tindal, and eluci- dates the subject, as I think your honor will say, to your entire satisfaction. I beg leave to read from a portion of Chief Justice Tindal's opinion. On page S32 your honor will find the question propounded by the lords and the judges. The question is this : "Is there any sufficient ground for reversing the judgment on account of the judgments of the court overruling and disallowing the challenges to the array, or any or either of them, or of the matters stated in such challenges?" On page 247 Chief Justice Tindal in his opinion says : " The answer to the sixth question (ante, p. 232) Avill depend upon the princi- ple upon which the law allows a challenge to the array of a jury. The only ground upon which the clialleuge to the array is allowed by the English law, is the unindifferency or defeult of the sheriff. But no want of indifferency in the sheriff, nor any defoult in him or his officers was assigned for the cause of chal- lenge upon this occasion. "The array of the panel is challenged in this case upon the ground that the general list from which the jurors' book is made up, had not been completed in every respect in conformity with the requisites of the statutes, but that, on the contrary, the names of fifty-nine persons duly qualified to serve on the jury for the county of the city of Dublin, were omitted from the general list, and from the special jurors' book of the said county, but the challenge contains no accusation against the sheriff, or any of his subordinate officers. The challenge by each of the defendants alleges in deed, " that a list, purporting to be a gen- eral list, was illegally and fraudulently made out, by some person or per- sons unknown ;" and the challenge by Mr. Steele states further, " that the names were left out for the purpose and with the intent of prejudicing the said Thomas Steele in this cause, by some person or persons unknown;" but neither in the one case nor in the other is the most distant suggestion that the sheriff is in fault. The sheriff therefore being neither unindifferent nor in default, the principle upon which the challenge to the array is given by law, does not apply to the present case. The statute has, in fact, taken from the sheriff that duty of selecting jurymen which the ancient law imposed upon him, and has substi- tuted instead a new machinery in the hands of certain officers, by whom the list is to be prepared for the sheriff's use." I beg here in this connection to call your honor's attention to one particular feature of this opinion of the learned judge, reasoning upon the doctrine that the only cause of challenge is unindifferency or default on the part of the sheriff. My learned brother on the other side will see that the sheriff has nothing to do with the selection of the jurymen. The statute having taken from the sheriff that duty anciently imposed upon him, and placed it in the hands of other offi- cers by whom the list is to be prepared for the sheriff's use; and yet, although it appeared that the list prepared by these officers was substituted for another improperly and fraudulently ; still the challenge was not allowed, because the only ground of challenge must be unindifferency or default on the part of the sheriff. Here we have a similar substitute of machinery, the statute having taken from the marshal the selection of the jury and placed it in the custody of other officers in a manner very much analogous to the law of England. There the assessors were to furnish the list to the clerks of the peace, the clerks of the peace to the recorder, the recorder to make out a clear list the jury book, and a copy of that list to be placed in the hands of the sheriff. Here the clerk of Georgetown, of the levy court, and the register of Wash- ington are to prepare certain names and put them in a box, which box is to be TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 25 placed in charge of the clerk of the supreme court to be sealed up. From that box the jurors are to be drawn, and return is to be certified by the clerk of the crim- inal court. The sheriff has nothing to do with all this. There tlie challenge is made because the jury book was not prepared in conformity to law ; here be- cause the jury box was not prepared as alleged in strict conformity to the law. The two stand precisely alike so far as the preparation of the juiy book there and the jury box here is concerned. The chief justice goes on : " If the sheriff, when the jurors' book was furnished to him, had acted im- properly in selecting the names of the jury from the book, such misconduct would have been a good cause of challenge to the array ; but that which is really complained of is, that the material of the book out of which the jury is selected by the sheriff", and for which the sheriff" is not responsible, has been im- properly composed. It is not, therefore, a ground of challenge to the array ; and further, it is manifest that no object or advantage could have been gained if the challenge had been allowed, for if the challenge had been allowed, the jury process would have been directed to some other officer, who would have been obliged to choose bis jury out of the very same special jurors' book as that which the sheriff had acted on, for no other was in existence. The same objection might again be made to the jury panel secondly returned, and so totics quoties, so that the granting of this challenge would, in effect, amount to the preventing the case from being brought to trial at all. The very same difficulty might occur in England, if, throiigh accident, carelessness, or design, a single juiy list, directed to be returned by the overseers of any parish within the county, were not handed over to the clerk of the peace, or if a single name should have been omitted in any list actually delivered to the clerk of the peace. The jury book must necessarily in either case be deficiently made up. But if deficiency were allowed to be a ground of challenge to the array, the business of every assize in the kingdom might effectually be stopped. That there must be some mode of relief for an injury occasioned by such non-observance of the directions of an act of Pai'liament, is undeniable ; but the only question before us is, Avhether it is the ground of challenge to the array ? and we all agree in thinking it is not, and therefore we answer this question in the negative." I will not detain the court by reading from the opinion of the learned lord chancellor, for he pursues the same course of reasoning as that pursued by Chief Justice Tindal, and coincides in the opinion I have read. He says : " If the sheriff is unindiflferent, to use the legal expression, if he is not equal between the parties, that is a ground of challenge to the array. If he is guilty of any default in returning the jury, that also is a ground for this species of challenge. Those are the only grounds of challenge to the array. They are of a personal nature, and are confined to the sheriff" or other officer, whoever he may be, by whom the jury is returned." I do not mean to say there is anything peculiar in the character of the sher- iff that makes him specially liable in the particular mentioned in this opinion, but it is the officer who makes return that must be guilty of unindifferency or default ; but the opinion goes to the extent that a challenge of the array is only proper where there is a default of the officer Avho makes the return of the par- ticular jury, and not of the officer who selects the particular jury. There ought to be, and there is a remedy where the jury book or the jury box lias not been properly prepared, but it is not a remedy by challenging the array. That remedy applies only where the officer making the return of the particular petit jury has been guilty in selecting that particular jury. I respectfully submit, therefore, that if this case in England is law, there is no difficult question before this court. And if it is not, there is no difficult question, because, as I have said, those men were present in the discharge of their duty. And I further state, that if cognizant of the fact that there is a defect in thi^ 26 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. jury (if there be a defect) and we go to trial, we thereby waive any advantage that we might otherwise be entitled to in consequence of that defect. The learned counsel on the other side, yesterday seemed to suppose it was not competent for us to waive that advantage. I find the rule to be that wherever a jury or juror is liable to challenge and a verdict is found, even in a capital case, the party cannot take advantage of any defect in the jury unless he was ignorant of th-. defect before he went to trial, and unless it so appears upon record. It is necessary that he should make affidavit to the fact that a knowledge of the incapacity of the juror came to him after the trial. If he had that knowledge before the trial, he will not be permitted to allege it in support of a motion for a new trial. I may be allowed to suggest also to your honor, that this motion is not founded upon any alleged incapacity of the jurors themselves ; it is simply upon the warrant on which they were selected. It is possible — it is unquestionably true, that if it were founded upon any incapacity of the individual jurors — if it were founded upon the absence of any of the legal qualifications prescribed for jurors, the motion might be entertained by the court. But it is not because of any legal disqualification of any of the jurors composing the panel, but simply because they have not been brought here in the way the gentlemen think they ought to have been brought. I hope the. United States is looking for the attainment of justice in this case ; I trust nothing may be developed in this case looking towards anything else. I trust the government will tread the high and honorable path which leads to the attainment of simple, and I may add, speedy justice. And entertaining this hope, I suggest to your honor, whether it is probable a jury against whose qualification nothing is alleged, who were summoned without regard to this case, and before it was anticipated it might be tried, are not better fitted to do justice than another summoned in anticipation of the case — a case not of an ordinary private nature, but one of great public interest, in which, while the United States as a government, I trust will tread in the highways I have spoken of, there are individuals occupying offices in that government who may be disposed to tread lower paths, through which we will have to follow. May it please your honor, I shall say no more upon this motion than to add that after the most careful examination I have been able to give to it, the honest conelusiou to Avhich I have come is, that the ground, probably, upon which the motion rests, is to be found in the act of 1853, page 160, 10 Statutes at Large, which act provides that where a criminal case is on trial in this court, and a jury has been impanelled, and another term begins during the progress of the trial, the cause shall continue ; but leaves it exceedingly questionable whether, unless the jury is fully impanelled before the end of the term, the cause can be tried. That other term begins on IMonday next, and unless a jury in this case is impanelled before Saturday night it is questionable whether this case will be tried for many days or many years. Mr. PiERREPONT. May it please your honor ; when learned and eminent counsel arise in a solemn manner to address the court, I always suppose them to be sincere. 1 have no doubt that the learned and eminent gentleman who has just taken his seat is not only sincere, but earnest in the extreme, in his desire to prevent the success of this motion. The logic of that sincerity will be apparent when I quote the beginning of his s'peech. He says : " If this motion prevail, then the grand jury which found this indictment was illegal, and it puts my client at large." Now, I suppose, my learned friend came here to put his client at large. Mr. Merrick. By the verdict of a jury. Mr. PiERREPONT. If not, Avhy is he here? I conceive that he is not here for any other purose than to put his client at large. If the motion that we have made, he says, prevail, his client is at large ; and yet he talks an earnest hour to your hon- or in order to have you deny this motion, and thus prevent his client being at large. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 27 Let us see what all tins means. It is a very cxtraordino.iy spectacle, truly, to have a lawyer, earnest in the defence of his client, rising and telling your honor, that if the very thing we ask is done his client is free ; and yet exerting himself with an earnestness and an ingenuity which is commendable, to prevent his client from gaining his liberty. It is something new in the administration of justice. I fimcy, your honor, that I have a right to infer either that he is not sincere in believing that the success of this motion would set his client at large, or else he will have to meet this extraordinary result, that he does not wish to have his client at large. Mr. Merrick. Will the learned counsel allow me a moment ? I merely wish to say in reply to the first suggestion, M-liich he is now eliminating, that I desire my client to be set at large by the verdict of a jury. IMy judgment is that if this motion prevail, this indictment ftxUs ; but the blood-hounds of the law may still track him for another indictment. I desire him to go forth from this court- room free from accusation and protected for the future. Mr. PlEKRBPONT. Well, then, your honor, the reason is that he wants him tried by a jury, and that is exactly what we want. I called your honor's at- tention yesterday to die section of the statute now before me, that whenever there is a failure from any cause with regard to a jury, the marshal shall summon good and lawful men under this law to exercise that high function ; and we yesterday proposed, in order that no delay might be had, that the marshal should proceed to summon a jury, and if they choose to say so, we will without another word say, let the marshal proceed, under your honor's direction, to subpoena a jury and biing them into this court to try this case. They will discover before we progress much further, that the United States are as zealous, as earn- est, and as eager, to try this cause as the other side; and they will discover before it is through that the public mind will be set right with regard to a great many subjects about which there have been such active, numerous, and un- founded reports. Since I have been here in this city for these past few days, has it been circulated in nearly all the journals of this country, that the United States dared not bring forward the diary found upon the murderer of the Presi- dent, because that diary would prove things they did not want to have known. All these things will be proved to be false, and all the papers, about the sup- pression of which so much has been said, will be exhibited here on the trial of this case. We are anxious that it should be proceeded with at once. It has likewise been circulated through all the public jom-ujils, that after the former convictions, when an effort was made to go to the President for pardon, men active here at the seat of government prevented any attempt being made, or the President being even reached for the purpose of seeing whether he would not exercise clemency; whereas, the truth, and the truth of record which will be presented in this court, is that all this matter was brought before the Presi- dent and presented to a full Cabinet meeting where it was thoroughly discussed ; and after such discussion, condemnation and execution received not only the sanction of the President but that of every member of his Cabinet. This and a thousand .)tlier of these ffilse stories will be all set at rest forever in the pro- gress of this trial ; and the gentlemen may feel assured that not only are we ready but that we are desirous of proceeding at once with the case. If your honor please, it is inconceivable to the human mind that mortal man can be placed in a more solemn position than in coming before a court and a jury where a fellow mm is to be tried for his life for tlie murder of another. More than ordinarily solemn is this great occasion. On the 14th of April, 1865, a crime was committed that shocked the whole civilized world ; a crime against human b'fe ; a crime against the laws ; and a crime against our beloved govern- ment. Men have suffered death for that crime, and one, who is now the prisoner at the bar, by the grand jury of your District, has been found to have been en- gaged in that great crime. He is here to be tried. We hope he will be tried 28 TRIAL OF JOHN H SURRATT. and in a way that is decent and becoming, with all the solemnities and with all the forms of law; that he will be tried justly and ftiirly ; and we desire that the jury who shall sit to try him shall be a jury brought here, accorling to all the forms of law, so that when they shall render their verdict, whether that verdict be acquittal or condemnation, this whole country and the entire civilized world, who will read that verdict will know and feel that the man has b(!en tried fairly, that he has been tried justly, that he has been tried by a judge of high moral character and great legal learning, that he has been defended by able counsel, and that the verdict, for him or against him, has been pronounced by honest jurors who are brought here in all respects according to the law. This motion is made for the purpose that when this trial shall take place, it shall be in such a way that all men everywhere shall see it has been such a trial as the occasion requires, that it shall not be a mockery and a sham, and that the prisoner shall not be tried by jurors who are not legal triers, but by jurors that are brought here under the laws of the United States, fit and proper men to try this case as the law directs. My learned friend while making the assertion to your honor that the preva- lence of our motion would set his client at large, at the same time urges your honor to deny this motion, and says that we cannot look into the acts of this jury, nor into the statutes which direct how a jury shall be empanelled or how they shall be selected, and cites a case from England, which I shall presently call to your attention, in relation to the sheriff of England. Permit me to say that in looking at your laws, I discover that the sheriff has no more to do with this jury than the clerk of the Senate of the United States. Neither the sheriff, nor the marshal occupying the place of sheriff, has any responsible duty in re- lation to the empanelling of this jury. Now I call your attention to the law, and I submit to your honor that when a man is to be tried for his life, if the verdict is to be of any validity, he must be tried according to the law. In this country and in England from which we derive our notions of liberty, ever has the law been jealous of human life, and so jealous that I believe it to be a well- settled principle of law that no stipulation of counsel and no stipulation of the prisoner ever could allow him to be tried by twelve men and convicted and ex- ecuted upon such a verdict. The law of public policy is that the man who is to be tried for his life shall be tried in all respects according to law ; that the judge who tries him shall sit according to the law ; and that the Avitnesses shall be sworn and testify according to the rules of law ; and the jurors who are to bring in their judgment upon such a man are to be selected in the way that the law directs ; and if selected otherwise the verdict is good for nothing. Let us see what the statute says about it — the statute under which these jurors have any power whatever to try this prisoner. Save for this statute these jurors have no more right to sit in judgment than jurors from the city of New York or from the city of London. What does the statute say ? Let me read it : " Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in (hngress assembled, That it shall be the duty of the regis- ter of Washington city and of the respective clerks of the city of Georgetown and the levy court of Washington county, in the District of Columbia, within one month after the passage of this act, and on or before the first day of February in each year thereafter, to make a list of such of the white male citizens, tax- payers, residing within their respective jurisdictions, as they shall judge best qualified to serve as jurors in the courts of the said District." Now what is required by this law in the very first section ? That the jurors shall be white male citizens, tax- payers, of this District, otherwise they cannot be jurors. Now let me ask my learned friend if he had come into this court and discovered that every juryman sitting in these seats was a negro, and he had made the motion we have now made, and I had risen and said to him, " You cannot set aside this panel because you have heard the evi- TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. 29 dence bore of these men who selected it, and you cannot go behind wliat the}'- say about it." What would my learned friend say to the argument ? Suppose I took his own ingenious and excellent argument and turned it against himself, what would he say to it? Would he think it a good argument if every man who sat there was a negro? Would he not turn me to this statute and say " of the white male citizens," and then turn to your honor and say, "Arc these white male citizens, every man of whom is a woolly-headed African ? [Laughter.] He cannot meet that suggestion ; and the case is precisely parallel to the one at bar. Mr. jMerrick. If my learned friend will allow me to ask him a question Mr. PiERREPONT. Any. Mr. Mkrrick. Does the learned gentleman include in his motion challenging this array any objection to the personal qualification of these jurors 1 Mr. Pierrepont. I most assuredly do. Mr. jMerrick. I was not aware of it. Mr. PlERREPOiNT. They are just as much disqualified as though they were negroes. The statute says they shall be "white;" and the statute says they shjill be "tax-payers;" and the statute says they shall reside within this Dis- trict. We find they are not a jury of tax-payers, and they are not a jury of negroes; but they might just as well have been tax-payers and negroes, for on inquiry of my learned friend, the district attorney, I am informed that you have in your District negroes who are tax-payers. If these, then, had been tax-paying negroes, they would have been just as well qualified as white non-tax-payers, and there is no getting rid of it. Let us see what further the statute says on this subject. I am only in the beginning of it. Those are the men that the law says are to be selected as jurors. I repeat, let us see what further it says. And they may put in " the names of such qualified persons as were on the list the previous year, but who did not serve as jurors ; and the lists thus made of the register and clerks afore- said shall be kept by them respectively and be delivered to their successors in office." These three men shall make their lists of tax-payers who are white in these three districts. What shall they do Avhen they get together ? The officers aforesaid shall select from the list of the register of Washington city the names of four hundred pci-sons. That is what these three men are to do. This board, as my learned adversary calls it, and very justly, are to select first from the list of the n gister of the city of Washington four hundred names. Let us start there. Did they select from the register's list of the city of W^ashington four hundred names ? He tells you that they never selected one name, and that he never had there a list, first or last. When I asked him on the cross-exam- ination here yesterday, after they had brought him here, " Did the others even see the rolls of the names that you put into the box?" He said "No." " Did you see any that they put in?" He said "No." And you will find it so appears on the record. What was the object of this law ? The register of the city of Washington was to bi-ing the list of tax-payers whom he deemed qualified. The clerk of the levy court was to bring his list of tax-payers M'hom he judged to be quali- fied. The clerk of Georgetown was to bring his list of tax-jmyers Avhom he thought to be qualified. And this board, thus together, was to select first from the register's list of the city of Washington the names of four hundred persons, from that of the clerk of Georgetown eighty, and from that of the clerk of the levy court forty. Did these three men select from the list of the register of Washington four hundred ? They never selected a man, and that evidence is perfect and complete. Did the three select from the list of the clerk of George- town eighty persons ? Not a man. Did this board select from the list of the clerk of the levy court forty ? Not one. Now, there was some reason for this law, was there n(;t ? The object of it was to have a fair jury. This statute was passed by the Congress of the United States for the govern- 30 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. ment of this District, in Avhicli it was known when the statute was passed that there were persons of a variety of views in relation to the great public questions. It was known that in this city there were a great many men who did not sympathize with the government. There were others who were its bitter enemies. There were others who were zealously in its favor. There were the strongest abolitionists on the one hand, and on the other those who believed in and favored slavery. Every grade and class of political opinion and of moral view and religious notion existed in this city when this statute was passed, as it does today, and Congress was anxious that jurors should be so selected that Avhen men came to be tried in this District they should feel that they were to have a jury without prejudice, and a jury in the selection of which more than one man had been engaged. That they could have a jury, after the list had been prepared, of the kind of men that the statute required, the strict provisions of which I have just read. Now, I appeal to your honor if, under the evidence before the court on the demurrer which admits it, one single requisite has been complied with. I ask your honor, suppose that these men had selected any sort of men they had pleased, men who were not residents, and, as I before said, men who were negroes, Avould that have been a good jury ? Suppose the clerk of the Senate and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee had met together to select jurors and put their names in the box, and then afterwards the clerk had drawn them out, would that have been a good selection of the jury ? It would have been just as good as this. It would have been just as strict a com- pliance with the law as this is. "Why have any law about it ? Why not say, " Let the register and these men go and do as they please about it." The law was made surely for something. Let us see what further provisions they made to guard against any fraud or any partiality in relation to the selection of a jury. " The names selected from said lists shall be written on separate and similar pieces of paper, which shall be so folded or rolled up that the names cannot be seen, and placed in a box." Were the names written on these pieces of paper taken from those lists ? Not a name selected by this board was taken from these lists ; but these three dif- ferent persons selected, and neither ever let the other know, as the evidence shows, what he had selected. Not a man knew any except such as were his own ; and the register of this city did not even know his own, for his own clerk, as he says himself, rolled up the names and put them in. "And they shall be placed in the box to be provided by the register and the clerks aforesaid, which box shall be sealed, and after being thoroughly shaken shall be delivered to the clerk of the circuit court of Washington county for safe keeping." Let us see whether that part of the law, under this evidence, was complied with. The box was not sealed, as the evidence shows. It was not sealed or delivered to the clerk. That is a very important provision. If the box was delivered to the clerk unsealed, why, your honor knows, there might be a clerk dishonest — I do not wish to be understood as making any such suggestion here, on the contrary, very far from it — but there might be a clerk or a deputy clerk, or some one connected with the office, who might see fit to stuflP that box with other names for other motives ; and, therefore, to provide against this, it is enacted that this box, by these men who compose this board, shall be sealed and thoroughly shaken, and after it is thus sealed and thoroughly shaken it shall be delivered to the clerk of the circuit court. The evidence is that when this box was de- livered to the clerk of the circuit court it was unsealed. Can it be said and urged to your honor that these men, intrusted with the performance of this high duty, can properly disregard every one of these requirements ? I submit to your honor, and will prove by this evidence before I am through, that from the first step they took to the last they did so disregard them. Not one single act did they do that was not in violation of the statute. Nexti " that the said register and clerks and the clerk of the circuit court TRIAL OF JOHX H. SURRATT. 31 shall, at least ten days before the commencement of each term of the circuit or of the criminal court, meet at the City Hall of Washington city, and then and there the clerk of the circuit court shall publicly break the seal of said box, and proceed to draw therefrom the names of so many persons as are required." There is another requisition: That these men, that this board of three, should thus select the jurors and put their names in a box, seal it up and deliver it to the clerk, shaken and sealed; and a very important jirovision it is, as your honor will see. ISuppose, for any bad motive — no such motive do I attribute in this case, but make the supposition simply as an illustration of the point of law that I wish to bring- to the attention of the court — suppose, from any motive of par- tiality or interest, one of these gentlemen forming the board saw ht, in drawing from the box, to draw names which were in his hand instead of the names in the box. The law provides that he shall not have that opportunity ; that he shall not draw them, but that the clerk of this court shall draw the names. Now, what is the evidence ? It is that one of this board, the clerk of Georgetown, drew the names, and not the clerk of this court. The clerk of Georgetown had no more right to draw these names than my learned friend, the district attorney; and drawing them, he was doing that which made it an illegal draft of this jury, directly contrary to the law. Law is not supposed to be made in folly, or in nonsense. Congress makes this solemn provision that these names shall be drawn by the clerk, who is not one of the board, but a totally different man, after the box containing the names shall have been delivered to him, shaken and sealed ; yet one of this board draws the jury. That is the evidence before us, and uncontradicted. Let us Bee what further provisions are made in relation to this matter. It was evidently anticipated by the Congress which passed this law that a contingency might arise in which it might become necessary to set aside the array and order a new panel, and, in order to meet that contingency, they have made provision for it in the section which I will now read; and I will just say that my learned friend, in reading from this case in England, read what the learned judge there said in relation to their law ; that their law did not allow them to go behind the sheriff in relation to the matter, and he gave as one good reason why the sheriff's selection should not be set aside, that there was no other earthly mode prepared in England by which they could proceed to the trial of any case. My learned friend read it from the report, some portions of which I shall have occasion, in a moment or two, to cite to your honor. Mr. Bradley. Will you be kind enough to repeat the remark just made ? I was otherwise engaged at the moment, and did not hear it. Mr. PiKRRRPONT. I say that one of the reasons that the Lord Chief Justice Tindal gave as a good reason for setting aside the selection of jurors in England was, that if that motion were granted, there would be no mode by which they could get a jury to proceed with the trial of causes, Mr. Bradley. Oh, yes; I now understand you. Mr. PiRRREPONT. Now, in our case no such reason can be assigned. The statute does contemplate just such an emergency, and has made a provision for it. It provides, in section five, that " if a jury be required for the circuit court, the twenty-six persons whose names shall first be drawn shall constitute the jury for that term ; and the names of the persons drawn as aforesaid shall not be again placed in such box for a period of two years. If any person whose name is so drawn shrJl have died, or has removed from the District, or has becDmo otherwise disabled from serving as a juror, the said register and clerks shall draw from the box the name of another person who shall serve instead ; and after the requisite number of jurors shall have been so drawn, the said box shall be again sealed and delivered to the clerk of the circuit court, as aforesaid." Immediately following that provision is section 7th, Avhich says that "in case either of the ofiicers whose duty it is to make out the lists aforesaid shall ne- 32 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. gleet or refuse to act, or in case either of them shall be interested in any action or proceeding pending in the said circuit or criminal court, the chief judge of the circuit court shall appoint a fit and proper person to discharge the jury instead; and if the persons selected as jurors do not attend, the court may order the marshal to summon other respectable tax payers, possessing the other legal qualifications, to swpply the deficiency ; but if at any time there should not be, by reason of challenge or otherwise, a sufficient number of jurors to make up the panel, the court shall order the marshal to summon as many talesmen as are necessaiy for that purpose." Now, if the persons selected as jurors do not attend, the court may order the marshal to summon other respectable — what? "Other respectable tax-payers, possessing the other legal qualifications, to supply the deficiency." In the first section it states what the legal qualifications are — " to be tax-payers, and to pos- sess the other qualifications." The seventh section provides that, in case of failure from any cause, the court shall direct the marshal to summon as tales- men other respectable tax-payers, possessing the other legal requisites ; and the marshal, under the direction of the court, shall thus prepaie the list of other re- spectable tax-payers, &c. Congress seemed, therefore, determined that in no event should justice fail, and that no such reason could be given by your honor as was given by Chief Justice Tindal, that there could be no other mode of pro- ceeding. The thing is complete ; there is no difficulty whatever in the matter. Con- gress has provided, first, that it shall be done in a particular way; that a par- ticular kind of persons, and those only, shall be the jurors, and that they shall be Selected in a certain manner and drawn in a certain manner ; and then, to avoid the possibility of a failure of justice, they say that, if from challenging or from a7iy other cause, a sufficient number may not be had, the court shall order the marshal to make the selections from the proper persons having the legal qualifications, so that all these questions will lie quite outside of this case, and power in the court is complete. There is no cause or reason for delay ; it may ])e done now and forthwith, and the sooner it is done the better. I take it for granted that my learned friends want it to be done soon. They want to go ou "with the case. We are as anxious as they to go on with it. There is one argument which was made by the gentleman in the early part of his remarks to which I desire to call to the attention of the court, and that is this, that if this jury is an illegal jury, why, then, other men have been convicted here illegally. He urged it with much earnestness, that that was a reason, if you had been going on in an illegal way, why you should continue to do so. I think that, on reflection, my learned friend will not consider that argument sound. If you have been doing illegal or immoral or any other Avrong acts, the time to stop is when you first make the discovery, and not to say, " We wall continue it, because w^e have always done it." Your honor knows when we made some attempt to civilize the Indians, and an Indian chief was reproved for murdering his enemies, and was told that it was unchristian and wrong, he said he had always killed his enemies, and insisted that, therefore, he should still kill them. An immoral woman of the Sandwich islands, too, whom our missionaries attempted to convert to virtue after marriage, urged as a reason for continuing her mode of life, that she had always been so doing as she was then. My learned friend read from page 247, of Clark & Finnelly's Reports. Let us see what that case was. The question came up for this judge to answer; and the answer he gave to the sixth question was — in England they have a statute upon the subject it seems ■ Mr Bkauley. I beg your pardon. * Mr. Pi ERR H PONT. They have a statute in England to which he alludes. I am coming to that in a moment. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. 33 Mr. Mf.uuick. I thouglit you stated that there was a statute iu regard to the grounds uijon which a challenge would he allowed. Mr. I'lHRUKPONT. Oh, no, sir; the statute upon wliich this was based. The answer of the learned juflge was: "the only ground upon which the array is allowed by the Knglish law is the vnintUjf'creiiruf or dtjauit of the s/icrijf. But no want of indifference in the sheriff, nor any default iu iiiin or his officers, was assigned for the cause of the challenge upon this occasion." That was the end of the case. It ought to have been the end of the case. This word " unindifFerency," which I see the learned judge uses here, is cer- tainly a new word to ine — I never saw it before. I suppose, however, it is a good one. 3[r. Mi.hruk It is habitually used in that connection throughout the law. Mr. PlKRRKPttNT. 1 say I suppose it is a good word; but it is not one that I am accustomed to. Uf course, we understand w hat it means. Now, the only ground to the challenge of the array that is allowed by the English law is the "unindifferency or default of the sheriff." That being so, it does not need much comment. Ihconlygroundupon which the law allowed a challenge was not pretended to exist, as the learned judge said. Iht-refore there was no necessity for spending a great deal of time upon a case like that. Of course, that would end the case. It did not need so much learning or argument as the learned judge and the lord chancellor seem lo have given to it ; but from the notoriety of the case, and from the magnitude of the subject involved, which was then made a political affair, they saw fit to give it a great deal of consideration, and gave as reasons why they should not undertake to set aside this panel the ftict that they had no possible way of having justice administered, no other mode of getting a jury. It was not pretended in the challenge, as the judge said, that the legal ground and the only legal ground upon which there could be any complaint pre- dicated existed. Therefore, of course, the motion was denied. And in this case, if there is no ground for it, of course the motion will be denied. If there is ground for it, 1 take it the motion will be granted. In this case, we act under the laws of the United States directly — under a statute. It is a principle of the common law, well known and understood by all lawyers and all men, per- liaps, that it lies in the discretion of the judge to construe the law ; it is not only in his discretion but his duty to see that the law over which he is called to preside is properly administered. Your honor is placed iu your high posi- tion in this court for the purpose of giving construction to this statute ; for the purpose of seeing that the laws of Congress relating to this District and this court over which you preside are executed. This is not an mnneaning statute. The reasons of it are apparent upon its face, and when Congress passed it it was understood that this statute was to be obeyed, and that when a man was to be tried for his life, or when he was to be tried for any felony, or any lesser crime or misdemeanoi-, or for anything else, the jurors who were to try him were to be selected hy law, and that no irregularity, informality, or defect in that se- lection should be passed lightly over by the judge who {)resides. But it is his duty to see that the law is atbninistcred, if it be called to his notice; and if the statute has never before been called to your notice, of course your honor has not passed upon it. As I learn from my associate, the district attorney, and as 1 infer from what the learned counsid on the other side have said, this question has never here arisen before. Of course, therefore, it is no man's fault; it has not been thought of. These men proceeded in their own way. They thought they would take their way to get a jury, instead of the way of the law. They chose to tread in their own path ; to be a law unto themselves ; to say," We will fix up a jury as we please," reckless of the law. It is your honor's duty to see that a jury is selected iu the way that the law directs, and that is all we ask. We are ready now to proceed to trial ; we are desirous that the trial shall be 3 34 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. proceeded with, and we ask and urge that this other provision of the statute by which your honor is empowered to dii'ect the marshal to summon a jury for the purpose of trying the cause shall be enforced, and that a jiuy shall be empan- elled, in order that we may be permitted to proceed to trial at the earliest day that such jury can be selected. And we see no reason why it may not be to-morrow as well as any distant day, so that any so-called reason of delay is not a reason; so that any alleged reason of the failure of justice is a false reason. The statute has provided for all these things, and it lies in your honor to enforce it ; and when the facts have been presented before the court; when it is shown that the statute is not complied with, and when it appears that the law has provided that a jury may be selected by your honor's direction in case of previous failure, I, for one, cannot for a moment imagine that your honor will not direct that the law be complied with, or that you will allow subordinates to exercise their own whims or notions, to set aside the solemn statute of the law. This is a case such as your honor has never tried, such as your honor never will again try ; such as has never been before tried in this country, and such, we hope, as never will be tried again. It is the first civil trial for the murder of a President of the United States ; the first civil trial for the great crime of an attempt to destroy the government of the United States; one of that class of crimes which shock the whole world. Many people Avho despaired of the republic have doubts whether you can, before a civil tribunal, obtain a just and honest trial, a fair and impartial verdict in a great case like this. Therefore this case possesses a weight and magnitude such as purely no other case in this country ever had. It is in fact not simply the trial of a man for his life ; it is in a measure a trial whether we can get a jury legally empanelled to try assassins and murderers of the President of the United States, who attempted to throw our country into confusion and anarchy, and who designed all the hor- rors to follow their act which the human mind can conceive. It is to be seen whether such trial can be fair, whether justice can be done. All of us who have read anything of history or who have reflected upon human nature, know that civil society will protect itself. They know, if the civil courts and the verdicts of juries cannot administer justice, that society, as in France and in other coun- tries where the necessity has arisen, will be driven to take refuge in the gloomy despotism of military power. God deliver us from that ! we want to show before our countrymen and before the world, that an honest jury of this District will give an honest verdict ; that we can have a fair trial before an impartial court; and we believe that when the jury thus selected are brought together to try the cause, they will give a verdict with which our countrymen will be satis- fied — and that is all we want. Mr. Bradley. If your honor please, I know no case in which it has been my fortune to be engaged heretofore in which I rose to discuss a question of law with deeper interest than I feel now. The temptation is very great to be led away from the true question submitted to your honor for your decision, and it is ex- ceedingly difiicult to resist following the course which has been pursued upon the other side by discussing, not questions of law, but by presenting considera- tions to the court which should have no influence upon any judicial mind. We are told that a jury is to be empanelled to try the assassm of the Presi- dent. It would have been better to have said him who has been charged with being concerned in that monstrous crime. Mr. PiBRREPONT. Excuse me; I think my learned friend could not have heard all the language I used. I said, as found by the grand jury. Mr. Bradley. That observation escaped my attention. There are, if the court please, other inducements which are hard to resist, that lead me to make some commentaries upon the course pursued by gentlemen on the other side ; but time is too precious, for I desire to have this discussion closed in time to receive the decision of your honor to-day, that if this motion is overruled and the demurrer TRIAL OF JOHN 11. SURRATT. 35 sustained we may at once proceed to impanel a jury, and if it is not and thoi-e is any other movement of delay on the part of the prosecution, that wo may be pre- pared to meet every dilatory process as soon as it arises. We are in earnest, we desire to have this party ti'ied now, we desire to have him tried by a jury omni exceptione. mnjores, against whom not a breath has been uttered by any counsel who has addressed the court since the commencement of these proceed- ings, by a jury empanelled according to the form of law which has prevailed since the passage of the act under which it is empanelled — a jury above challenge for qualification — a jury conceded to have been selected by honest men with honest ])urposes, without reference to this trial — a jury standing, if a jury can stand, impartial in view of such an event as has been referred to — a jury standing impartial between the govcrinneut and the accused. We desii-e that th(! inten- tion of the act of Congress shall be carried out, which Avas to take from the marshal of this District the power to select jurors ; we desire, if possible, to avoid the selection which may be made of talesmen, for Ave know too well the conilition of society here ; we desire to have such a jury as has been impanelled under the circumstances in which this jury has been summoned, admitted to be free from all exception. Rut again I take issue with my learned friend on the other side. We desire to have a jury that can try the case now ; for if we do not try it now, no jury under that statute can be summoned or returned until next February. The condition in which the marshal is to be called in to summon talesmen cannot arise, because there has been no panel returned, and therefore no panel can be exhausted, and until a panel has been returned and has been exhausted by some process of law, the authority of the marshal to summon tales- men is out of the question. The predicate is that a panel shall have been ex- hausted. If there is no panel, there is no predicate, and if that is no predicate, the marshal cannot summon. We are sincere, if your honor please, in endea- voring to bring this question to an issue now. Our brethren claim and we accord to them the same sincerity. We may have done them injustice in sup- posing this was interposed for delay; we may have done them injustice in sup- posing that at this late stage of the term and after so many years of experience this process of selecting a jury was first discovered to be wrong. I hope we did. But there is a graver view uf this question which has not been touched by the counsel on the other side, nor by my learned brother who preceded me. We have been told that it is an obligation of common law that the courts shall en- force statutory provisions ; but there is a higher and a holier duty, that courts shall not make law. The counsel on the other side seek b}' this motion to prevail upon your honor to make a law. We have no statute upon the subject of challenging the ai'ray. We stand upon the common law of England, the common law of the State of Maryland, the common law engrafted upon the laws of the District of Columbia, the common law which must stand unless repealed or modified by the statute, common law which is as binding upon the judgment and conscience of this court as though it were statute law. Now, sir, what is that common law ? Can any man, lawyer or not, doubt what that common law is when be reads or has heard read the case of O'Oonnell and the Queen ? Can any man doubt that by the common law of England, the only challenge to the array was for default in the man charged with the summoning ofthe jury ? The prepara- tion of the list of jurors was not cause of challenge. If any case can bring this case directly to judicial decision, that case of O'Connell does. There was fraud and illegality charged directly upon the party making out the jury book, which was admitted on the record as being fraudulent and illegal, and the courts say in such a case as that there is no such remedy as a challenge of the array. They say admit that it sounds harsh and tyrannical : what of that ? It is the law of the land, and they go back to the year books of Edward II and Edward III where it was laid down by Lord Cook that the challenge to the 36 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. array cannot be allowed, exce])t for partiali'y in the person snramoning the jury. Whether there are other remedies or not is not for me to say. Whether there are other remedies which in this instance the United States might have pursued is not for me to say. 1 say it is laid down by that highest and greatest court of the present time, a court composed of the fitteen judges of England, that by the common law a challenge to the array can only go to tlie disqualification of the officer making the summons and return. Ko human ingenuity can escape the conclusion of that case. Argument is vain. It is like buffeting the light waves against a great rock, ii falls back in spray. There is the solid basis, the deci- sion of the fifteen judges of England, the most solid basis upon which we can rest the principles of our lih<'rty, the commou law of England. It comes to us under that rule thus strict, thus limited, thus defined, hoary with age, baptized in our own revolution, the common law of England. Now, for the purposes of this case your honor is asked to make a new commou law. I appeal to your honor to vindicate the common law of England, and to enforce it. Now, sir, I pass from that to another consideration. When this question was proposed yesterday I conceded that the defendant in this case, according to the current of decisions, could not waive a defect in the empanelling of the jury. I stated, however, that I had seen two well-reasoned decisions the other way. I have since then seen four, and, unless the defect appear upon the record of the case, or unless it shall clearly appear that the party did not know of the dis- qualification or defect, he is as completely concluded as though it were a civil case, and he had, in form, waived tliat right the waiver is conclusive, and I refer my learned brothers upon this point to a case in seventh Wendell — with which one of them at least, Mr. Pierrepont, is perfectly familiar — in which a man in a capital case moved for a new trial on the ground of irregularity in empanelling the jury. The case is found on page 421. 1 read from the opinion of the court : ■ " The revised statutes provide that a jury for the trial of an indictment shall be drawn in the same manner as is prescribed by law for the trial of issues of fact in civil cases, (2 Rev. Stats., 734, 735;) and in civil cases where there is not a jury empanelled in another cause the statute directs that the ballots containing all the names of the jurors returned and appearing at such court, shall be placed together in the same box before any jury shall be drawn there- from, (2 Rev. Stats., 421, §64.) Here, the ballot containing the name of Smith not having been placed in the box before the drawing of the jury commenced, it is said the statute was violated, and the prisoner is entitled to a new trial." The language is so distinct that no one can fail to understand it, yet the requiiemsut was departed from in this case, and this a capital case. I read further from the opinion : " We have several times had occasion to consider the effect of an ommission on the part of the officer whose duty it is to draw and empanel jurors to conform to the precise regulations prescribed by law in that respect, and we have uni- formly held that this statute, like many others of a similar character, is to be considered as directory to the officers merely, and that a neglect to conform to its provisions will not j^er se be a sufficient ground for setting aside the verdict of such jury where the court sees that the party cannot have been prejudiced by it, (5 Cowan, 289. 7 Id., 232.") Now, I would like to know how a party would be prejudiced by trying his case before this jury, but, if your honor please, I can see how he can be preju- diced by summoning talesmen to supply their places. I read further : " Th« 59th section of the same act (2d Rev. Stats., 420,) provides that the clerk ot the court shall cause the names of the several persons r( ferred as jurors by the bheriff, with their respective additions and places of residence, to be written on several and distinct pieces of paper, each in the same manner, as near as may be, and so as to resemble each other as much as possible, and so that TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 37 the names written tlieveon shall not be visible. In Cole and Pony, (6 Cowan, 584,) a motion was made to set aside a verdict on the ground that the ballots coQtaining the names of the jurors were not folded at all, but were put open into the box, in such manner that, the names might easily have been seen by the person drawing them. On the other hand the atfidavit of the clerk who drew the jury was produced, stating distinctly that he did not see the names of the jury until after they were drawn. The motion was denied on the ground that the statute was directory merely to the otiicer drawing the ballots, and that the mistake of the officer in the discharge of his duty, was not a ground for setting aside the proceedings where no injury to the party complaining was shown or pretended. The principle of this case is believed to be fully sanctioned by a great variety of decisions in our own and the English courts." Again, on page 424, he uses this language : " The conclusion from these cases appears to me to be this : that any mere informality or mist tke of any officer in drawing a jnry, or any irregularity or misconduct in the jurors themselves, will not be a sufficient ground for setting aside a verdict, either in a criminal or civil case, where the court are satisfied that the party complaining has not or could not have sustained any injury from it." Again, on pagp* 426 : " The case of King vs. Hunt, (4 Barn and Aid., 430,) bears a strong analogy to the case at bar. That was the case of an information for a libel, before a special jury. Ten of the special jury attended, and two talesmen were sworn, and the defendant was convicted. He moved for a new trial on the ground that the officer had omitted to summon the two special jurymen who had not attended, and it was contended that it was absolutely necessary that all should be summoned ; that the act of parlaiment was imperative, for it required all to be summoned, and if two were omitted, so might any other number. But the court unanimously refused the motion, saying that it would be an alarming principle to establish that a verdict could be set aside because the sheriff had omitted to summon one juryman out of the whole panel; that applications of this sort were addressed to the discretion of the court ; that if the officer had not done his duty he might be punished for it, and if his omission has actually produced prejudice to the party, then the court might, in its discretion, prevent injustice from being done by granting a new trial. In that case, the omission had not been shown to have bren prejudicial to the defendant and therefore the motion was refused. This, I apprehend, is the true rule to be collected from all the cases " He then reviews the case of The People ?'.?. McKay, which was a capital case, and in which the defendant was convicted of murder. " He was then brought into this court by habeas corpus, and the indictment and proceedings against him in the court of oyer and terminer, were also re- turned in obedience to a certiorari, directed for that purpose. Upon the papers thus before the court, the counsel for the prisoner moved an arrest of judgment on the ground that no venire had been issued to surarnou the petit jnry, and it appeared that the venire issued was not under the seal of the court, and that no official return had been made to it by the sheriff. It was admitted by the counsel for the people that the case stood precisely as though no venire had been issued, it having no seal and was, therefore, absolutely void, but they con- tended that no venire was necessary. The only judgment then was whether the judgment could be sustained when the record showed that no venire had been issued." Judge Spencer says : " Inasmuch, then, as the venire was necessary at the com- mon law, and as the statute yet requires it to be issued, the omi-ssion to issue it we must consider an error apparent on the record, and in such a case, affecting life, we do not feel ourselves authorized to dispense with a jjrocess required by the 38 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. commou law, and also l»y tlie statute, altbougli we may not be able to perceive much use iu continuing it." The decision proceeded on the ground that the error was apparent on the record, and the court conld not disregard it. I might refer your honor to other cases equally in point, but these are suffi- cient for my purposes. I therefore say, if the court please, that there is no error apparent on the record of the court in this case. There is no error show- ing any irregularity in making out these list?, in preparing the jury-box, in opening tbe jury-box, in drawing tlie jurors, there is no error of record, and if the case should go to trial advertised as the defendant has been by the pro- ceedings now under consideration, he would be bound by that verdict as effect- ually as if every form of law had been complied with. There is no reason, then, of public justice; there is no reason of public sentiment, lor that has been invoked ; there is no reasv)n affecting the public at large which could make a change in this case from the ordinary course of proceedings since the passage of the act of 1862 necessary or proper, but there is eveiy inducement which can operate upon the mind or conscience of the judge to continue this trial now with this free, unembarrassed, impartial jury, and of not submitting the defendant to all the disadvantages which the act of Congress was intended to remove and subject the defendant to trial by a jury which is denounced by the act of Congress itself. Now, if your honor please, a word only as to the construction of this statute. Mr. PiKKREPOiXT. I understood you to argue that in England there was no statvite having any effect upon the empanelling of the jury. Mr. Bradley. I did not say that. Mr. PlERREPONT. I so understood you. Mr. Bradley. What I stated was, that there is no statute iu England touching the question of a challenge to an array. Mr. PlERREPONT. I so Understood you. That is the very point to which I wish to call your attention. I do so because I supposed you would desii'e to answer it. If you will turn to Chitty's Criminal Law, page 537, you will find challenges are of two kinds : " Challenges for cause are of two kinds : 1st. To the whole array. 2d. To individual jurymen. To challenge the array is to except at once to all the jurors in the panel on account of some original defect in making the return to tbe venire." Mr. Bradley. Now, if the court please, I am very much obliged to the gen- tleman for furnishing me with that. Now, if the gentleman will find me a statute authorizing it, I will be obliged. Mr. PlERREPONT. If you will turn over a page or so you will find it. Mr. Bradley. I will turn to that directly. That is the commou law. If your honor will turn back to the time of second and third Edwards, to the " Year books," you will find that it was common law then. Now I proceed, sir : " It is either a principal challenge or for favor, the former of which is founded on some manifest partiality, and is therefore decisive, while the grounds of the latter are less certain, and left to the determination of triers iu the manner we shall state hereafter. The legitimate causes of a principal challenge are not very numei'ous. Thus, if the sheriff be actually prosecutor, or the party aggrieved, the array may be challenged, though no objection can be taken in arrest of judgment. So, if the sheriff be of actual atfiuity to either of the parties, and the relationship be existing at the time of the return — if he return any individual at the request of the prosecutor or the defendant, or any person he believes to be more favorable to one side than to the other — if an action of battery be depending between the sheriff and the defendant, or if the latter have an action of debt against the former — the array may be quashed on the presumption of partiality iu the officer. So, also, if the sheriff, or his bailiff TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 39 who makes the return, is undin- the distress of the party indicted, or indicted, or has any pecuniary interest in tlie event, or his counsel, attorney, servant, or arhi- trator, in the same cause, a principal challenge will be admitted. And, in general, the same reasons which we have already seen would cause it to he directed to the coroners or elisors, will also be sufficient to quash the array when partiality may reasonably be suspected. For all these causes of sus- picion the king may challenge as well as the defendant." Every one of these are cases personally afPecting the sheriff — every one of them. Now, we go a step further : " But besides these, the default of the sheriff will be sometimes a ground of principal challenge to the array. Thus, if the array be returned by the bailiff of a franchise, and the sheriff return it as from himself, the return will be bad, because the party will lose his challenge, though if the sheriff return one from the liberty, it will suffice, and the lord of the franchise will be compelled to resort to his action against him." Was not that the default of the sheriff? Was it not charged against him that he had failed to discharge his duty, and summoned the commoners, when he was bound to summon the knights i It was the default of the sheriff — his per- sonal misconduct — all of them looking to the default or misconduct of the re- turning officer. The Court. Mr. Bradley, does the default direct itself to the summoning power of the sheriff, or to the selecting power of that officer ? Mr. Bradley. To the summoning power. It refers to both, your honor, but it must be the act of the sheriff. There is a middle stage, sir, and there is where we are to go. The sheriff is the only party who is responsible at the common law, and the statute has failed to provide a remedy under the new act of Con- gress. In England, in the case of O'Connell and the Queen, the statute pro- vided the mode of selecting and making up the jury book, and the whole duty of the sheriff was to select jurors out of that book. There was no charge of mis- conduct against the sheriff, and while all the anterior proceedings were declared to be illegal, yet the court says, "You charge nothing against the sheriff in making his return," and unless you do, this form of redress cannot avail you. The court say they may have a remedy, but the question is as to the form of the remedy. I need not say to this honorable court that the forms of the law are as much of the substance of the law as the law itself. The forms of the remedies to which men resort are just as binding upon them as the highest statu- tory obligations. Courts are bound by the forms which men adopt and deter- mine according to the law respecting those forms. My attention is called to the passage from the opinion ot the Chief Justice in that case: "The sheriff, therefore, being neither unindifferent nor in default, the prin- ciple upon which the challenge to the array is given by law does not apply to the present case." The statute has, in fact, taken from the shei'iff that duty of selecting jurymen which the ancient law imposed upon him, and has substituted instead a new ma- chinery, in the hands of certain officers, by whom the list is to be prepared for the sheriff's use. If the sheriff, when the jurors' book was furnished to him, had acted improp erly in selecting the names of the jury from the book, such misconduct would have been a good cause of challenge to the array. "But that which is really coin})lained of is, that the material of the book out of which the jury is selected by the sheriff, and for which the sheriff is not re- sponsible,- has been improperly composed. It is not, therefore, a ground of challenge to the array. And further, it is manifest that no object or advantage could have been gained if the challenge had been allowed ; for if the challenge had been allowed the jury process would have been directed to some other 40 TRIAL OF JOHN 11. SURRATT. officer, Avbo would have been obliged to choose his jury out. of the very same special jurors' book as that which the sherifF had acted on, for no other was in existence. The same objection might again be made to the jury panel secondly returned, and so tofies quoties ; so that the granting of this challenge wouhi, in effect, amount to the preventing the case from being brought to trial at all. The very same difficulty might occur in England, if, through accident, careless- ness, or design, a single jury list, directed to be returned by the overseers of any parish within the county, were not handed over to the clerk of the peace, or if a single name should have been omitted in any list actually delivered to the clerk of the peace. The jury book must necessarily, in either case, be de- ficiently made up. But if such deficiency were allowed to be a ground of chal- lenge to the array, the business of every assize in the kingdom might effectually be stopped. That there must be some mode of relief for an injury cocasioned by such non-observance of the directions of an act of Parliament, is uncdeniable but the only question before us-is, whether it is the ground of challenge to the array ; and we all agree in thinking it is not, and therefore we answer this question in the negative." That is what we complain of. Mr. PiERREPOXT. We make no complaint of the sheriff. His duty is simply ministerial. Mr. Bradley. It is not, therefore, a ground of challenge to the array that they do complain of. The fifteen judges in England say that is no ground of complaint. The learned gentlemen here say it is ground of complaint. They say it is true thi?t they make no complaint of the sheriff or marshal, because he is only performing a ministerial duty, but they go back to the material out of which the list is made, and the court — the fifteen judges — say that it is not ground of complaint. I admit that my learned friend on the other side has argued this case with great ability, but I take the opinion of these fifteen judges in preference to his argu- ment. These judges, I repeat, say that it is not ground of complaint, while my learned friend says it is ground of complaint. Then, if your honor please, if I am right in my reading of these books — that where the cause of complaint does not exist upon the record, and a man is tried for his life, he cannot take advantage of that defect after his trial, except upon clear proof that he was ignorant of the defect at the time of the trial. If I am right in that, then I say they may proceed to trial at once. The defendant, as he has the right to do, waives the objection, notwithstanding the great value put upon the life of an "assassin." Now, if the court please. I will proceed one step further, and I have already occupied much more time than I allowed myself. In illustrating this law, my learned brother says : " Suppose this board — we will call them a board, though they seem to be a very soft kind of board from what I can understand from the other side, that they did not discharge their duty any better — suppose this board had selected a panel of black men, and the panel had come in, all woolly- headed Africans — well, it would not be agreeable to me I admit — but is there no remedy ? The remedy is not by challenging the array. That is all I have to say on that point. Mr. PiERREPONT. It would not be the sheriffs fault? Mr. Bradley. It would not be the sheriffs fault, and, therefore, it is not to challenge the array. But there would soon be found an entire remedy — very Boon. Suppose they are not tax payers, and they challenge the array, and bring in their evidence to prove the fact that they are not tax-payers. There is no fault on the part of the marshal, and, therefore, they cannot challenge the array by any process known to the English and. the American common law. They may have one, and another remedy, but it does not follow that they have TRIAL OF JOHN IT. SURRATT. 41 the remedy of the challenge of the array; and there is the mi8take, the fatal mistake on the other side. Bat suppose, if your honor pleaso, that tlii.s motion prevail, what then? Tlic learned gentleman, taking up this statute, reads as follows : "SECTroN 5 * * * But in a capital case, where the said panel shall have been exhausted by reason of challenge or otherwise, the court before whom such capital case is pending may, in its discretion, order additional names to be drawn ; and if all the names in tiie box shall have been drawn out and no jury found, the court may order the marshal to summon talesmen until a jury shall be found." And, again : "Section 7. * * * And if at any time there should not be, by reason of challenge or otherwise, a sufficient number of jurors to make up the panel, the court shall order the marshal to summon as many talesmen as are necessary for that purpose." Persons selected as jurors having the same qualifications Mr. PiERREPONT. Tax-payers, and having the other qualifications. Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir; but that is not all. I will read the language of the statute: "And if the persons selected as jurors do not attend, the court may order the marshal to summon other respectable tax-payers, possessing the other legal qualifications, to supply the deficiency." After reading these sections, the gentleman turns back to the first, and says "tax-payers" is used there; "white male citizens" is also used there. He did not, however, read to your honor the eighth section, which prescribes the qualifi- cations of jurors. What are they ? " That no person shall be competent to act as a Juror unless he be a citizen of the United States, a resident of the District of Columbia, over twenty-one and under sixty-five years of age, a good and lawful man who has never been con- victed of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude." Now, the previous sections require that he should be a tax-payer also, and I ask my learned friend to show me where it says he shall be a "white man." Have I not a right then to resist this motion? Is there not every inducement which a white man can have to resist it 1 Mr. PiERREPONT. You will find the term "white male citizen" in the sev- enth line of the first section. Mr. Bradley. Oh ! I know, but that is when the jury is to be listed. When the register of the city of Washington, the clerks of Georgetown, and the county, are to make out their lists they are limited to white men. The District Attorney. Does not that define the description of persons? Mr. Bradley. Yes ; but when the marshal goes to summon talesmen, how is it ? The statute simply says " must be tax-payers, and possess the other legal qualifications." Mr. Pierrepo.nt. The first section speaks of certain qualifications. Mr. Bradley. No, sir; those are exactions, req^uired when the lists are be- ing made out, not qualifications. I think I can see where this thing is drifting. It is not delay that is sought, but they have another motive more powerful than delay. It is to get another jury in the place of an honest jury already summoned. Why, sir, the gentle- man talks about the misgivings in the public prints. I do not know that he has seen what I hold in my hand, an article from this place denouncing this jury because sixteen of them are Catholics, as they say, but there it is — such an article has been written and published in the New York Herald. I know, too, that the same article, published yesterday morning, foreshadows the fact that these gentlemen were to come into court on the day they did, and make the identical motion that they have submitted here. 42 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Mr. Merrick. Aud the writer states the ground of the motion. Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir ; states the ground of the motion. It looks to me as if it came from very near home. Mr. PiRRREPONT. What does it state as the ground of the motion ? Mr. Bradley. There it is, (handing a copy of the New York Herald to Mr. Pierrepont,) just the same ground precisely as was stated here, that it was not a lawful panel. Mr. Pierrepoxt. Oh! (laughingly.) Mr. Bradley. But I do not mean to be led off in this way; and I beg the pardon of your honor for being led away from what is really a very important and grave question, to which we should confine ourselves. I repeat that I do not mean, if I can help it, to be led into the discussion of any outside matters, but will endeavor to confine myself to the pure proposition of law. Now, sir, let us look at this statute. The act of 1862 says : " It shall be the duty of the register of Washington city, and of the respective clerks of the city of Georgetown, and the levy court of Washington county, in the District of Colum- bia, within one month after the passage of this act, aud on or before the first day of February, in each year thereafter, to make a list of such of the white male citizens, tax-payers, residing within their respective jurisdictions, as they shall judge best qualified to serve as jurors in the courts of said District, in which lists may be included, in the discretion of the officer making the same, the names of such qualified persons as were on the list of the previous year, but did not serve as jurors, and the lists thus made out by the register and clerks aforesaid shall be kept by them, respectively, and be delivered over to their successoi's in office." That is the duty of these parties. But when the polls ai'e exhausted, when the jury box, or the panel is exhausted, drawn from the jury box, then the marshal shall go out and summon " other respectable tax-payers, possessing the other legal qualifications, to supply the deficiency." And then the very next clause is : " And if at any time there should not be, by reason of challenge, or otherwise, a sufficient number of jurors to make up the panel, the court shall order the marshal to summon as many talesmen as are necessary for that pur- pose." Then in the next section it is provided : " That no person shall be competent to act as a juror unless he be a citizen of the United States, a resident of the District of Columbia, over twent3''-one and under sixty-five years of age, a good and lawful man, who has never been convicted of a felony," and so on. Now, sir, I agree that these officers in selecting their jurors are to confine them- selves to " white male citizens," but I say when that panel is exhausted, aud the marshal goes out from this court to summon talesmen, he has to summon citizens of the United States, between twenty-one and sixty-five years of age, tax-payers, resident in the city of Washington. Mr. Pierrepont. He is confined to white men. Mr. Bradley, No, sir. Mr. Pierrepont. That is what we hold. That is one of the first qualifica- tions mentioned. He could not summon any other. Mr. Bradley. No, sir. Nowhere in the statute will you find the term " white male citizen" repeated. The Court. Perhaps the counsel might reverse his position if the marshal should happen to summon such on the next panel. [Laughter.] Mr. Bradley. Then, sir, I might argue the other way. The question is not settled yet, and I am only stating my present convictions. Argument by coun- sel on the other side might disturb those convictions a good deal, and cause me to go over to the other side. [Laughter.] If the court please, that is the " chance" if the motion be granted. And I would here ask the counsel, if the marshal should go out with the order of this court to summon talesmen, " citi- TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 43 zens of the United States, between twenty-one and sixty-five years of age, tax- payers, resident in the city of "Washington," and should return here a panel of colored men, we could challenge the array. Mr. PiBRREPONT, We would. Mr. Bradlky. Gentlemen, I don't want to give you the chance; I don't want to put your virtue to so severe a test. [Laughter.] One word, sir, as to the construction of this statute and I leave this question. Is it directory or is it not ? In the cases referred to in 7th Wendell, we find that where certain proceedings are required, not essential to the substance, and they be not observed, non-compliance will not vitiate the list of the jury; they will not vitiate the panel of the jury. Where a man is tried for a capital offence by a jury, all of whose names were not put into the box before they began to draw the panel, and the statute in terms required that they should be put into the box, the court said that the statute was directory. Now let us look at this statute. It provides that the register of the city of Washington shall make out a list of persons whom he deems best qualified as jurors ; the clerks of Georgetown and the county the same. It says, " the officers aforesaid shall select." The gentlemen say it was a power conferred upon these three men jointly ; each man must carry to that meeting a greater number than the amount to be selected. The register of Washington must carry more than four liundred, because out of his list is to be selected four hundred, and so as to the others If he carries only four hundred there cannot be much of a selection. He has then to carry, according to their construction, more than four hundred, in order that the other two may select. The statute says he shall make out a list of those whom he deems best qualified for jurors, and each of the others do the same; and the officers aforesaid shall select from the list made out by the register of Washington, four hundred names, and from the others so many. They say that that is wholly illegal and void, unless they all three unite in making this selection. Is it so, or is this provision merely direc- tory 1 Does the failure of the three to act jointly vitiate the panel or not 1 Is it a power granted to three to be excercised by the three together, or can it be exercised by each one for himself? Suppose only two of them met — suppose there is no clerk alive in Georgetown, or in the county, and the time comes round when they are to make the selection, what are we to do then ? We cannot have any jury in that part of the District ; you cannot have any jury. If it is a power given to the three, each and all three must unite in exercising it. Two cannot exercise it. Nay, more : suppose they are all three together, and two of them agree upon a man while a third differs, what is to be done ? There is no power given in that case. The inference is that the majority shall govern. That, I suppose, is an ordinary rule. There is no provision for it. What then was the intention of the legislature 1 It was to get a list of jurors prepared by men not concerned in trials in court, criminal or civil, not partisans, but men bound by their official position to do justice, and to make out a list equally as they could between all the contending parties. Each man makes out his list; he has exercised his best judgment. Is he prepared to submit that judgment to the other parties or not ? I mean, is the law mandatory or is it directory ? Does anybody complain 1 No. Does anybody say there is any irregularity except this misapplication of the law 1 No. What does Judge Savage say in the case I read from 7th Wendell : " That where it was by the mistake of the parties, it does not usually vitiate." There must be corru])tion, and the corruption must be alleged and proved ; but this is not the mode by which that charge of corruption can be investigated and established. There is a mode, undoubtedly, by which the United States might have reached any irregularity, but it cannot be by this process of challenging the array. The statute, then, means to get an honest and unbiased jury, and although there were, and are now, and always will be, persons residing in the same town, 44 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. differing in their political sentiments — some for, and some against, the govern- ment; some sympathizing and some not sympathizing — yet Congress has invested these men with discretion ; has given them a directory authority, and if these officers had made a mistake in the exeixise of that authority thus given to them, and the law is directory, then that mistake does not vitiate the panel. May it please your honor, the argument of ab iwoni-eniente is a very appro- priate one here. If it be true that this whole list of jurors is illegal, and cannot be passed upon, I ask your honor Avhere are you going to get a jury until next February. Mr. PiKRREPONT. The statute provides the mode. Mr. Bradley. I am answered that the statute provides the mode. Why, if your honor please, does not this law afiect the civil as well as the criminal court? Does the statute provide for that ? Did Congress mean when they said, that if the panel is exhausted the court should order the marshal to empannel a jury, that the court should order a jury to be summoned when there has been no jury returned or empan'^elled or listed? Can it be pretended here, if the court pleases, that if these officers, the register of the city of Washington, the clerk of Georgetown, and the clerk of the county, had never met to perform the duty under that law, that the court could have ordered a jury to be summoned or the marshal to go out and summon talesmen ? It is made to depend entirely upon the exhaustion of a "panel," anda "panel" means a "legal panel." This list of names i§ no panel unless it is legally here. There is no return of the jurors, because the list of jurors put into the clerk's hands, according to their theory, is no list, and there being no list and no return, there is no panel, and there being no panel it cannot be exhausted, and if it is not exhausted then the marshal cainiot summon talesmen. Mr. PiERREPONT. Our argument is, that the panel is illegally summoned. Mr. Bradley. Why, may it please your honor, an illegal panel is no panel at all. The very ground upon which they proceed is, that there is no jury here. If there is a jury here let them go on and try the case. It is because there is no jury here that they seek now to summon a jury here, and there is no jury here they say because these officers failed to discharge their duty according to law, to make their returns according to law. Therefore there being no return, no panel, I ask how the panel can be exhausted. That is the question. Let me read that pas- sage again. I believe my learned friend has confounded words here. * * " In a capital case, where the said panel shall have been exhausted by reason of challenge or otherwise, the court, before whom such capital case is pending, may, in its discretion, order additional names to be drawn ; and if all the names in the box shall have been drawn ou tand no jury found; the court may order the jury to summon talesmen until a jury shall be found, and if a jury be re- quired for the circuit court, the twenty-six persons whose names shall first be drawn shall constitute the jury for that term, and the names of the persons drawn as afore- said shall not be again placed in such box for the period of two years. If any person, whose name is so drawn, shall have died or removed from the district, or has become otherwise disabled from serving as a juror, the said register and clerks shall draw from the box another name who shall serve instead, and after the requisite number of jurors shall have been so drawn, the said box shall be again sealed and delivered to the clerk of the circuit court as aforesaid." Now, sir, if thei-e are no such persons legally selected, drawn, or summoned, how can there be a panel. How can the marshal proceed to summon a panel in the place of that exhausted by challenge or otherwise, when there is no panel to be so exhausted. He cannot do it, in my humble view. 1 think the intention of Congress in this matter is perfectly clear, and, therefore, I shall not further discuss that question. I contend, therefore, that there is no ground upon which this challenge of array can stand. TRIAL OP JOHN H. SURRATT. 45 'I'he District Attor.xev. I do not rise for tlie.piirpo.se of ar^-uiiig the mo- tion before the court, but, with the permission of your honor, and my learned friend, simply to say a word or two regarding a certain statement in one of the newspapers of the day to wliich my attention has just b(;en called. It is an item in the New York Herald, purporting to be telegraphed from this city. The article is not very complimentary to myself, but as my friend is spoken of in very high terms, I am not disposed to quarrel with the writer, for, as a generous- hearted man, 1 am more anxious for the reputation of my friend than I am for my own. What is intimated in it, I would not think of sutHcient im- portance to bo called to the attention of the ccmrt, were it not that allusion has been made to it here by the learned counsel who last addressed your honor He stated that there was some reason not made known for the motion which we have submitted. I deem it due to myself to say ]\Ir. Bradley. I beg your pardon if I have said anything wrong. I thought it was a fair retort upon what was said by Judge Pierrepont. The District Attormjy. Notwithstanding the disclaimer of the gentleman to impute any wrong motive to us in subniittirg the motion now before your honor, 1 think, inasmuch as public reference has been made to it here, it is due to my position before the country to say a word. I will here say, then, that there is no one Avho would more earnestly and sincerely deprecate any appeal to religious prejudices than myself. Politicians may speak, think, and act as they please, but for my part I would drive from the halls of justice the demon of party spirit and religious fanaticism. I trust in God the day will never come when a judge, or a jury, will be influenced in the discharge of the highest and most solenni duty that could possibly be devolved upon human beings by political or religious considerations. In regard to the construction which has been given by the learned gentleman to that part of the act which invests the court with power to order the marshal, when the jtauel has been exhausted by challenge or otherwise, to summon jurors, I deem it also proper to say that the marshal would be entrusted with power, with a right, to summon no other than white persons. All I desire Mr. Bradley. I beg your honor's pardon, but this subject has been very fully discussed by counsel on both sides, and I hope no fuither discusion will take place. The District Attor.\ev\ Very well, sir, I am satisfied. I only intended to say a word or two. The Court. I do not see how it would be possible for me to render my opin- ion on this question to day. We have a great deal of business before the su- preme court, sitting in hranc, and we have a session to-morrow for the purpose of concluding that business for the term. The court is to meet at 2 o'clock on that day, and, as it is expected several very important decisions will then be rendered, it is proper and necessary that o{)portuiiity should be afforded for consultation with regard to them. 1 will endeavor, however, to be ready to give an opinion upon this question to-morrow morning, and in order to hasten the progress of the cause, and that no time may be lost by adjourning now — an hour before our usual time — if it will be agreeable to counsel on either side, we will meet to-raon*ow morning at 9 o'clock. Counsel on either side expressing their assent, the court thereupon adjourned until to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock. Ju\E 12, 1S67. The court was opened at 10 o'clock. The Court then said : In regard to the motion of the district attorney to quash the array, or to challenge the array granted upon the affidavit of Samuel Doug- 46 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT lass, register of Wasliington city, I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel on both sides, and I will now proceed to pronounce my opinion in regard to the motion : The act of Congress, approved June 16, 1862, entitled " an act for the selec- tion of jurors to serve in the several courts of the District of Columbia," provides for the selection of jurors in the following manner: First. It makes it the duty of the register of the city of "Washington, on or before the first day of February, to prepare a list of such of the white male citi- zens, taxpayers residing within this city, whom he may deem best qualified to serve as jurors, in which he may include the names of such qualified peiossn as were on his list for the previous year, but who did not serve as jurors ; the clerk of the levy court is also required to make a list, by the same time and in like manner, from such persons qualified to serve as jurors who reside in that portion of the District not included in either of the cities of Washington or Georgetown, and the clerk of the city of Georgetown is required to make, at the same time and manner, a list of persons qualified to serve as jurors, from citizens of similar qualifications residing in Georgetown. And each of these officers is required to preserve such list, so made, in the archives of his office, and to trans- mit the same to his successor. The making of these several lists is to be the work of each officer in his separate official capacity. The lists for the three principal divisions of the District being thus prepared, it is made the duty of these three officers to act together, and select, in their joint capacity, from the lists so prepared as aforesaid by the register of Wash- ington city, the names of four hundred persons, and from the Georgetown lists the" names of eighty persons, and from the lists prepared by the levy court the names of forty persons. The first section, which imposes the duty of preparing the lists of qualified jurors, treats of that duty as the duty of these officers respectively. Each one is, in the express language of the act, " to make a list," and each is permitted, by the law, to place upon his list the names of such qualified persons as were on the list of the previous year, as, "in the discretion of the officer making the same," may seem proper. The lists are to be made by them, and kept by them respectively, each one preparing and having the charge and safe keeping of his own list of the persons for his respective district. About this there can be no doubt, and, indeed, there is no controversy in this case. When we come to the second section of the act, which provides for the number of names to be selected from these several lists of persons qualified to serve as jurors, persons of whose qualifications each of these officers is to judge severally within his own jurisdiction or precinct, we find that the legislature no longer uses the word respective or respectively, but proceeds to declare, in ij)sissifnis verbis, " that the officers aforesaid " (all of them, not one or two, but all three of them) " shall select from the list of the register of Washington city the names of four hundred person, from that of the clerk of Georgetown eighty persons, and from that of the clerk of the levy court forty persons." While the work of preparing the three lists is the several labor of the officers, independent of one another, the work of selecting the five hundred and twenty names is devolved upon " the officers aforesaid," the whole three conjunctly. It may not, perhaps, be necessary that they should all meet together, and at the same time and place agree upon the fotn- hundred names to be taken from the Washington list, or eighty from the Georgetown list, or the forty from the county li.st, but certain it is, that all " the officers aforesaid" shall select the number of names prescribed by the statute. If one of the clerks only shall make the selection from the list prepared by himself, or even if two of them shall make the selec- tion, this will not meet the requirement of the law. The principle has been too well established by a long current of decisions to TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 47 be now questioned, that when the law, enjoining upon three or more the duty of performing an act, without giving to a majority the power to act in the premises, all must act, or the action of those who do act is a nullity, and there is not in the statute a fjuestion, one single word or syllable, that looks in the least towards a selection to be made from the three lists, or any of them, except by the united judgment of three officers upon whom the duty is imposed. It is just as certain, therefore, that the entire three must act in making the selection of five hundred and twenty names for jurors, as that eacli of the clerks and the register is to prepare his own lists severally. After these five hundred and twenty names shall have been selected by " the officers aforesaid," then the fourth section of the act of Congress further pro- vides, that " the names selected from said lists shall be written on separate and similar pieces of paper, which shall be so folded or rolled up that the names cannot be seen, and placed in a box to be provided by the register and clerks aforesaid, which box shall be sealed, and after being thoroughly shaken, shall be delivered to the clerk " of this court. The fifth section provides, that when juries are needed for any of the courts during the year, the register and city clerks, and the clerk of this court, shall meet at the city hall, and such juries shall be drawai by the clerk of this court, who is to publicly break the seal of the box and proceed to draw the requisite number of names. Such are, briefly stated, the provisions of the act of Congress upon Avhich the motion in this case to quash the array is rested, as I understand them, and as I apprehend they must be utiderstood by everybody possessed of ordinary cajjacity, and free from the bias of interest or prejudice. There can be no other construction put upon these provisions, which will not do violence to, and, indeed, utterly pervert the language used by the legislature to convey their intention. lu enacting these provisions it was doubtless the intention of Congress no longer to leave in the hands of one man — the marshal, or any other single man — the power of selecting juries, in whole or in part, except in the exigencies of certain cases, for which they provided in the same act, and which cases are of rare occurrence. This power, vested oftentimes in marshals and sheriffs, nobody doubts, had heretofore been often grossly abused, and in many instances made the instrument of injustice, and wrong, and Congress thought it would better serve the purposes of justice if it should institute the combined selective power to three or four officers, the register of Washington city, the clerk of George- town, the clerk of the levy court, and the clerk of the supreme court, in the place of the much abused and arbitrary solitary power of the marshal. This language, in my judgement, expresses the intention as clearly as any idea can be pictured by the English language. Each of these officers was, doubtless, intended to act as a safeguard against any abuse which the partiality, bias, or corrupt disposition of the other might possibly allnre him to commit. The affidavit of Samuel E. Douglass, the register of Washington city at the time of the selection, made in January or February last, of the names from which the present panel of jurors is taken, shows, first, that neither the clerk of George- town, nor of the levy court, saw one single name on his list, much less aided or CO operated with him in selecting the four hundred which the law requires that these three "officers aforesaid" should select, and that he did not see a single name upon the list of either of the others, or co-operate in selecting from their lists. On the contrary, it shows that each of these three officers put into the ■ box the number of names specified in the act for their respective jurisdictions, each independently of the other, and without the slightest regard to the judg- ment or consent of either of the other two. The affidavit further shows, that after the selection of the names to be put in the box had been thus made, in utter disregard of the requirements of the act of Congress in that behalf, instead of sealing up the box and thoroughly shaking it, and then depositing it with the clerk of the supreme court, as required by the 48 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRA'IT. fourtli section, and then meeting afterwards in the office of the clerk of the court to witnees him break the seal and draw the names of the jury required for the present term of this court, as provided for in the fifth section of the act, the clerk of Georgetown city at the same time, though in the pi-esence of the clerk of the court and the other officers, proceeded to draw from the box the names of this present panel, to which challenge is now made. Tliis was also a most re- prehensible disregard of the plain provisions of the act. These are the facts upon which tlie application to quash the array is grounded. The question presented by the law, and the facts, (which are all admitted by the demurrer,) for the decision of the court, is twof )ld in its character : First. Does the law of Congress require that the judgment of all three of the officers named therein should, either united or several)}', pass upon the entire five hundred and twenty names required to go into the box in making this selection from the three lists, or does it only require that the clerk of George- town only should pass judgment in selecting the eighty names from that city, the clerk of the levy court upon the forty to be chosen from the rural portion of the District, and the register of Washington to select the four hundred to be taken from this city ? Secondly. Whether, if the act of Congress does require the judgment of all three of these officers to be exercised in the selection of the entire iive hundred and twenty names to be placed in the box, the placing them there in the manner described by Mr. Douglass in his affidavit, is cause of principal challenge to the array. [ am clear in my conviction that the law requires the united judgment of the three officers named in the act in the selection of the entire number of names to be placed in the box, for the reasons that I have ah-eady mentioned. Is, then, the several action of each of these officers in selecting exclusively from his own list, and not even looking at the lists of either of the others, or even knowing any of the names taken from these lists to be placed in the box, as sworn to by Mr. Douglass, and admitted by the counsel for the prisoner, a ground in law upon which to set aside the array. It is argued by the counsel for the prisoner that it is not ; that nothing ex- cept a defect in the summoning of a jury by the sheriff is principal cause of challenge to the array in England by the common law, which we have inherited from our Biitish ancestors, and winch is the law in this District, by which we are to be governed in the decision of this question ; and the case of the Queen against O'Coiniell and others, has been cited by the counsel for the prisoner at the bar as conclusive of the question in tliis case. I confess that my veneration f )r tlie common law of England may sometimes even run into a weakness, but the day is long passed with me, and should be with everybody, when decisions of courts and mere arbitrary utterances of test-writers, however hoary with age, or exalted in position, are to be accepted as Procustian beds, on which otlier courts and other people are bound to fit themselves, with or without reason. Witli me no decision is of weight that lacks of reason for its solid foundation, unless it be the decision of a superior court that holds a mastery over me, whose mandates, right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable, I am compelled by law to obey. The grand object of jury trials in this country or in England is, or ouglit to be, and is supposed to be, a fair and impartial investigation of the subject in controversy by honest and upright meu, who are entirely inditf.rent between the parties to the suit. It was to subserve .this view that cliallenges were per- mitted to be made either to tlie array or to the poll, and either by principle or by favor. Some persons entertain the idea that challenges, and many other advantages, are given by the commmi law to the prisoner exclu-ively, and nothing to tiie State. Tliis is as if we should say, that all the provisions and formularies of the common law were invented simply for the purpose of pre- TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUREATT. 49 venting the public from obtaining its just demands upon the guilty offender against society. It is as though such formularies were a mere means and cere- mony by which the accused is to derive every advantage and have every means to assist in setting him at large, without respect to the rights of an offended com- munity. I enteitain a different opinion. I concur Avith Chief Justice Gibson, of Pennsylvania, in the case of the Commonwealth vs. Joliffe, 7th Watt, 585, in which he says : "Total impunity was not the end proposed by the legis- lature, nor ought it, perhaps, to be desired by the philanti'opist. It is not easy to discover a conclusive reason why the punishment of the felon ought to move our tenderest sympathies, or why the laws ought to be defectively construed in purpose that he might elude them. To rob the executioner of his victim when the laws are sanguinary, it might be an achievement to boast of, but we are told at the mitigation of our penal code that the certainty of conviction to be ex- pected from mildness of punishment would more than compensate in its effects the want of that severity which was thought to deter by its terrors. * * If it be further indulged, a shorter and certainly a cheaper mode of obtaining its end would be to have no prosecution at all. But it is one which would scarce be found to answer in the state of the times. Why, then, should the prisoner have more than serves" (speaking of challenges) " to give him a fair trial? and his twenty peremptory challenges certainly gives him that, and having secured to him all he had a right to require, it must have occurred to the legislature that the commonwealth must have a fair trial too." Let us now see whether the case of O'Connell and the Queen, tried in 1844, is one which we ought, according to the counsel of the prisoner at the bar, to accept as conclusive upon the question now before us. In that case, by 3d and 4th William IV, chapter 19, and by 4th and 5th William IV, chapter Sth, cer- tain provisions were made regulating the mode in which certain books should be prepared, from which the sheriff was required to make certain a selection of juries. In the preparation of one or more of the lists from which these jury books were made a number of names of persons qualified as jurors was omitted. A challenge; to the array was made in this case on the ground of the omission, and it Avas held that such omission in one of the preliminary lists was not a suffi- cient cause of challenge to the array. But that is by no means the present case. To make the case at bar similar to that of O'Connell, and bring it within the ruling in tliat case, it would be necessary that Congress should, in the law for summoning jurox's, have incorporated a provision requiring that the three officers, who stand in the place of the sheriff, should have prepared their res])ect- ive lists from the lists of the assessors, or some other officers, and that in mak- ing the lists of said other officers some negligent or fraudulent omission should have occurred. It may be admitted, without any prejudice to the motion in this case, that the omission by such assessors or other officers to make a com- plete list from the list or jury book, if we may so term it, used by the register and clerks, in order to inform them as to who all the persons legally qualified as jurors in their respective jurisdictions were, would not have been of sufficient ground of itself to set up this motion. And yet I am free to say that, in my opinion, it ought to be sufficient. But admitting it were not, it is a very differ- ent case from the one before us. Here Congress requires that we combine the judgment of three officers in selecting the persons of whom the juries are to be composed. Each of these officers is to be a guard over the other two, to pre- vent him from perpetrating a wrong against individuals or the community by putting in the box, from which jurors for a Avhole year are to l)e taken in all the courts, the names of persons who are disqualified, either from want of mental capacity, moral rectitude, purity of blood, Avant of proper age, or tax paying qualifications. 4 50 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. If one of these officers, as Mr. Douglass did on the occasion of filling the jury-box on February last, should exercise an exclusive judgment in the selec- tion of 400 out of the 520 names put into the box, the safeguard which Con- gress sought, by the act, to throw around tlie selection of jurors, is not worth a fig, and the law was not worth the time consumed in its passage. Mr. Douglass may be, and doubtless is, an honest, fair-minded and honorable man ; but the law cannot be relaxed on that account, for we cannot tell how long the office may continue to be filled b} such men. It was enacted to prevent dishonest or prejudiced or partial men from carrying out their dishonesty, prejudices or par- tiality, and we have no right to relax the law because of our belief in the fair- ness of any man. The public, as well as individuals, have a right to exact a rigid compliance with the requirements of the law, and the only way to secure a fair and impar- tial verdict, both to the public and the prisoner, in this, as in all other cases, is to see that the law be fully, fairly, and impartially executed in all its require- ments. The three officers speciiied in the act of Congress stand in the place of the marshal or sheriff. Juries who are summoned to try cases in this court must not only be summoned properly, but must be selected in obedience to the requirements of the laws. The case of O'Conuell can scarcely be said to be regarded as law in this country, where mere forms at this day are considered as of mere secondary im})ortance when compared with the substance of the law. If any partiality or default in the sheriff or deputy in arraying the panel gives either party the right to challenge the array, as is undoubtedly the law, vide 3d Blackstone, 350 ; then such partiality or default on the part of those who are substituted for the sheriff must likewise be good cause of challenge to the array. In the State of New York it has been held, in the case of Gardner vs. Turner, .9th Johnson, page 260, that the drawing of seventy-two names by the clerk from the jury-box, instead of thirty-six, the number required by law, and the selecting of thirty-six by him out of the seventy-two, and his direction to the sheriff to summon the thirty-six thus selected by him, was such default as would sustain a challenge to the array. In the case of James Maguire, plain- tiff in error, vs. The People, defendents in error, (2d Parker's Criminal ilepoi'ts, page 148,) it was held that, inasmuch as the district attorney was required by statute to issue his precept for summoning the petit jury, a jury summoned by the sheriff, without such precept was wrongfully summoned, anth. He was not conscious at any time after receiving the wound. Q. Were you present when he died ? A. I was. Q. You (vere not in the; theatre that night { A. No, sir. Q. It was at Mr. Peterson's, on 10th street, I understand you to say, where you were called to see him, in this city ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you present at the post mortem examination ? A. I was. Q. State if upon the liost mortem examination you discovered any new fact that you think it important to state to the jury, or whether it simply confirmed you in the belief that the wound was the cause of his death ? A. The/>05(! mortem examination merely confirmed my opinion of the night previous, that the gunshot wound was the cause of his death. Q. Who were present at Mr. Peterson's house at the time you were first called in ? A. Dr. Stone, Dr. Lieberman, Dr. Tafts, Dr. Ford, some members of the cabinet, and some officers of the army. Q. Did you examine the bullet ? A. I did ; but not with the view of ever recognizing it again. Q. You can give some general description of it ? A. Yes, sir, I can give a general description. Q. You do not know that you would be able to identify the particular ballet if you were to see it again ? A. No, sir. 9 122 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. ^. Can you express an opinion as to what sort of an instrument this was in- dicted with ? A. I call it a gunshot wound, as we do all injuricf^ inflicted by projectiles. Q. Can you give us any opinion as to the character of the instrument, whether it was large or small ? A. I think it was a wound from a pistol ball, at a very short range. No cross-examination. James M. Wright, chief clerk Bureau of Military Justice, residence Wash- ington, sworn and examined. By the District Attorney : Q. Will you examine the package on the desk before you, and state if the articles contained therein were placed in your official custody ; and if so, by whom and when, and whether they have been in your official custody from the time you received them until now 1 A. These articles belong to the government, and have been in my official custody ever since the records of the conspiracy trial were sent to the office. These are exhibits which were then given in evidence. They are all marked. Here is a ball, and here is a part of the skull, (witness removing paper covering around the articles as he referred to them.) This is the pistol that came along with the other articles. By Mr. Bradley ; Q. Who put these things in your custody ? A. Judge Holt. They came from the War Department. I believe, after the decision of the commission was promulgated. Q. Were the packages when you received them sealed up or open ? A. They were all open just as they are now. They have various m uks on the back of them which I never read. Joseph K. Barnes, re-called. By the District Attorney : Q. Will you examine these two exhibits (handing witness certain articles en- closed in paper covering) and state if you ever saw them before. If so, when and where, and under what circumstances? A. I recognize in one of these papers a fragment of bone that was taken out of Mr. Lincoln's head on the morning of the 15th of April, by Dr. Woodward, in the presence of Dr. Stone and myself. This in the other paper (holding in his hand a small piece of lead) I recognize most positively as the shred of lead that was found just inside of the wound, on the edge, and taken away by us. This (holding up a leaden ball) resembles mOst closely the ball. I could have described it so that you could have recognized it from its flattened curled edges. That was found in the position I have described, behind the orbit of the right eye, and buried in the brain. Q. Did you see the pistol there ? A. 1 know ihe kind of pistol. I never saw this one here. That is the ball, however, for a pistol of this size. Q. That ball resembles in appearance the one which you saw taken from Mr. Lincoln's head ? A. Yes, sir. This is very much discolored. I made a cut upon this ball, because it is made of very much denser lead than is generally used in balls. It is made of brittannia rather than lead, Q. Do you see that cut now ? A. 1 do not recognize it. it is so much discolored. I made no private mark on the ball. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 123 Q. Suppose you state now whether that is hardened lead or not. See if there is any mark upon it ? A. Not to my eye, I cannot detect any. Q. Was there any mark put upon it at the time of the post mortem examina- tion ? A. Not that I know of. By Mr. Bradley : Q. Did I landerstand you to say you cut this ball ? A. I merely touched it with my knife. It has become black since then. Q. You did not make any incision ? A. No, sir. By Mr. Wilson : Q. Who made the jjost mortem examination ? A. Dr Woodward of the army, my assistant, made it by my orders. Q. You were present ? A. Yes, sir ; and Dr. Stone was present also. William F. Kent, residence Eighth street cast, near D, Washington, sworn and examined. By the District Attorney : Q. Were you at Ford's theatre in this city on the night of the 14th of April, 1865 ? A. I was. Q. Examine this pistol and state whether you ever saw it before, or one sim- ilar to it ? A. I think it is the same pistol I picked up in the box the President occu- pied during the night of the 14lh of April. I was present during the play ; heard the shot ; saw the man jump out of the President's box ; and I ran round from the parquettc to the entrance of the President's box, which I entered. When I entered it there were two men present, who were in the act of lifting the President out of his chair and placing him on the floor. Some one helped a surgeon up from the stage, and he asked if any one present had a penknife. I handed him mine, and with that he cut the President's clothes open, examined the body, and turned him over to see where the wound was. Not discovering any on his body, he run his hand round his head, and then said, " Here is the wound ;" " here is where he is shot," or words to that effect. After they had carried him out of the theatre, I went out also. As I was about to go into my boarding-house — I was then boarding on E street, near the theatre — I missed my keys. Thinking that in pulling out my penknife I might have pulled out the keys with it, and dropped them in the box, I turned and went back to the theatre, and entered the box again. It was then pretty dark, they having turred down all the gas, and I could not see. In moving round in the box, I knocked my foot against something hard on the floor. I stooped down and picked up what proved to be this pistol. It was lying close to the outside of the box. I immediately held it up, and exclaimed, " I have found the pistol." Some per- son present told me to give it to the police. I did not see any there. Just then a man who represented himself as Mr. Gobright, agent of the associated press, came up, and being vouched lor by several persons, I gave the pistol to him. The next morning I identified the pistol at the police station. This is appar- ently the same pistol, as far as I can judge from the appearance of it. It was about the length of this one. No cross-examination. * 124 TRIAL OF .JOHN H. SURRATT. Henry R Hathbone, brevet lieutenant colonel in the regular army, and assistant adjutant general of volunteers, residence Albany, New York, sworn and examined. By the District Attorney : Q. Did you know the late Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States ? If so, state whether you saw him on the evening of the 14th of April, 1865, where you saw him that evening, and all that occurred from that time until he received his death wound. A. 1 was well acquainted with the late President Lincoln, and was present with him on the night of the assassination. Q. State all that then occurred. A. Ou the evening of the 14th of April, at about twenty minutes past eight, I, in company with Miss Harris, left my residence at the corner of Fifteenth and H streets, joined the President and Mrs. Lincoln, and went with them in their carriage to Ford's theatre, on Tenth street. When we reached the theatre and the presence of the President became known, the actors stopped playing, the band struck up '' Hail to the Chief," and the audience rose and received them with vociferous cheering. The party proceeded along in the rear of the dress •circle to the box which had been set apart for their reception. On entering the box there was a large arm-chair placed nearest the audience, and furthest from the stage, which the President took and occupied during the whole of the eve- ning with one exception, when he rose and put ou his coat. He immediately after, however, resi;med his former position. When the second scene of the third act was being performed, and while I was intently observing the performance on the stage, I heard the i eport of a pistol from behind me, and on looking round saw dimly through the smoke the form of a man between the President and the door. I heard him shriek out some such word as "Freedom." He uttered it in such an excited tone that it was difficult for me to understand Avhat he said. I immediately sprung towards him and seized him. He wrested himself from my grasp, and at the same time made a violent thrust at me with a large knife. I parried the blow by striking it up, and received it on my left arm, between the elbow and shoulder, and received a deep wound. The man sprung towards the front of the box. I rushed after him, but only succeeded in catching his clothes as he was leaping over the railing of the box. I think I succeeded in tearing his clothing as he was going over. I instantly cried out, " Stop that man." I then looked towards the President. His position had not changed, except that his head was slightly bowed forward and his eyes were closed. Seeing that he was insensible, and believing him to be mortally wounded, I rushed to the door for the purpose of getting medical aid. I found the door barred with a piece of wood, a heavy piece of plank, which was resting against the wall and against the centre of the door, about four feet from the floor. The people on the outside were beating against it. With some difficulty I removed the bar, and those who were there came in. When I returned into the box I found that they were examining the person of the President, but had not y6t found the wound. When it had been discovered it was determined to remove him from the theatre, and I with some assistants went with Mrs. Lincoln to the house on Tenth street opposite the theatre. Q. Will you state your relative positions I In the first place, who were in the box occupied by the President besides yourself? A. President Lincoln, Mrs. Lincoln, and Miss Harris. President Lincoln was sitting at that part of the box furthest from the stage and nearest the audience. Mrs. Lincoln was sitting nearest to him. Q. Toward the front of the box 1 A. Yes, sir ; some two feet distant, probably. Miss Harris was next to her, and I a little in the rear. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT 125 Q. Did you get a good look at the man wbo iired the pistol? A. I did not ; I only saw him dimly through the smoke. Q. You would not be able to identify him ? A. No, sir. By Mr. Pierrepomt : Q. Did you examine this plank that yoii speak of i A. Not carefully. Q. Did you observe to see how it was fixed ? A. I merely know that it barred the door and rested against the wall, and against the centre of the door, and that I removed it with difficulty, so securely was it fixed. Q. Do you know whether there was any niche in the wall ? A. I did not notice. Q. Nor how it was fastened against the door 1 A. No, sir. The court here took a recess for half an hour. AFTERNOON SES.SION. Joseph B. Stewart, residence Westchester county, New York, sworn and examined. By the Di>;tru t Attorney : Q. You have resided in Washington city ? A. I resided in Washington city for a time. Q. And practiced at this bar 1 A. And practiced at this bar in this court ; yes, sir. Q. State to the jury whether you were at Ford's theatre, in this city, on the night of the 14th of April, 1865. If so, state your position at the time, and everyihing that occurred there under your observation, connected with the as- sassination of , the late President of the United States. A. I was at Ford's theatre on the night of the 14th of April. I went in company with my sister, or sister-in-law, and two either ladies. I occupied four seats directly in front of the orchestra. To illustrate what I want to say : the theatre is divided by two aisles one on the left and one on the right. I was seated in the left-hand corner chair (looking towards the stage) on the right- hand aisle. The four seats I had taken would commence with the corner ; I occupying the corner seat, and the three on my left. I Avas just in a position where I could see everything on the stage, and off at an angle could see the President and the company who were with him. A young lady sat next him, and then a gentleman who I knew to be JMajor Rathbone. I believe Mrs. Lincoln sat next. They were in a second-tier box, and just in a position where I could see from the breast up, of the President, and the upper portion of the breast and face of the other persons in the box. I frequently noticed the box during the performance, and more than once had occasion to remark on the presence of the President, and his appearance. At the moment of t.ie oc- currence I am about to state, there was a pause, a sort of interlude, when, while not looking straight at the box, I saw a flash and heard the report of a pistol or gun, a clear report like that of a shotted gun. Any one at all accustomed to hear the report of a gun can tell the difference. I, at the moment, was speak- ing to my sister, and on raising my head, and directing my attention to the box, I saw, at the same instant, a man coming over the balustrade, and noticed the curl of smoke right immediately above him, as he was in a crouching posi- tion, in the act of leaping out of the box. It was slowly sailing out from the box. As he cleared the box I heard him exclaim, " Sic semper tyrannise That ex- clamation had escaped his lips before he reached the stage below. This person 126 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. came down to the stage with his back to the audience, crouched as he fell, and came down upon his knees with a considerable jar, but rose instantly with his face turned full upon the audience. I noticed at the same instant that he held a very k^ge knife in his hand. At the moment he rose, and by the time he was fully up, with his face to the audience, my attention was fixed right on him. I rose up, stepped forward on the balustrade of the orchestra, but it seemed to project over with a sort of cushion or something, and my foot slipped. I step- ped into the chair I occupied and jumped over on to the stage, keeping my eyes distinctly on the movements of this man, who I thought I recognized when I looked into his face. As I made my second step I threw my eye back to the bos, and could see the other persons, but could no longer see the President. He had disappeared from my view. When I reached the stage this man crossed rapidly, not in a full run, but in a quick springing walk, over to the left-hand side of the stage. I saw him disappear in the passage leading to the rear of the building. I crossed the stage in less time then he did, considerably. I ran across the stage with all my might I said to persons on the stage, " Stop that man ; he has shot the President." When I turned around towards the back building, and had gone perhaps a second or third step, I heard the door slam at the end of the passage. As many as five persons, ladies and gentlemen, whom I would suppose, from their appearance and action, belonged to the stage, came into the passage. They were in a great state of excitement, and somewhat ob- structed my movements, particularly one lady, who seemed to be wild with ex- citement. Near the door, as I approached it, I noticed a man standing. Q. Near the back door 1 A, Yes, near the door, which evidently had slammed, and through which I passed out. When I first observed him, his face was turned towards the door. He gradually turned towards me, but in a very quiet manner ; did not show any of that measure of excitement and agitation which characterized everybody else I saw. I exclaimed again, and heard somebody say, " He is getting on a horse." By this time I was at the door. All this occurred in less time than I am telling it. When I reached the door, which was in an instant, I first took hold of the hinge side, then changed to the other side, and opened it. I heard the tramping of the feet of a horse outside. I passed within a half arm's length of this person, who was standing in the position I have mentioned, and who turned his face toward me. As I opened the door a person was right at it, and, as I passed out, directly under my arm, or, I might say I passed my arm di- rectly over the head of that person. The action of that person was much like one taken by surprise. He seemed to crouch away. He either might have passed in to the door behind me or at the side door. He seemed to give way as I passed. My attention was not directed to his action more than to observe that that person was there. My attention was fixed upon the movements of the man mounting his horse. He was imperfectly mounted ; was in the saddle, but leaning over to the left. The horse was moving with a sort of jerking, agitated gait, as a horse would do if spurred or touched at the instant of mount- ing, describing a sort of semicircle from right to left, as I have had a horse do, with an uneven rein drawing him a little to one side. I never had been in the alley before. I did not know even that there was an alley there, and was dis- appointed to find it there. I approached immediately, with the intention of taking the rein. The horse was heading round, in the direction that would bring his head directly tow^ards some houses there. 1 ran as fast as I possibly could, aiming to get at the reins of the horse. I got up near the flank of the horse and nearly within reaching distance of the man — a stride further, and I might have got hold of the bridle. With an oath he brought his horse round so quick that his quarter came against my arm, so that I gave way towards the buildings. Pie then turned and came round pretty much the .■?ame way towards the right hand side of the alley. I followed him at the right flank of his horse TRIAL OP JOHN H. SURRATT 127 as 1 bad done before until near the opposite side of tbe alley, wben be headed him round, and, crossing the alley, I noticed that he leaned forward, holding firm bis knife. Looking upward I could see every movement ; wben looking down I could see only indistinctly. When near tbe further side of the alley be brought the horse up and headed him off. At the moment the horse made the first turn from these buildings over on to the other side, I demanded of tbe per- son to stop. I bad no doubt in my mind at all who I was speaking to. I be- lieved I was speaking to John Wilkes Booth. At that instant some person ran rapidly out of the alley, and, after hearing a few taps of the foot going out of the alley, I beard two clicks or something that echoed, and directly a shrill whistle was heard over towards F street. That occurred while tlie horse was crossing from the left over to the right hand side of tbe alley, before be got him directly ahead. As soon as he got the horse headed he did not seem to get him completely under control of the rein until be came to the turn. I was then so near the flank of the horse that if be bad taken another step in that direction I could have put my bands on him. He then crouched over tbe pommel of the saddle, and rode furiously out of the alley. I was so close to the horse at the time of the first two or three strides that be sent mud and dirt, into my face and bosom. I still ran after the horse some steps ; why I did it I do not know. It was a sort of feeling of desperation. I entertained no doubt in my mind on the stage, on seeing tbe person, of being able to lay hands on him in the house or out of it. I beard the horse's feet as he rode out of the alley distinctly, and heard them again in what I would take to be over F street. At all events, there was a quick sound like that of a horse crossing a plank. Tbe direction was towards tbe Patent Office. By Mr. PlERREPONT : Q. Who was the man you saw come on to the stage and cross over ? A. That man was John Wilkes Booth. Q. You have spoken of an alley through which the horse went ; please state whether the diagram banded you is correct. A. It is. (The witness here explained to the jury, from the diagram handed him, the different positions in the alley, and also from another diagram the different po- sitions referred to on the stage.) By Mr. Bradley : Q. You were on the opposite side of tbe stage, as I understand, from that on which Booth jumped 1 A. Yes; I was on the right-hand aisle, I should judge about twenty feet from the extreme right-hand side of the stage. John B. Pettit sworn and examined. By the Assistant District Attorney : Q. State to the jury Avhere you resided in April, 186-5. A. On the 14th of April, 1S65, I occupied a room in the dwelling-house No. 339 F street, below Tenth. I ate elsewhere. I was in the rear part of tbe building. There was a back building to the house, which was occupied by Mrs. Lindsay. Q. Describe the position and relation of your room to the back part of Ford's theatre. A. I was in there that night or evening, and was not out till the next morn- ing. The rear part of that building which I occupied was, I suppose, one hun- dred and fifty or two hundred feet from the rear part of Ford's theatre. I was in my room reading by gas-light. Q. Describe, if you please, any sounds that you heard between the hours of eight and eleven o'clock. 128 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT. A. Adjoiniug Mrc-. Lindsay's house there was an eating saloon, kept by a Mr. Gilbert. The rear of it, -with the exception of a small tenement, was ad- joining the theatre lot. Immediately west of that lot was a vacant lot, which appeared to be a part of the same, and, I believe, was not separated from it by any fence. I was sitting Avith my back to that vacant ground. My attention was directed to several low whistlings, as though they were signals. I do not know how often they were repeated, but sufficiently often to attract my atten- tion, in connection Avith some other noises which I heard. Q. State where they appeared to come from. A. The signals or whistlings appeared to come from this vacant ground. I stopped reading once or twice, and my attention was so much attracted to it that I got up to see if I could see any person, or what there was going on. It struck me there was some mischief going on — boys, or something of the kind. My attention Avas attracted to that in couuection with the noise of a horse — as I sup- posed, it was immediately in the rear of me — which appeared to be very uneasy, changing his position on the paving stones back in the alley leading to the the- atre from the east. I saw nothing, and knew nothing until the next morning of what had transpired that night. Q. State whether or not you heard the sonnd of a horse rapidly retreating. A. Yes, I did ; some time after, a very short time. They appeared to be pretty much together — say within a quarter of an hour. All this passed, I should judge, in fifteen or tAventy minutes or less. One of the whistlings, the last, was a A'cry loud Avhistle. Q. From Avhat direction did the sound come 'i A. The horse Avas A^ery uneasy, and directly after this uneasiness had taken place the horse appeared to run down the alley. I could hear his hoofs very plain; as plain almost as if I had been in the alley, if it Avas in the alley. I do not know Avhether it Avas or not. Q. This was about the time you heard the shrillest Avhistle ? A. It Avas after. There is an alley from the theatre running eastward ; whether it Avas in that alley or not I cannot say ; I saw nothing. Q. Do you knoAV at Avhat time of the night that was ? A. Not accurately; it was pretty late. It Avas during the progress of the play. I could hear the A'oices of the actors. I frequently heard the voices of the actors from the room Avhere I sat. During this time I heard the explosion of a gun or pistol, and I could hear A'oices. I do not know from Avhat direction. Q. I understand you that by the side of Gilbert's eating saloon, and back of it, the lots Avere vacant ? A. Yes, sir ; there was an alley of some three or four feet between Gilbert's eating saloon and the dwelling where I resided. Immediately in the rear of Gilbert's saloon there was a vacant space of twenty, thirty, or forty feet, between that and the tenement-house occupied by a man if the name of Raidy. Ad- joining that Avas a A-acant space running to the theatre line, on F street, and to a tenement of a man by the name of Birch. Q. So that there Avas free communication to F street ? A. I think there Avas no fence betAveen these A'acant lots and the theatre lot, because I knoAv these Raidy 's came back of the theatre to get Avater for Avashing. Q. Do I understand you to say that immediately Avest of Gilbert's eating saloon there Avas a Aacant lot ? A. Yes ; my recollection is that there Avas no Avell-defined line between that and the vacant lot running from the theatre to the line of F street ; but if I re- collect right there Avas a board fence along on the street. Cross-examined by Mr. Br.adlev: Q. Y'ou say there Avas a fence ou F street, across the vacant lot west of Gil- bert's saloon : I understand you that there Avas no fence on the line of the alley inside? I TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUURATT. 129 A. No, there was none. Q. Let me understand exactly this locality. You had rooms at Mrs. Lind- say's. West of you, with an alley three or four feet between, was Gilbert's t eating saloon 1 A. Yes ; and west of that was the tenement of a man by the name of Birch. Q. And between the eating saloon and Birch's house there was a three or four foot alley 1 A. No, there was a vacant lot of perhaps twenty feet between the saloon and Birch's house. Q. Who lived next east of Mrs. Lindsay's? A. Mrs. Shinn, 34L Q. Is there not an alley just beyond that ? A. No, sir ; there is a frame building belonging to Mrs. Barry. Then there is a carpenter's shop between Mrs. Moore's house and the hou.se of Mrs. Barry, and then Moore's house is on the corner of the alley. Q. Is not the carpenter's shop on the alley ? A. No, sir ; Moore's house is on the alley. Q. Is not the alley west of Moore's house ; A. No, sir ; east. Q. I understand you then that your recollection is that there was no fence running on the west and north sides of the theatre alley, but that there were vacant lots running down to that alley ? A. My recollection is that there was no fence between the theatre lot and this vacant lot, and the lot occupied by Gilbert's eating saloon adjoined the vacant lot. Q. You did not hear the testimony of Colonel Stewart ? A. No, I did not. I do not pretend to be accurate about the fence. My room fronted this vacant place, and I was there for several months, but I do not recollect about it. Ja.mes p. Fergusox, a resident of Washington, sworn and examined. By the Assistant District Attorney : Q. State whether you were at Ford's theatre on the night of April 14, 1865, and state distinctly and as briefly as you can what you observed there about ten o'clock, or at the time of the assassination of the President. A. On the 14th of April I was keeping a restaurant right adjoining Ford's theatre. Harry Ford came into my house in the afternoon and told me if I wanted to see General Grant I had better go into the theatre and secure a seat, as he was to be there that night — he and the President. Harry Ford was the treasurer of the theatre. He came into my house along about four o'clock in the afternoon and told me this. I went in and secured two seats. There was a lady who was going with me. I secured two seats in the dress circle right adjoining the private boxes, on the opposite side from the one in which the President was in at night. That night about half past seven I took this lady to the theatre and occupied these two seats in the dress circle. The President came in along about a quarter past eight, accompanied with some other gentleman whom I understood to be Major Rathbone, and two ladies, one of whom was Mrs. Lincoln ; the other I did not know. They took their seats in the box, and the play went on until between fifteen minutes and half past ten, in the second act and the second scene of the American Cousin. I saw Wilkes Booth come around the dress circle down to the door at the entrance to the passage to the private boxes. He stood there and looked all around well. A few minutes before that General Burnside came in and took a seat in the orchestra. Booth looked about the dress circle, then into the orchestra, then stooped down and pushed open the door to the passage leading to the private boxes from the dress circle. There are two boxes there, but when the President occupied one the partition was taken away and the two thrown into one. He passed into the 130 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. little liall leading to the boxes where the President sat, and I did not see him for, I suppose, ten or fifteen seconds. I was looking right at the box, for I was very anxious to see whom he was acquainted with. I understood that this other lady was a Miss Harris. I wanted to see whether he was acquainted with this lady or with the President. I then heard the report of a pistol. I saw him go past the President's head and come right over the front of the box, swinging around, keeping his hand on the box and letting himself down. As he came down he struck on his right knee, but jumped to his feet again. He had a knife in his hand. He ran across the stage with his knife in his hand. Q. Where did he disappear? A., He passed out at the small passage where the actors come in. There is a passage on each side of the stage. Q. Had you seen him before on that day ? A. I forgot that. I saw him, I think, about one o'clock. I went to my door right adjoining Ford's theatre on the upper or north side, and saw him on a little horse out on the street talking with a man by the name of Maddox. Booth said, "Is not this a nice horse I have got? It can run like a cat." Just then I started to come out, when he struck his spur into him to show how he could run, and went down on Tenth street. It was the last I saw of him until I saw him go into the box that night. Q. What part of the play was it when you saw Booth come into the box ? A. I don't know what part. It was the second scene of the second act, I think, of the American Cousin. What part of it I do not remember now. It is something I am not very well posted in. Q. Did he say anything more at the time you saw him in the afternoon in regard to his horse ? A. That is all he said. I had got almost out to him to the curb-stone, when he started off. Q. He did not say anything as to how long he had the horse ? Mr. Bradley. We are not trying Booth. The Assistant District Attorney. I am aware of that. Mr. Bradley. Then I object to that question. The Assistant District Attorney. Very well, let it go. Give the full name of Mr. Maddox. A. James Maddox. I do not know his other name. He was employed at the theatre. Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley : Q. Did you see anybody else on the stage besides Booth at the time? A. Henry Hawk was on the stage, I think. Q. He was an actor ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who got on the stage next after him ? A. I declare I cannot really tell. I think it was Mr. Stewart. Q. Was Booth on the stage then, or had he got off ? A. I think he had got off, as far as I can recollect. There was no person on the stage when Booth was on it. I saw Hawk on the stage about the moment Booth had his knife, but I think he was the only one until Booth had passed clear through and out. Q. Where was your seat ? A. I was right adjoining the private box, in the dress circle. The President was directly opposite where I sat. Q. Then if a large man had got on the stage while Booth was on it you would have seen him ? A. I could have seen him well enough. Q. And you did not see any such thing? A. No Due got on the stage while Booth was there. I think no one got ou TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 131 the stage until Booth was off'. The instant he was off Laura Keene was on the stage. In fact there were a half a dozen there in a moment. Q. He ran directly across the stage and disappeared ? A. Yes, sir; he came down out of that box and ran out across the stage. Q. Hawk ran off ahead of him I A. Yes, sir; the very moment he got on tlie stage Hawk ran off, and then there was nobody on the stage. Q. Who came on after Stewart? A. Two or three soldiers, I think ; I do not know where they camo from. Q. And you did not see any one close enough behind Booth almost to touch him as he was coming out ? A. No, sir; I did not. By the District Attorney : Q. But you say there were a good many persons on the stage about that time ? A, Yes; the moment after he pased out. Q. Did you not see some persons advance towards the stage immediately upon his ffilling on it ? A. Yes, sir; a good many jumped on the stage. Q. You do not know Colonel Stewart ? A. Yes, sir; he is a large man. I saw him on the stage, but I do not recollect his getting on the stage until after Booth was off. By Mr. Bradley: Q. You saw liooth go off the stage ? A. Yes, sir ; I saw Booth go ofl' the stage before I saw any person on it. Joseph M. Dve, sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepo.nt : Q. State your age and occupation. A. Twenty-three next August; I belong to the United States army, and am a recruiting sergeant in Philadelphia. Q. In the regular army ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where are you now stationed I A. I am stationed in Philadelphia. Q. How long have you been stationed in Philadelphia, or about how long 1 A. A little over a year. Q. Where did you go to Philadelphia from ? A. From New York. Q. From what place did you go to New York ? A. From my home. Q. Where is that ? A. Washington county, Pennsylvania. Q. Were you in the army in April, 1865? A. I was. Q. Where was your regiment stationed on the 14th of April, 1865 ? A. I belonged to battery C, independent Pennsylvania artillery, stationed at Camp Barry. Q. Tell me where Camp Barry was. A. It was at the junction of H street and the Baltimore turnpike. Q. Give us a description of what direction it was from Ford's theatre. A. It is out H street. Q. The same way as the Capitol, except north of the Capitol ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How far was your camp from Ford's theatre ? 132 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. I presume nearly two miles. Q. Were you ia Washington on the night of the murder ? A. I was. Q. Was there any officer with you ? A. Yes, sir ; Sergeant Robert Cooper. Q. Is Sergeant Robert Cooper here in town ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have seen him lately ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you seen him to-day ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where were you on the evening of the 14th, at the time of the murder ? A. I was in an oyster saloon. Q, Will you state when you went into the oyster saloon, and from what place you went ? A. From Ford's theatre. Q. At what time in that evening did you come to Ford's theatre ? A. I arrived there about half past nine o'clock. Q. Who was with you ? A. Sergeant Cooper. Q. Had you any pass — were you allowed to come there ? A. I had a monthly pass, but I think it was then out of date. Q. Were you at the theatre ? A. I was in front of the theatre. Q. Were you sitting or standing most of the time 1 A. Sitting. Q. What were you sitting upon 1 A. Upon some plank, or something of the kind, placed there, in order to alle- viate persons getting in and out of carriages. Q. Did you see Mr. Lincoln's carriage there ? A. I did, sir. Q. What was the condition of the street in front of the theatre that night as to its being light ? A. It Avas light directly in front of the door. Q. In what way? A. There was a large lamp there. Q. A gas lamp ? A. I cannot swear as to its being gas or oil. Q. State Avhether it was light or not. A. It was light. Q. Do you remember what the temperature of that evening was, whether it was cold or mild ? A. It was mild. Q. As you sat there upon this plank, what was Sergeant Cooper doing ? A. Sergeant Cooper Avas moving up and down upon the pavement. Q. Did you have any conversation Avith him while you remained thei-e ? A. Yes, sir. Q. While you were sitting there, state whether there was any change in the inside of the theatre as to persons coming out at the end of any act 1 A. They did. Q. State what that was, and when. A. Parties came down — I presume it was about ten or fifteen minutes after we got there — and went into the saloon below and the saloon adjoining the theatre to drink. Q. Were there quite a number of them ? A. Yes, sir. TRIAL OF JOHN H SURBATT. 133 Q. As these people came down from the theatre at the time you mention, whom did you see, and what did you hear said in relation to Mr. Lincoln's car- riage ? A. Before they came down I heard conversation there. Mr. Braulev. We object to that conversation. Mr. PiERRKPONT. Before you answer that question I will ask you another. State whether you know John Wilkes Booth. A. I do, sir. Q. State whether John Wilkes Booth was one of the persons who entered into that conversation. A. He was. Q. Now state what it was. Mr Mkrrick. We object to the question. I will state our objection, unless it is the proper order for the gentleman on the other side to state the grounds on which they offer the declarations of Booth. The Court. You may state the ground of your objection. Mr. Merrick. The ground of our objection is that they propose now to offer the declarations of Booth for the purpose of affecting the prisoner at the bar. They have established no connection between Booth and the prisoner as yet. I state this objection, not for the purpose of arguing it, but in order that counsel may present the grounds upon which they make the offer. Mr. PlERREPONT. I present no grounds. It must be apparent, without any sort of argument, that what John Wilkes Booth did in connection with this mur- der is evidence. Mr. Bradlev. We supposed that possibly might be the ground of the gentle- man'.^ offer. I take it for granted that whatever John Wilkes Booth may have said or done, unless they connect the prisoner at the bar with John Wilkes Booth in that transaction, is of no sort of consequence. I suppose, if the prosecu- tion are to proceed upon the ground of conspiracy, they must first establish some connection between the two parties ; when that is done, how far the evidence may be admissible is another question. But until that is done, although Booth may have killed the President, and fifty other people have been connected with him — until they show that this party was so connected, his declarations cannot possibly be evidence. Mr. PlERREPONT. We state to the court that we shall coiniectthe prisoner with it. Mr. Bradley. That is an entirely different question. That has never been stated before. Mr. PtERREPONT. Wesayitnow. The Court. Of course, if the counsel for the prosecution fail to make connec- tion of Booth with the prisoner at the bar, whatever Booth said or whatever he did, although he may have committed the murder charged agaiust the prisoner, his declarations could not be testimony against the prisoner. Mr. Bradlev. As the gentlemen now put it upon the ground that they ex- pect to connect the prisoner with Booth, it is entirely within the discretion of the court to say whether they will permit testimony to be given until some apparent connection is established. This is an enormous case, and I ask the court whether they are to be allowed to continue the trial of all the parties named in the indictment, through this immense mass of testimony, before they offer any connection of the prisoner at the bar with the transaction, or will your honor advertised beforehand require them to bring forward their evidence connecting him with it. The Court. The usual course of proceeding in such case is to tell the counsel that they must use their discretion as to what part of the case they will present any particular evidence in. I always advertise counsel, however, that unless they 134 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUREATT. connect the defendant with the transaction, the testimony will all be thrown out. Mr. PlERREPONT. Of course ; but I will say, that if the counsel had not inter- rupted us, we would have connected the prisoner with the transaction, long before this. Mr. Bradlev. All I can say is that I interrupted you at the proper time. The Court. The court will exercise its jurisdiction in this and every other case, as far as possible, to elicit the truth of the whole matter. If the prisioner at the bar is not connected with the transaction, the testimony will be ruled out. By Mr. Pierrepont : Proceed now and state what you saw done, and what you heard said, by John Wilkes Booth, and with whom he was conversing. A. The first who appeared on the scene was John Wilkes Booth himself. What first attracted my attention was his conversing with a low, villanous looking person at the end of the passage. Q. You mean by low, short in stature ? A. Yes, sir ; it was but a moment before another person joined them. This person was neat in appearance — neatly dressed — and entered in conversation. This rush came down from the theatre, and as they were coming. Booth said to this other person that he would come out now, as I supposed, referr- ing to the President. They were then standing facing the place where the President would have to pass in order to reach his carriage, and watching eagerly for his appearance. He did not come. They then hurriedly had a conversation together ; then one of them went out and examined the carriage, and Booth stepped into a restaurant. At this time all the party who had come down from the theatre had gone up. Booth remained there long enough to take a drink. I could not say whether he did or not. He came around and stood in the end of the passage from the street to the stage where the actors passed in. He ap- peared in a moment again. This third party, neatly dressed, immediately stepped up in front of the theatre and called the time. Q. To have no misunderstanding, state what you mean by calling the time. A. He stepped up and looked at the clock, and called the time to the other two. Q. That is he stated what it was ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where was the clock ? A. The clock was in the vestibule of the theatre. Q. State how the light was at the time relating to the face of the neatly dressed man who called the time. A. I did not observe it particularly at that time. As soon as he called the time to the other two, he went up the street towards H street. He did not remain there long, but came down again, stopped in front of the theatre, looked at the clock, and called the time again, looking directly at these two, and seemed excited. Q. That is. Booth and the other man ? A. Yes, sii. He then immediately turned his heel and went towards H street. It was then I thought something was wrong by the manner in which these three had been conducting themselves, and as a soldier I had a revolver in my pocket with my handkerchief wrapped around it. Q. What part of it ? A. Arourfd the revolver. We wore artillery jackets, and the revolver was in my breast pocket. My suspicions were so aroused that I unwound my handker- chief from around my revolver. It was not long before he appeared again, going on a fast walk from the direction of H street. Q. How did he look then 1 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 135 A. He placed himself in front of the theatre, where the light shone clear on his face. There was a picture on that countenance of great excitement, exceed- ingly nervous and very pale. lie told them for the third time that it was ten minutes past ten o'clock. That is the last time he called it. It was ten min- xites past ten o'clock. By Mr. Bradley : Q. And that was this time 1 A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Pierrepont: Q. Did you say that the person said three times that it was ten minutes past ten o'clock? A. I said he called the time three times, and this time it was ten minutes past ten o'clock. Q. And the other periods of time were before 1 A. Yes sir. By a Juror : Q. He did not state each time that it was ten minutes past ten ? A. No, sir. There were eight or nine, or ten minutes between them. The last time I do not think there were more than five. By Mr. PiERREPONT : Q. Did you see that man distinctly ? A. I did. Q. Very distinctly ? A. I did very distinctly. Q. Do you see him now 1 A. I do. Q. Can you tell us where he is 1 A. I can. Q, Tell us where he is. A. He sits there, (pointing to the prisoner.) Q. Is that the man ? A. It is. I have seen his face often since, while I have been sleeping — it was so exceedingly pale. He hurried up towards H street again, and that is the last I have seen of him until lately. Q. You say he was the prisoner at the bar ? A. Yes, sir, and I say that I have seen him since, while I have been sleeping. Q. Did it make a very strong impression from what occurred at the time ? A. It did, sir. Q. What did Booth do then ? A. He walked directly into the theatre. Q. Did you call anybody's attention to this at the time ? A. I did. Q. Who? A. Sergeant Robert H. Cooper. Q. Did you point out at the time who Booth was ? (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley and withdrawn.) Q. Where did Booth then go 1 A. He entered the front of the theatre. Q. Where did you go, and who went with you 1 A. Sergeant Cooper and myself went to an oyster saloon. Sergeant Cooper was particularly with me. Q. How soon after you got into the oyster saloon did you hear of the murder ? A. We had not time to eat our oysters. Q. What did you do when you heard of it 1 136 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. We did not go to the theatre. We hurried right up H street to the camp. I thought a detail would have to be made, and as I was first sergeant I would have to be there. Q. Did Sergeant Cooper belong to the same camp 1 A. He did. Q. Did you both go up H street ? A. Yes, sir, we both went up to H street, and out H street. Q. When you got out to H street, what did you do 1 A. We passed out to Camp Barry. Q. What occurred on the v/ay ? A. A lady hoisted the window of her parlor, and asked (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley.) Mr. PiERREPONT stated that he would not press the question, and would turn the witness over to the defence for cross-examination. The court thereupon took a recess until to-morrow at 10 a. m. TLE.SDAY, Ju?ie IS, 1867. The Court met at 10 a. m. Mr. PiERREPONT said: If your honor please, when the court adjourned on yesterday I had just put a question to the witness Dye, touching what occurred as he and Sergeant Cooper hastened from the oyster saloon up H street, to which question the counsel for the prisoner objected. I Avithdrew the question for the time, thinking then that I would renew it on the cross-examination. I have come to the conclusion, however, that it would be more orderly to ask the question in the direct, and now propose to do so. I will ask it in such a form that the gentlemen on the other side can take whatever exception to it they see proper. The witness will understand that he is not to answer until the court has ruled upon it. The question is this : Q. You stated yesterday that you and Sergeant Cooper hastened up H street. What did yon and Sergeant Cooper see as you hastened up H street ? (Mr. Bradley objected to the question as irrelevant.) Mr. PiERREPONT. We suppose, may it please your honor, that all the inci- dents and facts that transpired at the time of the murder are proper. We suppose that a signal-light is proper; we suppose that a signal-whistle is proper. Such have always been allowed to be given in evidence. We do not suppose it is necessary to prove that the prisoner gave the signal-whistle, or that the signal-light was displayed by him. I repeat it is our opinion that all the incidents connected with a murder of this kind are proper to be given in evidence, as having a tendency to throw light upon the question being inquired into. The Court. It is very difficult for the court to determine at this stage, with- out knowing what the evidence is, whether it is relevant and admissible. I propose, therefore, to let the answer be given, and then if it be found to in any way connect the prisoner with the transaction — the taking away of the life of Abraham Lirjcoln — it will be regarded as proper evidence. If not, it will be ruled out. To this rilling Mr. Bradley reserved an exception. Examination of Joseph M. Dye resumed. By Mr. PiERREPONT : Q. Please state what occurred as you and Sergeant Cooper hastened up H street. A. As we were passing along H street out to Camp Barry, a lady hoisted a window and asked us what was wrong down town. Q. What did you say, and what did she reply ? A. I told her that President Lincoln was shot. She asked me who did it. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. 137 I told her Booth. She asked me how I knew it. I tokl her a man saw him who knew him. Q. "Will you tell us what was the condition of the moon at that time ? A. I cannot say exactly. I disremember. Q. Do you know whether it was full or difterent at the time ? A. It was light enough for us to see some distance on the street. Q. Do you know whether the moon was up 1 A. Yes, sir ; I believe it was. Q. Do you know whether the moon was then at or about the full ] A. I cannot say. Mr. Bkadley here interposed an objection to the course of examination being pursued. The witness had answered that he did not recollect what the condition of the moon was, and he did not think it altogether proper to pursue this line of examination further with leading questions. Mr. PlERREPOMT. Very well, sir; I will not press the examination further. The almanac will show what the condition of the moon was on that night. Q. Please describe this woman who opened the window, and with whom you had this conversation. A. She appeared to be an elderly lady. Q. How was she as to being stout or otherwise ? A. I could not say particularly. She resembled the lady on the trial of the conspirators — Mrs. Surratt. Q. Have you seen the house since ? A. I have. Q. Do you know the number ? A. I do— 541. Q. Tell the jury which side of the street it is on as you go np. A. As you go towards the camp — an easterly direction — it is on the right- hand side. Q. Is there anything peculiar about the house ? A. Yes, sir. I recollect the steps distinctly as they appeared that night. Q. Tell the jury how the steps are. A. In order to answer her question I had to go up in the direction of the steps, which are very tall. Q. Will you state what was the manner of this woman when she thus ad^ dressed you 1 A. She just asked the question. Q. State whether her manner was excited or not. A. I do not lecollect. Q. AVhat then did you do ? A. Passed on out towards the camp. Q. Did you pass swiltly or slowly ? A. Passed along as on a fast walk. Q. At the time she opened the window, state whether anybody was ahead of you in the street. A. There was not. We met two policemen a short distance beyond that, who had not even heard of the assassination. What I mean by that is, that no pedestrians had passed that way. Q. When you saw Booth and Surratt at the theatre, just before this occur- rence which you have now described, was Booth disguised 1 A. No, sir. He had a slouched hat on. Q. Was Surratt disguised ? A. No, sir. Q. Was the short man who was with him disguised ? A. No, sir. He was a villauous, rough-looking character. ]0 138 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. I mean as to the disguise of tlieir dress. Was tlie dress of any of tliem disguised ? A. No, sir. Cross-examiuatiou : By Mr. Merrick : Q. What is your age ? A. I will be twenty-three next August. Q. Where are you from ? A. From Washington, Washington county, Pennsylvania. Q. What was your business in Washington before you entered the army ? A. I was going to school, and in a printing office before that time. Wash- ington is where I went to school. Q. Did you go to Washington College ? A. No, sir. I went to what is called Union School, just opposite the college. Q. When did you leave that school 1 A. About a year before I entered the army? Q. What year was that ? A. 1S62. Q. Then you left the school in 1861 ? A. Yes, sir; between 1860 and 1861. I do not exactly remember what time it was Q. Did you leave the school for the purpose of going into the army ? A. No, sir. I left the school to go with Adam H. Ecker, the editor of a paper there, called the Washington Examiner. Q. How long did you remain with him before you went into the army ? A. A year and a couple of months, I believe ; somewhere in that neighbor- hood. Q. What was your business in connection with the paper ? A. I set up editorials and such things as that. Mr. PiERREPOXT. We do not wish to object to any reasonable latitude; but does your honor think it can possibly favor public justice to go into the question as to whether a man wrote, or set type, or did something else ? If your honor thinks so, why, of course, I do not want to object. The Court. I cannot see that it is of any great advantage either one way or the other; nevertheless, it is responsive to the preliminary question that was put to all these witnesses, as to their age, residence, occupation, &:c. Mr. PiERREPONT. All I desire is, to suggest that there be some reasonable limit to such examination. Mr. Merrick. I understand the limit to a cross-examination to be the daguerre- otyping of the witness, as far as possible, to the jury. The Court. You will proceed with the examination. By Mr. Merrick: Q. Your business was setting up editorials? A. Yes, sir, and locals, and such things. Q. Did you write for the paper? A. No, sir. Q. I understand you to say that on the 14th of April, 1865, you were sta- tioned at Camp Barry 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. And that, on that night, you came into town ? A. Yes, sir; on that afternoon. Q. What time in the afternoon did you come in ? A. In the evening, just before dusk. Q. What time did you have tattoo at your camp ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 139 A. About nine o'clock. Q. I suppose you were not there at tattoo ? A. No, sir. Q. What was your position in the camp ? A. I was first sergeant. Q. Of your company ? A. Yes, sir. Q. "Who called your roll for you at tattoo ? A. The first duty line sergeant generally. Q. Did you have permission to go into town ? A. I generally came into town whenever I felt like it. Q. That was your habit ? A. I was quartermaster before, and had a monthly pass. That pass, I be- lieve, was not then quite out of date. Q. I understood yuu to say, yesterday, that your pass was out of date? A. I do not think it was ; but I could not properly use it. I should have handed it to tlie captain. Q. What did you mean, then, by saying that your pass was out of date ? A. Out of date to me, because I had no right to use it. Q. Why had you not a right to use it, if it was within date ? A. Because 1 was promoted from quartermaster to first sergeant, and should, therefore, have handed it in. jNIy duty as quartermaster brought me into town every day, as a general thing, for rations and such things as that. Q. Do I understand you to say that it was your habit, as first sergeant, to come into town every day, or as quartemiaster 1 A. As quartermaster. Q. What Avas your habit as first sergeant ? A. I generally came into town two or three times a week. Q. Did you get any permission to come ? A Yes, sir, often. Our captain was not very strict; he relied upon his men to do their duty. Q. He relied upon the honor and integrity of his men ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you feel that you were acting worthy of that confidence reposed in you by your commanding ofiicer, in coming into town, and remaining in after tattoo, without permission ? A. No, sir. Q. What did you come into town for that night? A. To see the torchlight procession. Q. What did you go to the theatre for ? A. Because I ascertained the President was to be there. Q. Did you buy a ticket ? A. No, sir. Q. You did not. then, go inside of the theatre ? A. No, sir; I did not. Q. I understood you to say yesterday that you took a seat on some planks that were there ? A. Yes, sir, on a platform. I do not know whether it was composed of planks or not, but I presume it was. It was a platform on which they got in and out of the carriages. Q. You took your seat on that platform ? A. Yes, sir; with my feet resting on the pavement. Q. At what hour was that ? A. About nine and a half o'clock. Q. How long did you remain there ? A. Until ten minutes past ten — a couple of minutes after that. 140 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT. Q. Did you go into the drinking saloon ? A. No, sir. Q. Did not you take a drink while you were there ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you remain seated on those planks all the while you were there ? A. I did. I took my seat there and remained there imtil I left the place. Q. Did Sergeant Cooper stay there beside you ? A. No, sir. He walked up and down the pavement. Q. When and to whom did you first communicate what you observed on that night ? A. I believe I first observed it to my father. Q. To whom next ? A. No person in particular. I spoke of it in general conversation ; (after a pause,) Oh, do you mean my suspicions on that night 1 Mr. Merrick. Yes, sir. Witness. To Sergeant Cooper. Q. Who did you first tell what you could prove as to what occurred on that night ? A. I did not tell any person any such thing as that; I only told them what I had seen. The first thing I knew I was summoned in town here. Q. When was that ? A. That was just before the trial at the arsenal. Q. Who did you see when you came here after being summoned 1 A. I went down to the provost marshal's ofiice, and from there to the old capitol prison. Q. Were you put in the old capitol prison 1 A. No, sir, not so bad as that. Mr. Mekrick : You may thank your fortune for not being court martialed for being out after tattoo ? Witness: But discretion is the better part of valor sometimes. Q. Who did you see at the provost marshal's office ? A. I saw several gentlemen there. Q. Who talked with you there particularly about what occurred on the night of the 14th of April? A. The officer who was on duty. Q. Who was he 1 A. He was a colonel. I do not know what his name Avas. Q. What were you sent up to the old capitol prison for ? A. To see if I recognized the villanous looking person, or any of the parties in front of the theatre. Q. Were you ever examined by any one before you testified at the military commission ? A. No, sir ; some questions were asked me at the provost marshal's. Q. AVas that the only time any questions were asked you by any officer or person in authority ? A. To the best of my knowledge it was. By Mr. Bradley : Q. And that was by the colonel ? A. By the officer there ; I believe he was a colonel. Q. Had he not a uniform on ? A. His coat, I believe, was not a uniform one. Q. What rank had he on his shoulder 1 A. He had a military blouse on. To the best of my knowledge he was a colonel. I heard him addressed as colonel. Whether he was only a lieutenant colonel or a full colonel I do not know. By Mr. ]\[errick : Q. Were any photographs shown you at the provost marshal's office? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 141 A. No, sir. Q. Pid you see any there ? A. No, sir ; they were busy sending out for different persons in town. There was a coat brouf^ht in there, I remember. Q. Were any photographs shown you before you testified at the trial before the military commission ? A. There was not. Q. When did you arrive in town 1 A. Last Monday a week. Q. When were you here last before that ? A. I was here the 10th. Q. Before the 10th, when were you here 1 A. I was here in March, I believe. The Court. The 10th of what? Witness. When the court met before and the case was postponed. Q. Were you here in j\[arch ? A. Yes, sir ; I believe it was March. I am confident it was March. Q. Who did you talk with when you came here last about your testimony, on the lOtli of March, as you say ? A. I talked with General Carrington, Q. Any one else? A. Mr. Wilson, sometimes. Q. Any one else 1 A. No, sir. Q. Sergeant, in looking over your testimony of yesterday, I observe that you give quite a succinct narrative of what transpired on the night of the 14th of April ; mention the name of Booth ; speak of a villanous-looking person, and then speak of a third party neatly dressed. You describe the latter tlu-ough- out as the " third party neatly dressed." Can you give any reason to the jury why you did not mention his name in the first instance ? You knew who he was. A. I did not think it was necessary until I was called upon to point him out. Q. You knew his name ? A. I knew his name after I had seen him. Q. You knew his name when you took the stand yesterday ? A. I did. Q. Why, then, did you not use his name instead of referring to him as the " third party neatly dressed 1 " A. Because I did not think it was necessary until I was called upon to point him out. Q. Did you think it was necessary to use Booth's name ? A. I used it just because I deemed it necessary in my own mind. Q. Why did you deem it necessary in your own mind to use one name and not to use another 1 A. I did not think it was necessary to use the other name until I was called upon to identify him. Q. Were you not told not to use his name 1 A. No, sir ; I was not. Q. Please tell us what was the position of these three men when you first observed them ? A. Just as I gave it yesterday; Booth was speaking to this rough, villanous- looking person, and just then this third party appeared. Q. How long was that alter you had taken your seat upon the planks 'i A. Very soon. Q. Five or ten minutes ? A. No, sir, not that long. 142 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Tell the jury where Booth and this villanous -looking j^terson were stand- iug when you first observed them. A. Below the door next to Pennsylvania aveniTc, just at the entrance between the saloon and the door of the theatre where you enter the vestibule. Q. How for from the wall of the building ? A. Close to it. Q. How wide is the sidewalk ? A. I presume some fourteen feet. Q,. Where did this neatly-dressed third party come from when he joined the two? A. I cannot say. Q. From which side did he approach them ? A. I do not know. I did not see him until he Avas right in with them. Q. How long did they stand there together 1 A. For some time. Q. About how long ? A. Until that man began to call the time. Q. How long about did they stand there ? A. I presume they were all three of them together there about ten or twelve minutes. Q. At that time ? A. They were never together afterwards — all three of them. Q. I want to know how long they remained there together conversing ? A. Well, I suppose ten or twelve minutes. It might not have been that long. Q. Did they talk loud enough to be overheard 1 A. No, sir ; only Booth in using the expression to which I have referred. Q. Did they speak in a whisper 1 A. They did. Q. Was the expression you speak of made use of by Booth while the three were standing there together ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was it made before any one of them had examined the carriage ? A. Yes, sir. Q. The-i, as I understand you, yon now tell the jury the two were talking together when the third joined them ; and that that was the first time you observed them, and that the three remained together ten or twelve minutes 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. All you heard was the exclamation of Booth, " He will come out now." A. Yes, sir. Q. And that up to that time nothing else had occurred except their being together and talking 1 A. No, sir. Q. When Booth made this remark what did they do ? A. The rush was then coming down. Q. Let us have the remark. A. " I think he will come out now." Q. What did they then do 1 A. They lined themselves below the door ; that is, towards Pennsylvania avenue. They were below the door facing the space the President would have to pass in, in order to reach his carriage. Q. They were then below the door, towards Pennsylvania avenue, fronting F street? A. Yes, sir ; looking up in that direction — just facing the passage from the door to the carriage. Q. You were still occupying your seat ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 143 A. I was. Q. In what order did they stand ? A. They stood focing that space. Q. Who stood nearest the theatre. A. The vilLain. Q. Who stood next ? A. I do not recollect ; I think, though, it was Booth. Q. Who stood next ? A. The third party — John H. Surratt. Q. You cannot be mistaken in what you have said about their position ] A. Not at all. Q. I understood you to say yesterday, that when Booth said, " I suppose he will come out now," you supposed him to refer to the President ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why did you suppose so ? A. Well, I presumed so. I was not any ways excited then myself, and I thought they were speaking just as other persons would who were anxious to see him. Q. You had, however, observed them, had you not 1 A. Yes, sir ; particularly on account of Booth holding conference with that villain. Q. That was what first attracted your attention ? A. Yes, sir. Q. To see a gentleman talking with so villanous-looking a man ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you also observe them particularly when they were lined ? A. I saw them in their positions. Some of the parties coming down out of the theatre passed between some of them. Q. After you got them into line, what occurred next 1 A. President Lincoln had not appeared, and these parties who came down after a drink, went up again. Q. What did the three men do ? A. Booth stepped into the saloon adjoining the theatre in the direction of Pennsylvania avenue. Q. What did the villanous-looking man do? A. He remained in position near the passage. Q. In or out of the theatre 1 A. Out of the theatre, right against the wall. He never changed his posi- tion while I observed him. Q. What did the man you called Surratt do ? A. He walked out and looked at the carriage in the rear. Q. Did he walk around the carriage ? A. He went into the rear of it, and nearly stumbled over my foot as he was passing me. Q. What did he do then ? A. He came back again. Booth in the mean time had come out of the sa- loon, and stepped into the passage. Surratt then joined them, and as Booth appeared from the passage, Surratt stepped up to the clock and called the time. Q. AVhere was that clock ? A. In the vestibule of the theatre, opposite the door. Q. Whereabouts in that vestibule 1 A. I cannot exactly describe that. I know the clock was there, that is all. I think it was right above the " delivery of tickets," if I am not mistaken. Q. Did you see it ? A. I have seen it. I could not see it just exactly as I sat then. Q. Was not the clock right opposite the door ? 144 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Tt was as you went iu tbe vestibule. Q. There is a door that leads into the vestibule? A. Certainly. Q. You walk into the vestibule and then see the clock right in front of you ? A. Yes, sir. Q. This man whom you call Surratt, you say, stepped up to the door and looked at the clock ? A. Yes, sir ; and called the time. Q. What did he do then 1 A. He walked up towards H street. Q. The villanous fellow still retained his position 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. What did Booth do 1 A. He stood in conversation with hira. Q. How long a time passed from the time when they lined themselves oppo- site the space where the President was to pass, and the time this man called the time ? A. About five minutes. Q. They then lined themselves, and tbis man Surratt examined tbe carriage ? A. Yes, sir. Q. He went wp and joined Bootb when be returned fr-om tbe passage, and that occupied five minutes ? A. Yes, sir. Q. He then went up tbe street ? A. He did. Q. And Bootb remained talking with the villanous-looking man 1 A. He did. Q. How long was it before tbis man whom you call Surratt returned ? A. It was very soon. I cannot state tbe time exactly. It might have been some five or ten minutes. I think it was at least five minutes. Q. Did he go up the street, or did he go in the alley-way that leads back into tbe theatre ? A. No, sir; be went up tbe street. Q. He then returned ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did be do when be came back ? A. He immediately stepped in front of the theatre again, and looking in the vestibule called the time to those two. Q. Where were those two standing? A. In the same position, just below tbe door towards Pennsylvania avenue. Q. What did he do after he called tbe time ? A. Turned on bis heel and started up tbe street again. Q. Did be speak to them 1 A. He just directed the time to them. He was very much excited. That was tbe first time my suspicions were aroused of there being anything wrong — the manner of those two conversing there, and bis coming down again and call- ing tbe time to them. Q. In what manner did he attract their attention 1 A. Tbe moment he appeared they observed him, and be hallooed the time to them. Q. How do you knoAV they observed bim ? A. They looked at bim. Q. Did he look at them ? A. He did. Q. Did he speak to them? A. He called tbe time to them. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 145 Q. Did he address them? A. He could not, from where he stood, without having his private matters heard. Q. That is your conjecture ? A. That is my conjecture, and my conjecture, I believe, is right. I have not the least doubt of it. Q. He did not, however, in point of fact, address them 1 A. He just told them the time in a very excited manner. Q. And you said he could not address them because their private matters would thereby be revealed 1 A. He could not address them unless he wanted to be heard by persons all around them. Men engaged in such plots are generally disposed to be a little smarter than that. Q. Did it never strike you that it would have been more consistent, if he was engaged in a plot like that, for him to have looked at the time and whis- pered it to them 1 A. I think there was something up H street that attracted his attention as soon as he called the time to them. He may have been conferring with Payne, at H street, for all I know. Q. Don't you think it likely he was ? A. I do not know; I have my own conclusions. Q. Then you account lor his failure to carry out what would have been the ordinary course of a man in a plot of that kind — that is, to have looked at the time and whispered it — on the ground that there was something up H street that attracted his attention ? A. That is why he hurried up there. Q. Is that the reason why he called out the time in a loud voice ? A. I believe he was regulating the time for Booth, Payne, and the whole of them to strike. Q. He was a general commander ] A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you dream that 1 A. No, sir. Q. If he was regulating the time for all these men, who else was there within the scope of your observation who could hear him call the time ? A. No one else. Q. How far is it from the theatre up to H street ? A. Two blocks, I believe. He just had time, in my estimation, to Avalk uj) there in a rapid maimer and get right back again in time to call the last time. Q. Did you see him when he went across F street 1 A. No, sir ; I could not. Q. It was moon-light, wasn't it ? A. The light was there right in front of the theatre, and it kind of blinded one in looking up in that direction. Q. There is one point in regard to which I don't distinctly understand you, and I desire to do so. I asked you whether it Avas not more consistent that he should have looked at the time, and gone and whispered to these men, than to have hallooed out ? You say you think it was because he was regulating time for some persons up H street. A. That is my opinion. Q. How did his calling out the time so that other people could hear it, help to regulate the operations on H street? A. They could not hear it on H street. Q. What did he call it for, then ? A. For Booth. 146 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. Q. But you say that it would liave been more natural that lie should have whispered it ? A. I said that, did I ? He appeared to be in a very great hurry, and hadn't time to whisper. He did not take time to go right to them, but stood there and hallooed it. Q. And then hurried up in the direction of H street ? A. Yes, sir; I cannot say that he went clear up to H street, but I know it just took him as much time as would be required to walk those two blocks and back again in a rapid manner. Q. He was a neatly dressed gentleman ] A. He was. Q. Most gentlemen who are dressed as neatly as you say he was carry a watch, do they not? A. I have seen cases where they aid not. Q. Don't you think that a conspirator, moving upon time and seconds, would be likely to carry a watch for the occasion ? Mr. PiERREPONT interposed an objection to the present Hue of examination. It was not the opinions, but the facts within the knowledge of the witness, that were wanted. Mr. Merrick stated that the witness had given an opinion, and he thought it but fair to show how that opinion arose — its absurdity, and the bias that in- duced it. However, he would not pursue the examination on that point any further. Q. He did not speak to them ? A. He just spoke the time, and then hurried up towards H street. Q. Huw long a time elapsed from the time of his appearance until the time of his disappearance on this second occasion 1 A. At the rate he was going, which was very fast, just about the time that it would have taken him to have walked from there to H street. Q. Five minutes ? A. Well, you can judge of the time it takes to walk two blocks as well as I can. He was walking as fast as he could walk. Q. You say your suspicions were very strongly excited? A. They were at that time. Q. Was it then that you undid your handkerchief from around your pistol ? A. It was at the time of the second calling that I undid my handkerchief from around my pistol. Q. What did the other two do after he left there, subsequent to the second calling of the time ? A. They remained there. Q. In the same position 1 A. Yes, sir, and in deep conversation. Q. How long a time elapsed before he came again upon the scene ? A. I believe it was not as long as before. Q. What then occurred 1 A. He then called ten minutes past ten o'clock. Q. Where was he 1 A. Just where the light from the vestibule shone plain on his face. Q. Was there anybody else about there at that time 1 A. Sergeant Cooper. Q. Anybody else 1 A. Yes, sir ; some others, but I can't recollect how many. I was paying very strict attention to those movements. Q. When he called the time the third time, did he stand in the same relative position to these men and the door as when he called the second time ? A. Just about the same ; but this time he was very nervous and excited, and TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 147 looked directly in tlie face of Booth. My suspicions were so aroused that I observed him very closely — even the movements of his lips, which were thin and pale. It was that face in that order that 1 afterwards saw in my dreams. Q. How far was he from Booth ? A. About seven feet. Q. Booth was down between him and the avenue, was he not 1 A. Just below the door there. Q. Was he on a line with Booth ? A. The two men were standing against the wall, and he was standing there in conversation with them. You can judge the distance. The rough had his back against the wall, with his face turned towards the outside of the street — towards the curbstone. Surratt was in front of the entrance of the theatre, standing a little nearer to the theatre, just on a line with Booth and the villain. Q. But one was standing against the wall, and the other was fronting him ? A. Yes, sir; Booth was a little further out than he was. I presume, if a bee line had been drawn. Booth would have been found to be a little further out towards the curbstone than he was. Q. What did he do after he called time on this third occasion ? A. He made a very rapid disappearance up towards H street. Q. How was this man's beard ? A. He had uo beard. He had a moustache, but that was a very small one, Q. The light shone full on his face from the vestibule ? A. Yes, sir. Q. As he looked at the clock ? A. Yes, sir. Q. It was then you saw him ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you tell the jury it was then you saw him, and yet you did not change your place since you originally took it on the curbstone opposite the vestibule ? That you could see his face Avheu he was standing between you and the light, and looking at the clock which was in front of him ? A. I could see him very readily. Q. Through the back of his head ] A. No, sir; I was sitting kind of below the point where he was standing, near the very end of tlie platform, and looking in the same direction that he was — only his face was turned a little more towards the wall than mine was. I could see his face very readily. Q. How far were you from him 1 A. I was about on a line with those other two. Q. Those other two were standing between the door that leads into the theatre and the door that leads into the restaurant 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. How widn is the space between the door that leads into the theatre and the door that leads into the restaurant ? A. I presume some fifteen feet. It might not be that much. Q. I understood you to say, yesterday, that there was pictured in that coun- tenance great excitement and nervousness ? A. Yes, sir ; and there was. Q. Had you ever seen John H. Surratt up to the night of the 14th ? A. Never, to my knowledge. Q. AVhen did you next, after that, see this individual whom you call John H. Surratt ? A. 1 saw him here in Washington. Q. When? 148 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. I saw him the first time I was called here on this case. Q. When Avas that ? A. In March, I believe. ] Q. Where did you see him ? A. In prison. Q. How did you get in prison to see him ? A. I was admitted there. Q. Who admitted you ? A. I was admitted by order of General Carrington, I believe. Q. Who did you go to jail to see ? A. The prisoner said to be Surratt. Q. You were shown into Sunatt's cell 1 A. I was shown into a hall where there was a man walkins:. He was not in irons or anything of the kind, but loose, walking along. Q. How long did yoix remain there? A. I remained there ten or twelve minutes in conversation. Q. Did you tell him what you came for 1 A. I did not. Q. Did you represent to him that you knew him 1 A. I spoke to him; said, "Halloo, John." That was after I had looked at him. He was at the far end of the hall, and as soon as I spoke to him he came towards me. Q. Have you seen him in your dreams since then 1 A. No, sir. When I spoke to him I saw the same excited and pale coun- tenance that I had after the assassination in my dreams. That convinced me beyond any doubt. The man I saw in prison I can say positively was the owner of the fece I saw in front of Ford's theatre on the night of the 14th of April ; and this is the man here. There is no doubt about it. Q. Do you think you would have known him if you had not seen him in your dreams ? A. Yes, sir. His face is as peculiar as my own — once seen not easily for- gotten. I have a great memory in regard to faces. Q. How often have you dreamed of him 1 A. Several times, while I was thinking over the occurrence. Q. Did you ever dream of Booth ? A. I have seen the whole occurrence in front of the theatre. I have seen iJooth among the rest of them. Q. How often have you dreamed of Booth ] A. I have always seen him at the same time. Q. Did you ever dream of one without dreaming of the other ? A. No, sir. Sometimes Surratt's face has been pictured to me alone when I have been in a deep study. Q. Then you dream of him when awake as well as when asleep ? A. Yes, sir. Sometimes I have had his countenance pictured foirly before me. Q. Is it generally accompanied with others ? A. No, sir. Q. Is he looking at you when you dream of him, or looking at somebody else 1 A. He is always looking exactly in the direction in which I saw him, and in precisely the same attitude. If I had met him on the street I would have known him at once. Q. Why, then, did you deem it necessary to go to his cell if you could have recognized him so readily among others 1 A. I went there by request. Q. Did not you ask to go? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 149 A. No, sir. Q. Did not you request to see him 1 A. No, sir. They tokl me I had better go there and see whether I would recognize him ? Q. What did you say ? A. I tokl them I would go. Q. Did you kuow Booth ? A. I did. Q. How long had you known him ? A. I had known Booth during my stay here in Washington, I was here in Washington nearly the whole of 'G4. Q. Were you on social terms with him 1 A. No, sir. I had seen him at the saloon. I was on social terms with the bar-tender of that saloon below the theatre. Q. In your dreams of Booth have you ever seen him in any other position than that in which you saw him that night ? A. No, sir. The one who attracted my attention more particularly than did Booth was the villain] Q. What is your religious faith 1 A. I am a Protestant. Q. Of what denomination ? Mr. PiERRKPONT. I must object to that. ^h: Meruick. I will waive the question. I thought it possible that he was a Swedenborgiau. Mr. PiEUKEPONT. We don't desire to bring religion into this case in any way. The District Attorxev. I have no objection to the witness disclosing his religion, but we object upon principle to introducing any religious inquisition into a court of justice. Mr. Merrick. I have no purpose to introduce religious inquisition, nor to fol- low your example in any particular. The District Attorney. I think that remark is entirely without founda- tion. Mr. PlERREPONT. I hope we shall avoid all such controversies, and try this solemn case in a solemn way. Mr. Bradley. Well, we are all solemnized now. Let's get on. Q. Have you ever had any communication with spiritual mediums ? A. No, sir. I don't believe in such foolishness as that. I cannot say thac I am a firm believer iu dreams, but I have often seen things in my dreams that I have seen before. Q. Don't you often in your dreams have things presented to you which are to happen, and then have those things happen? A. I do not know that I have. I do not put any trust in dreams of events that are to happen ? Q. But have you not seen things in your dreams that had not then happened, but which did afterwards happen ? Have you not been iu positions in your life which were familiar to you when you thought of the past, and yet iu which you had never really been before ? A. 1 have dreamed I was married, but I was not married. I was afterwards, however. Q. Did you see the vision of the bride in your dreams ? A. Well, I saw the person 1 had comnumication with — that is all. It did happen that I got married. Q. To the same person presented befoi'e you in your dreams ? A. Yes, sir. 150 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Then there are some of your dreams which tell of the future as well as the past. A. Yes, sir; but I never put confidence in them, or allow them to bother me. Q. But they obtrude themselves upon you sometimes, do they not? A. Not materially. Q. But they do to some extent 1 A. That is the only case. Q. Don't you find that you sometimes have a dream recalled which it is dif- ficult for you to shake off? A. When I dream of falling from any height, or anything of that sort. Q. I mean the next day ? A. I simply think of it as a horrible dream — that is all. It soon goes away ; generally after breakfast. Q. Did you say you were examined at the conspiracy trials. A. I was. Q. Did you state there that you knew Booth 1 A. I have known him by sight. I believe I stated on the occasion of that trial that I knew him. A photogi-aph was handed me, and I told them that was Booth. Q. Did you state to that commission that the man, or one of the men, you saw conversing there that night was J. Wilkes Booth ? A. Yes, sir. Q. I understood you to say that after these three parties lined themselves opposite the space the President was to pass, the man whom you called Surratt went out to examine the carriage, and stumbled over your foot 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. After it? A. Yes, sir; that is, after President Lincoln didn't come down. Q. Did you state on your examination before the military commission that one of the three ])arties had been standing out, looking at the carriage, on the curbstone, while you were sitting there, and then went back ; that they watched awhile, and the rush came down ; that many gentlemen came out and went in and had a drink in the saloon 1 Then, aftey tliey went up, the best dressed gentleman stepped into the saloon himself; remained there long enough to get a drink, and came out in a style as if he was becoming intoxicated ? Is that your testimony 1 A. That is my testimony ? Q. Then, in this testimony, you state that the examination of the carriage had been made before the rush came down, and " before the President did not come down as they seemed to expect." In your testimony now, as I understand you, you say that it was " after he did not come down, as they seemed to ex- pect," that the examination of the carriage was made 1 A. Yes, sir; the rush was a long time coming down. They did not all come down at once. Q. Then you think these are harmonious statements ? A. Yes, sif ; that is correct. I have thought more deeply over it, and have figured it oiit since the best I could. Q. This testimony, then, before the military commission is not correct, and what you now state is correct 1 A. I see nothing wrong in it. Q. Then why do you say you have thought more deeply over it since ? A. I have not changed it materially. Q. Is yoiir mind the same now that it was when you testified down at the arsenal ? A. It is a little clearer now. Q. In what particular is it a little clearer ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 151 A. In the transactions in front of the theatre. Q. 'Allien wherein does your recollection differ now from what your recollec- tion was at the time of that trial, with regard to the examination of the carriage ? A. Not any at all. Q. Then it is no clearer as to that ? A. It is a little clearer. Q. Then, if it is a little clearer, in what particular is it a little clearer 1 A. There are little incidents that I did not think of before. Mr. ]\Irurick. I am not calling your attention to any little incidents. In your examination before that commission yoiT stated that a man had been stand- ing out and examining the carriage before the time when they expected the Presi- dent to come down. You now state that the man went out to examine the car- riage after the time they expected the President to come down. Which is correct ? A. It was all about the same time. I can say that my testimony now, and then, is just the same. I believe he was out there just immediately as they commenced to come down. I know he was there, and know it from the fact of my foot being in his way. I have thought deeply over this, and every particular. Q. How large a man was J. Wilkes Booth 1 A. He was a tall man — -a heavier man, a great deal, than Surratt. Q. How tall was he ? A. As tall as I am. Q. How tall are you ? A. About five feet eleven ; I was five feet ten and a half some time ago — guess I am eleven now. Q. How large was the mean-looking man ; you say he was rather low in stature ? A. Yes, sir ; just such a man as Edward Spangler. Q. Without the moustache ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you as confident about the identity of Spangler, as you are about the identity of Surratt ? A. No, sir ; the shade of the wall, you know, kind of hid Spangler. HeM^as leaning against the wall ; the light did not strike exactly there. Q. Did you, or not, testify before that commission to this effect: That after Booth (the Avell dressed man as you call him in this report) came out from the saloon, he stepped up and whispered to this ruflSan, (that is, the miserablest one of the three,) and then went into the passage that leads to the stage from the street ; then the smallest one stepped up and called the time 1 A. That was my testimony then, and it is my testimony to-day. Q. That the smallest one of the three called the time ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you state before the military commission, when asked to describe the third party, as is reported here : " He was better dressed than any I see here. He had on one of the fashionable hats they wear here in Washington, with round top and stiff brim. Q. Can you describe his dress as to color and appearance i* A. No, sir, I cannot describe it. Q. How was the well dressed man as to size ? A. He was not a large man — about five feet six inches high." Did you state that? A. Yes, sir; from sitting down. That is what I judged from. Q. Do you now state that the man that called the time was five feet six inches? A. No, sir ; but from my position, sitting down on the curbstone, I should have judged him to be five feet six or seven inches. I paid no particular atten- tion to that, so as to be able to judge exactly his height. Q. He was not a large man then, but is a large man now. The man you saw has not changed so much as that, has he? A. I call a man a large man if he be only five feet high, if he is heavily built. 152 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUREATT. Q. But tliis was an inquiry as to his lieigLt, and you answered five feet six inches 1 A. Yes, sir ; that is what I thought ; I was sitting down ; I did not intend to be very precise in describing the size of the man. What I meant by the smallest man was the slimmest one. Q. You then knew that Booth was 5 feet 10| or 11 inches ; and you then testified that the smallest man of the three called the time ? A. I was not so confident of Booth being 5 feet 11 inches. I thought he was somewhere about my own size. Q. When you said this man was the smallest man of the three, did you mean that he was the slimmest man of the three ? A. I meant he was the lightest man. Q. Now, I will ask you this question : According to your recollection of the appearance of those men there that night, Avas there not of the three men one or two who were over 5 feet 6 ? A. Well, I am a better judge now than I was then. Q. Why so ? A. Because I have measured men every day. Q. Has that been your business I A. Yes, sir. Q. How so? A. As recruiting sergeant ; I have to take the heights of the men. Then I was no judge at all. 1 was then not observing the height of the men particu- larly, but what they did and said. Q. lou say you stated to the military commission that the man who had such a villanous look was the shortest, but yet the heaviest man of the three 1 A. Xo, sir ; I said that at the provost marshal's office. Q. Did they write it down there ? A. I do not know. They sent me up to the Old Capitol prison to identify him. I pointed out Edward Spangler as the man. He was among others who were brought up. Sergeant Cooper was present. Q. Was he the smallest one ? A. He was the largest man, although the shortest, in my way of speaking. Q. Did you testify before the military commission as follows : " Q. About how high do you think the man dressed in slouched clothes was ? A. He was about 5 feet 8 oi- 9 inches high ' ? A. I believe I did. Q. Then did you not testify at the same time that the genteelly dressed man was 5 feet 6 inches ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then if you did that, was not the man with the slouch hat the larger of the two ? A. Yes, sir; he war^ larger in proportion. 1 mean by large, a man who is stout and heavy ; not that he is the tallest. I will say here that I had not a good judgment of the man against the wall ; because he was in a leaning attitude. Q. I understand you to say that Booth was taller thau the man who called the time 1 A. No, not particularly. I did not pay much attention to the height then ; but now, since I have looked at it, I do not believe there is much difference in the height. Q. Looked at what ? A. At the position of the men ; at the position they had occupied. Q. You mean, then, since you have looked at John Surratt ? A. No, sir ; I mean since I have been iu the habit — since it has become my businesss to measure the height of men. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 153 Q. Did you state to the military commission that you paid no particular at tention to their heights ? A. Xo, sir ; I only gave what I supposed to be their heights. Q. Can you account to this jury for the fact that when you were called upou to speak of this man before the military commission, you should have picked out from the three one, and said the smallest one called the time ? A. I called him the smallest man because he was so thin. Q. Then afterwards you stated that he was five feet six ? A. I stated that was my judgment. Q. You say now that Booth was five feet ten and a half or eleven, and the other, Spaugler, five feet eight ? A. I could not on my oath say how tall Spaugler wa^, because he was lean- ing against the w.all and not straightened up. Q. Can you tell us why. when 3'ou said the smallest man called the time, you did not explain to the commission that you referred only to heft and not to height ? A. Because it was not necessary. Q. Then you told the commmission that the smallest man of the three called the time : that he was five feet six ; the other five feet eight, and the other, again, five feet ten, and never explained that you did not mean the height I A. Xo, sir ; with regard to the man standing against the wall I could not tell what his height was, but I judged him to be the height mentioned there, when straightened up. I did not consider my judgment then as to height worth any- thing at all ; now, however, I do. Q. If you knew John Wilkes Booth at the time of the trial before the military commission, why did you not tell the commission that it was Booth whom you saw there that night ? A. They gave me the picture in order to have me satisfy myself before them, that that Avas the man. Q. Then you did not tell them that it was Booth you saw talking there ? A. Yes, sir; I did. Q. How did you tell them ? A. I told them it was Booth who came out of the restaurant. They showed me his photograph, and I told them that was the man to whom I referred. Q. Did not they show you that photograph at the provost marshal's office before going down to the military commission? A, They did not. Q. Let me ask you if this is correct — "Q. How was the well-dressed man as to size ? "A. He was not a very large man — about five feet six inches high." Did you testify to that ? A. 1 did ; but I had no reference to height. Q. Then why did you say "five feet six inches high?" A. I put that in afterwards. I meant that he was not a very large man. A man forty-four inches across the breast is a large man, in my opinion, if he be only five feet four inches in height. Q. AVhen you were examined before the military commission did you see there present the same man who had examined you at the provost marshal's office? A. No, sir; not to ray knowledge. I did not get to see tbe cross-examiaer at all. The man who was cross-examining was sitting in the rear of me. 1 was not allowed to face him at all; I faced the major generals. The questions were asked me from the other side. Q. Did you, in your examination before the military commission, give any description of the individual — the third party — whom you now call John H. Surratt ? 11 154 TRIAL OF JOHN H, SURRATT. A. I did. Q. Did you j^ay then anything- about the light shining en his fiice ? A. I cannot now recollect whether I did or did not say anything about the light. Q. Did you say anything about his pale face? A. I have not read my testimony over for some time. Q. I am not asking whether you have read your testimony or not, but us to what you testified to. The Court. Mr. Merrick, do you propose in the cross-examination of each of these witnesses to take up the testimony delivered somewhere else, and go through it seriatim, and inquire why they did not say this, and why they did not say that ? Mr. Merrick. No, sir. The Court. If there is anything in regard to which you wish to contradict the witness, the proper way is to lay the foundation by asking him whether he said so and so. That is the i;sual rule. We will never get through in this way. You have now been two hours examining this witness. Mr. Merrick. I think it was very profitably spent, your honor, although it may appear rather self-complimentary to say so. I do not wish, sir, to trans- gress any rule, but to keep entirely within proper limits. The Court. I do not object to considerable latitude, but the cross-examina- tion ought to be kept within bounds, and with some regard to the general rules of evidence on the subject. The court here took a recess for fifteen minutes. afternoon session. Cross-examination of Sergeant Dye continued : By Mr. Merrick : Q. Will you state whether there was anything else that excited your suspi- cions except what you have already told the jury ? A. No, sir. Q. At what time in the relation of incidents did your suspicions become ex- cited ? A. At the second calling of time. Q. It was then you undid your pistol ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you think it anything remarkable to see Booth about that day ? A. No. Q. It was only remarkable, as I understand you, that a well dressed man should have been conversing with so villanous a looking man 1 A, Yes, sir. Q. I desire that you will describe to the jury, as near as you can, the location of that clock ? A. To my recollection, just as you went into the theatre, you look right be- fore you and you will see it. To my mind the clock was right in front of you in the vestibule. Q. Right in front of the middle door, was it ? A. That is my recollection; it was right square up before you as you go in. Q. You could not see it from where you were sitting ? A. No, sir ; I could not see inside the door. Q. You were sitting on the edge of the plank, as I understand ; was the car- riage above or below you ? A. The carriage was above me — the rear part of it. Q. Which way were you facing as you sat on the platform ? A. Facing the theatre. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT 155 Q. You have said that you went afterwards to take some oysters ; please to tell the jury what was the nature of the suspicion you had ? A. I thought there was something wrong going on, or that was not right. Q. Of what nature ? A. I thought it was something against the President, but I could not say. The excited manner of the man calling the time and his frequent whispering there was what attracted my attention. (Objection by district attorney that the suspicions of a witness are not admis- sible. Much latitude is to be allowed in cross-examination, but counsel for the defence have transcended the discretion allowed even upon cross-examination. The court said there was no objection to a witness stating as a part of the res gesta, that certain actions of other parties excited suspicion in his mind, but it ■was inadmissible to examine him as to the nature of those suspicions. Mr. Bradley admitted that the question would be inadmissible on an examina- tion in chief, but held it to be within the legitimate limits of cross-examination. The court ruled the question to be inadmissible. Exception to ruling taken by counsel for defence.) Q. You went, as you have stated, to the oyster-house ; what did you do after you went there ? A. Ordered oysters. Q. AVhat next 1 A. We sat down to eat them. I do not recollect whether we ate all of them or not ; I do not think we did. A man came rushing in and said the President was shot. Q. What did you do then ? A. We immediately got up and started for camp. Q. Why did you go out to camp 1 A. We went out to camp because we did not know but there would be a detail made of a guard. Q. Was that all you did after you started out of the oyster-house ? A. Yes, sir; we hurried out to camp. I was the first one who told General Hall, after I got there, that the President had been shot. Q. How came you to tell this lady at the window on H street that Booth had shot the President 1 A. The man who came into the saloon said it was Booth. It confirmed my suspicions immediately, and I so spoke to Sergeant Cooper, that I was right in my suspicions in front of the theatre of their actions. Q. Have you ever testified to that before in any of your examinations ? Have you ever .stated this affair on H street ? A. I have not. This occurred to me a long while afterwards. I never knew where the Surratt's lived until Avithin three months. Q. It occurred to you after that trial ? A. 0, yes ; after 1 ascertained they lived on H street, I asked where the house was, and since I have arrived here I went to the house, and the house was familiar to me. Q. 1 understand you to say that the lady you saw then resembled the one you saw at the conspiracy trial 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did that strike you when 3'ou saw her at the conspiracy trial ? A. No, sir ; it did not. Q. When did it first strike you? A. Since I learned of the house on H street, Q. Did not you know the house on H street at that time ? A. No, sir ; I never knew it until I came to this city lately. Q. Then it never struck you that the lady you saw at the conspiracy tria 156 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. resembled llie lady yon saw on H street, nntil yon learned that Mrs. Snrratt's honse was on H street ? A. Not until I learned that she lived there, and the relation of the house to the incidents that had occurred. Q. How long after the trial was that 1 A. Some time after. Since I came back to the city. Q. You did not know at the time of the trial that Mr.«. Snrratt's house was there ? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. What recalled this to your mind ? A. When I learned that her house was on H street, after I came back to Washington. Q. Two years afterwards ? A. Yes, sir ; I remember that she was an elderly lady. Q. Then you saAv Mrs. Surratt on the trial, as I understand you, within two or three weeks of the occurrence on H street, and it never struck you that she re- sembled the lady who looked out of the window that night 1 A. No, sir ; it was when the question was raised in the press of the country that Mrs. Surratt had been condemned unjustly that all this came into my mind about her. I learned that she lived on H street, and 1 remembered the per- son asking what was going on down town, in a state of excitement, although no person had passed that way. I thought it was a person who knew something was coming off down town ; that is it. I believe it in my own mind, too, that she knew all about it, and was waiting with a dim light in the parlor. By Mr. PiERREPO.XT : Q. You stated in your cross-examination that your judgment two years ago about men's height was not of any value, but that it is now of considerable value ; why is it of greater value now than it was two years ago ? Question objected to by Mr. Bradley as having been already answered. Mr. Pierrepont thought not, directly. The Court. The record taken by the stenographers will show that the wit- ness was asked this question, and he answered that his judgment was better now than then, because for the last year or more he had been engaged in enlisting men; that it was his business to take the height of every man he enlisted, and that in that way he had become an expert or judge of the height of different persons. Mr. PiERR£Po,\T. I am quite content •with that statement. I will ask the witness but one other question. Q. State whether you have ever had a habit of considering or speaking of men 5 feet 6 inches high — men weighing 130 — as large men or small men. Mr. Bradley. We object to that question. Mr. Pierrepont. The question is in response to questions they have asked the witness in relation to large men and small men. The Court. And he has answered that he estimated the size of men by their heft rather than by their height. Mr. Pierrepont. That is all I desire to have understood. By a Juror : Q. I wish to ask the witness whether he saw the entire full face of the pris- oner from the ])osition he occupied on the carriage step on the night in question? A. I saw all the time three-quarters of it, and a part of the time the whole it. By another Juror : Q. How was the prisoner dressed on the night of the assassination 1 A. His coat was drab, his hat was something like this hat I have here, but no TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRA.TT 157 exactly; one of these fashionable roiiud-top, stiflf-brimuied. It appeared, to my recollection, to have been black. Q. How as to the pants ? A. I do not recollect. Q. Had he on a watch chain or guard that night ? A. I did not observe any. Peter Taltavul sworn and examined. By Mr. PiERREPONT : Q. Where did you live on the 14th of April, 1SG5, on the day tlie President was murdered ? A. I lived on Eighth street east, at the Navy Yard, between G and I, south. Q. Where was your place of business ? A. On Tenth street. Q. What was your business ? A. I kept a restaurant. Q. Where was that? A. Right next to Ford's theatre. Q. Were you in the restaurant at the time the murder was committed ? A. I was. Q. Did you know John Wilkes Booth ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Had you frequently seen him there, or otherwise ? A. He used to come in there very often. Q. You knew him well by sight '{ A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he come in that evening ? A. He came in that night. Q. What did he do? A. Pie walked up to the bar and called for some whiskey. Q. What did you do ? A. I gave it to him. Q. State whether he was alone. A. He was. Q. Did he drink it 1 A. Y^'es, sir. Q. Then what did he do. A. He called for some water. I did not give him any water when he called for the ^yhiskey. It is usual to give water, but I did not give it to him. He called for water, and I gave it to him. He laid the money on the counter and went right out. Q. State how he appeared as to coolness or nervousness. A. I did not see anything unusual in him at all. Q. Nothing unusual in his dress ? A. No, sir. Q. He was dressed in bis usual way — no disguise 1 A. Xo, sir; no disguise. Q. How many minutes after he took that drink was it before you heard the President was assassinated ? A. As near as I can come at it, it must have been from eight to ten minutes. Q. Had you seen Booth often before ? A. I used to see him almost every day. Q. Who had you seen him with near the time of this occiu-rence ? A. I could not exactly recollect. He used to come in with several gentlemen; sometimes with one, and sometimes with ai^other. Q. I will call your attention to a particular time. Did you see him with any person charged as one of the conspirators ? 158 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. I saw him two or three clays before with Herold. Q. Where was that ? A. In the same place ; he came in there. Q. State what occurred. A. I could not exactly say. I thiuk they just came in — came to the bar and got a drink ; probably had a little conversation together, and went out again. I could not particularly describe what passed there at all, not taking any par- ticular notice. Q. On the night of the murder did you see this same Herold come in? A. No, sir ; 1 did not. Q. On that night or the night previous did any one come in and inquire for Booth ? A. No, sir ; that was in the afternoon. In the afternoon of the same day Herold came in there and asked if I had seen John. I asked him what John. He said John Wilkes Booth. I told him I had not seen him. Q. What, then, did he say; did he ask you anything; and if so, what? A. No, he simply came to the bar and inquired if John had been there. I asked him what John, and he said John Wilkes Booth. Q. Did he ask you whether he had been there that day or evening? A. No, sir; he just shut the door and went right out. Q. And between the time Herold came in and the time Booth came in, jus before the assassination, you had not seen either 1 A. No, sir. Q. At what time in the afternoon of the 14th was it that Herold came in ? A. I judge it must have been about 4 o'clock, as near as I can possibly think of it. Q. At the time Booth came in and took a drink, just before the assassination, was there anything in his dress or appearance to awaken suspicion in your mind ? A. No, sir; I did not take notice of anything unusual at all. He just came in there and asked for a drink. , David C. Reed sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepont: Q. In what city do you live 1 A. In Washington city. Q. How many years have you lived here ? A. About thirty years. Q. Do you know the prisoner at the bar by sight ? (prisoner made" to stand up.) A. I do. Q. How long have you known him by sight ? A. Since quite a boy. Q. Since you or he Avas quite a boy ? A. Since he was quite a boy. Q. Were you in the city of Washington on the day of the murder of the President 1 A. I was. Q. Did you see the prisoner at the bar on that day in Washington ? A. I think I did. Q. Where did you see him 1 A. I saw him on Pennsylvania avenue just below the National Hotel. I was standing as he passed just in front of where Mr. Steer keeps the sewing- machine store. Q. Which way was he going ? A. From towards the Capitol. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 159 Q. About what time of the clay of the 14th was it? A. It was about half past two, as near as I can recollect — between two and half past two. Q. Had you had a nodding acquaintance with him at all? A. I had; I knew him, and I suppose he knew me. There was no intimate acquaintance at ali. I recognized him when I met him. Q. As he passed did you recognize him, or he you ? (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley as leading.) Q. As he passed, state what occurred. A. There was a recognition; whether it was by him or me first, I am unable to say. Q. State whether it was by both. A. I could not state positively whether I nodded first or he did ; we both nodded. Q. Will you state whether there was anything about his dress or equipments on that occasion which attracted your attention ? A. There was. Q. Will you tell the jury what it was ? A. What attracted me more particularly was his dress rather than his face. I remarked his clothing very particularly. Q. What was there about him that attracted your attention? A. The appearance of the suit he wore — very genteel ; something like country manufactured goods, but got up in a very elegant style, the coat, vest and panta- loons. Q. Was there any reason why you noticed his clothes? If so, state it to the A. I cannot say there was anything particular, except his appearance so re- markably genteel. I vms rather struck with his appearance. Q. State whether he was on foot or on horseback. A. He was on foot. Q. What was there on his feet ? (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley as leading. Objection overruled.) A. I suppose he had boots or shoes. As he passed from me I turned and looked at his feet. He had on a new pair of brass spurs. Q. Now describe these spurs. A. They were plain common brass spurs ; nothing very particular about them except the rowel. Q. W^hat .was there about the rowel ? A. The rowel was very large and very blue ; they evidently were bran new. Q. What was upon his head ? A. He had on a felt hat. It was not one of these very low-crowned hats ; it had a rather wide brim, a sort of drab-color felt hat. Q. State whether the brim was a stiff or a limber one. A. It was a stiff-biimmed hat. Q. Which way did he go after passing you ? A. He was passing up the avenue towards the Metropolitan Hotel from where I was standing. Q. State whether his gait was rapid or .slow ? A. It was not very rapid ; an ordinary pace in walking; nothing very hasty. Cross-examined : By Mr. Bradley: Q. What was it that attracted your attention about his dress ; was it a par- ticularly fine dress ? A. It was a singular dress — one that I had never seen him wear before. It 160 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. was very geuteel and very pretty. I noticed him coming up ; I stood facing him as he passed; I was standing on an elevated position, probably eight inches above the pavement. Q. Was he in the habit of dressing genteelly or not ? A. I had never seen him dressed in a suit of clothes anything like that before ; I cannot say but what he was in the habit of dressing genteelly. Q. How did he usually dress when you saw him ? A. I cannot say that I could describe any particular dress. Sometimes I have seen him in rather rough costume as he would come in from the country ; at other times I have seen him dressed as genteely as anybody that walks the street. Q. How long had you been in the habit of seeing him come in from the country ? A. Fifteen years, as nearly as I can recollect. Q. What was he doing ; what was he engaged in ? A. I have seen him here market days, I suppose, passing and repassing. Q. Did he stand in market ? A. I cannot say ; 1 never saw him standing in market. Q. At what intervals of time were you in the habit of seeing him during that fifteen years ? A. I could not come at how often I had seen him in that fifteen years ; it would be very hard for me to say. Q. When did you see him last before you saAv him on the 14th of April 1 A. I cannot exactly name the time — that is, give the date. It was about the time of the opening of the race-course across the river beyond tlie Eastern branch. Q. You saw him then and there? ^ A. I saw him then and there. • Q. You mean the first opening 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. For how long a time had you been accustomed to see him coming in from the country ? A. I could not give exact dates; I have seen him since he vras quite a boy; I have seen him here with his father. Q. How often since he was grown 1 A. That I could not say positively, as to the number of times ; there was nothing remarkable about it by which I could fix any particular number — ten, twenty, fifty, or any other number. Q. Did you ever meet with him anywhere except passing 1 A. I have met him at the livery stable, where he stood talking. Q. What livery stable ? A. Pumphrey's ; they used to put up there, but subsequently changed to the brick stable across the way, Q. When was that ; how long before this event ? A. It was a considerable time before the death of his father. Q. Do you remember Avhen his father died ? A. I think his father died some time in 1S63 — somewhere about that neigh- borhood. Q. Four years ago ? A. I think he has been dead near about that time. Q. Were you ever at his fivther's house ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long ago was that ? A. In 1851. Q. Sixteen years ago ; how large was John Surratt at that time. A. He was a little chunk of a boy, probably so high. (Three feet.) TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 161 Q. How often were you at their bouse ? A. I was there on three occasions. Q. Tn what year ? A. During the fall of 1851. Q. How often since then 1 A. I have not been there since. Q. "Where did you meet him at any time between then and the fall before the death of Mv. Lincoln ? A. I have seen bim in the city. Q. AVherel A. As I have said, at the livery stable, and I have seen him on the street. Q. Did you ever talk with him at the livery stable ? A. That I cannot say positively ; whether I ever entered into conversation with him more than merely speaking. Q. Do you recollect ever to have said that he had been in your room since you knew him 1 A. I said I thought he had, but I was mistaken. Q. Have you not said you have seen him in your room frequently ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you recollect telling any citizen of your acquaintance that the place where you met him at the time you have mentioned on the 14th of April was further up the avenue, above Gth street 1 A. Xo, sir; I never said so. Q.'Do you recollect having said to any acquaintance of yours what his age was or his personal appearance 1 A. I described his personal appearance. Q. With any citizen, in conversation, do you recollect saying that he was a man about 35 years old ? A. From 30 to 35 years old I supposed he might be. Q. You say your attention Avas not particularly drawn to Surratt's face at that time ; can you state Avhether he had any beard or not 1 A. I cannot say positively whether he had, or not ; if he had, it was so slight as to be scarcely perceivable. Q. Do you mean so light in color or in growth ? A. So light in color and in growth. Q. So that if he had a beard you do not recollect it ? A. I do not recollect any at all. Q. What livery stable did you go to after his father's death ? A. To the brick stable belonging to Marshall Brown. His fother changed from Pumphrey's to that before his death. Q. Who kept that stable then ? A, Levi I'nmphrey. Q. Do you mean the stable at the corner of 6th and C streets ? A. Yes, sir ; at the corner of 6th and C streets. Q. Where did young Surratt put up his horse after his lather's death ? A. Whether he put his horse there or not I am not sure. I have seen him at the stable, but I have no recollection of seeing him stop there on horseback since the death of his father. Q. Do you recollect where Surratt the elder lived when you visited him ? A. Away down here in [Maryland. Q. In Avhat is called Surrattsville? A. It was not called Surrattsville then ; it was called John Surratt's. Q. What was there at the place called John Surratt's 1 A. He kept a hotel and a post office. Mr. Bradley desired to have the privilege of recalling Mr. Reed for cross- 162 TRIAL OF JOHN K. SUKRATT. examination at some future time, after the defence should have consulted with a witness now out of the city. Mr. Carrington objected to this course, as being without precedent, and held that there was no rule of court that justified such a course. Mr. Bradley argued that it was a matter within the sound discretion of the court. The defence expected to prove that Mr. Reed had made statements out of court contradictory to what had been- testified to in court. The defence, however, did not know that Mr. Reed was to be called, and they could not put the question in form until the absent witness referred to was here. The decision of the question was reserved until to-morrow morning. Su.«5AN Ann Jackson (colored) sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. How long ago were you married ? A. I have been married two years this May. Q. "What was your name before marriage ? A. Susan Ann Mahoney. Q. Were you married before or after the assassination of the President ? A. I was married two weeks after it. Q. You remember that event do you ? A. Yes, sir. •• Q. Do you remember where you were living iu the month of March, or the latter part of March, of the year in which the President was assassinated, before you were married 1 A. I was living at Mrs. Surratt's. Q. On what street was Mrs. Surratt's? A. On H street, between 6th and 7th. Q. And as you go up that way east, on which side of the street is it? A. On the right-hand side. Q. Do you remember the number 1 A. No, sir, I do not. Q. Do you remember about the entrance or stoop of the house, how that was ? A. There were high steps run up in front. Q. State to the jury about how high, whether they went up to the story or not. A. It was up to the second story, pretty near the windows. Q. Then it was very high, was it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Wiiere did you go from when you went to Mrs. Surratt's in March — from whose service did you go ? A. Mrs. Brown's. Q. Where did Mrs. Brown live? A. She lived on the island. Q. Do you know Mrs. Brown's first name, or her husband's name 1 A. No, sir, I do not. I did not stay there very long. Q. Do you remember the Good Friday in the April following the March when yovT went to Mrs. Surratt's. A. No, sir ; I don't remember the very day I went there . Q. Do you remember the Good Friday following that day, or any circum- stances about that Good Friday in April ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know whether Mrs. Surratt went away that day ? A. Yes. She went down in the country on Good Friday, between 11 and 12 o'clock. Q. In what did she go ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 163 A. She went in a buggy. Q. Did you see the man who went with her ? A. Mr. Weichman. Q, Did you see him ? A. Yes, sir. He boarded there at the same time. Q. You woukl know him now, if you were to see him ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see Mr. Weichman when he came back with JMrs. Suvratt A. Yes, sir ; I saw him when he came back with Mrs. Surratt. Q. About what time in the evening did Mrs. Surratt return ? A. As near as I can recollect, it was between 8 and 9 o'clock. Q. After that, on that evening, will you tell us whether you saw the prisoner here 1 "Witness. That one sitting over there? (pointing to the prisoner.) Mr. PiERREPONT. Yes. A. Yes, sir; I have seen him in the dining-room. Q. Who was with him ? A. His mother was with him. Q. What did his mother say to you ? A. I do not know. Q. Had you ever seen him before ? A. No, sir ; I had never seen him before. Q. How long had you lived in the house ? A. I had been there three weeks. Q. What did his mother say ? A. She told me that was her son. Q. What else did she say to him, or about him ? A. She did not say anything else. When I was gathering up some clothes to put in the wash, I asked if they were for Mr. Weichman, and she said no, they were for her son. Q. Did she say anything about who he looked like ? A. She asked me did he not look like his sister Annie. Q. What did you say to that ? A. I said I did not know ; I did not take good notice of him to see who he favored. Q. Who was it that asked you if he did not look like his sister Annie ? A. ]\[rs. Surratt. Q. Did you bring anything into the room you have spoken of where she was sitting with her son ? A. I had just brought a pot of tea into the room. Q. Who Avas in the room when you brought in the pot of tea ? A. Not any one, except her son. Q. Do you see any one now who she told you then was her son ? A. Yes, sir ; I am looking at him now. Q. State whether that is the one. (The prisoner made to stand up.) A. That is the man, sir. Q. After you took in the pot of tea, what did you do ? A. Just went out again. Q. Did you return again ? A. Xo, sir ; I did not return in the room any more. Q. Will you tell us, as near as you can, about what time in the evening you took in the pot of tea? A. As near as I can come at it, she came home between 8 and 9 o'clock. Well, when she came home and came to the dining-room, I carried in supper for 164 TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. Mr. Weicbman, the man who boarded there. After he Aveut out she called me and asked me for a second plate, cup, and saucer. I carried them to her. Q. And then you found this man there ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you know his sister Annie ? A. Yes, sir ; she lived there. Q. She was in the house? A. Yes, sir. Cross-examined : By Mr. Bradley : Q. "Were you ever examined as a witness about this matter before ? A. Yes, sir; Mr. Orrut examined me — or Captain Orfutt. I am not sure about the name. Q, Where were you examined ? A. He carried me down to his office — I forget where it was — in the night. Q. When was that ? A. Monday night after the assassination happened. Q. They took you down to a guard-house, or some place? A. They took me to the office. Q. Do you recollect where it was ? A. No, sir; I had never been there before. I do not recollect where it was. I think it was somewhere near the Treasury. Q. Who took you there — do you remember ? A. Xo, sir ; I went in a hack. Q. You were examined there ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did they wi-ite down your examination ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You were not examined afterwards ? A. No, sir ; not then, I was not. Q. Were you at any tiirse after this ? A. Yes, sir ; since then I have been down to what they call the War De- partment ; in the course of last week, I think it was. Q. How long after the assassination ? A. It was just last week I was cariied down to the War Department. Mr. Kelly carried me. Q. And yon were examined there ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember who examined you there ? A. No, sir ; I do not know the gentleman's name. Q. Was what you stated then written down ? A. Yes, sir; it was written down. Q. When you were examined before General Augur, if that was the place, did you then make the same statement you do now ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You stated that Mrs. Surratt's sou was there that night ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What became of him ? A, I do not know, indeed ; I did not see any more of him. Q. You saw him about 0, or half past 9 ? A. It was between S and 9 M'hen she came — after Mr. Weicbman and she ■ took tea, she called me to bring a pot of tea to this gentleman. Q. Was Mr. Weicbman in there also ? A. No, sir ; there was not any one there at all ; he was gone out. Q. Did he come into the same room? TRIAL OF JOIIX 11. SURRATT. 165 A. No, sir ; he was not in there with Mr. AVeiehmau. Q. Who came in from the country with Mrs. Surratt ? A. Mr. Wcichman. Q. Where did he go then ? A. I suppose he went up stairs to beA or somewhere. Q. Where was this gentleman then ? A. I do not know. Q. You had seen him before that ? A. No, sir ; I had never seen him until that night. Q. And when you went into the parlor you found him sitting in the dining- room, and Mrs. Surratt told you it was her son ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And this is the very same gentleman ? A. Y^'es, sir ; this is the very same gentleman who vras in there with Mrs. Surratt. Q. And that you told to these gentlemen and they wrote it down the Monday afterwards ? A. Y"es, sir. Q. And you never saw him before then, or since ? A. No, sir ; never before nor since, until one day last week when he was brought up here. Q. And you are sure he is the very same man ? A. He is the very same man she told me was her son. Q. And the very same man you saw at her house ? A. The very same man I saw the night after she came in from the country. Q. The night of the assassination ? A. Yes, sir ; the same night. Q. You say you had been living there three weeks ; was it just three weeks ? A. Yes, sir ; three weeks on Monday. Q. Now if you can go back a little, are you quite sure the gentleman you saw there, who she told you was her son, was not there on Monday, ten days before the assassination of the President 1 A. I never saw that gentleman she called her son until Friday night. Q. You are sure it was Friday night 1 A. Y'es, sir ; it was the Friday night she came from the country. Q. And that was the night the President was assassinated ? A. Y'es, sir ; it was the very night she came from the country ; it was the Friday night before Easter Saturday. Q. Do you not recollect the night the President was assassinated ? A. It was Friday night. Q. Was that the same night you saw this gentleman there ? A. It was the very night I saw this gentleman there. Q. You must have been there the night of the 3d April, the Monday night of the week before the President was assassinated ? A. I was there a week in 3Iarch. Q. Did you not see liim there on that Monday night the week before the I'resident was asassinated ? A. No, sir; not as I know of, I did not see him there the week before; I saw him on Friday night. By Ml-. PiKRREPONT : Q. Y'ou stated that you went into the dining-room, and that when you were in there Mrs. Surratt told you the person there was her son ; did you go there of your own accord, or did she call you in ? A. She called me in to bring a clean plate and cup ; yes, sir. 166 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. James Sangster sworn and examined. By Mr. PlERREPONT : If your honor please, in consequence of this witness being out of the jurisdic- tion of the United States, we are obliged to go a little out of our order so that he may return ; I will therefore examine him now. Q. Where do you reside ? A. Montreal, Canada. Q. Where did you reside in April, 1865 1 A. Montreal. Q. What was then and now your position ? A. Book-keeper at St. Lawrence Hall. Q. Will you take this book and state to the court and jury what it is ? A. That is an arrival book. Q, Take these and state what they are. A. One contains a copy of the bills rendered, and the other is a leaf from our departure book, in which is written the number of the room the parties occupied, when they go away, or by what train or boat. Q. Explain what you mean by arrival book. A. Parties come there and register their names before procuring rooms. Q. Will you state how you know when a party leaves your house, what train he will take, and in what direction? A. The entry is made in this departure book of the train or boat of the party going away. Q. Now turn to this arrival book, or register, as we are accustomed to call it, and will call it, to April G, 1SG5, and state whether you see there the name of John Harrison ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Please now show the book to the court and then the jury, (entry pointed out by witness to court and jury.) Now turn to the next arrival Avith the same name and tell us what day of April it is under ? A. The ISth. Q. Now can yo\i tell us whether the last is the same handwriting as the first? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you tell us from that register at what time in the day that arrival was ? A. 12.30 noon. Q. What was the time of the first arrival ? A. 10.30 a. m. Q. Will you now show these names to the jury ? (Register exhibited to jury and entries pointed out.) Now will you tell the court and jury, after the arrival on the 6th, Avhen was the departure of the man who entered his name as John Harrison ; tell us when he paid his bill, when he departed, and by what train ? A. He paid his bill on tbe 10th, but did not go away. Q. When did he go away ? A. He went away on the 12th. Q. How do you kuoAv he did not go away on the 10th ? A. It is written opposite the number of the room, " Not gone." Q. How do you know he went away on the 12th ? A. His bill was paid on the 12th for two days. Q. Turn and see if there is anything there that proves that. A. The name is entered in this bill book, with the amount paid on the 10th, four days ; then it is on this departure book that he staid two days, and went away on the 12th. Q. Which way did he go ? A. On the New York train. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 167 Q. At what time did the train leave 1 A. The train left at 3 o'clock ; leaving the house at 2A5. Q. That was what day ? A. The 12th ; lie left the house at 2.45. Q. Now turn to the ISth, when he arrived again, and tell us how many hours or minutes he staid on the 18th. A. He did not stay any time in the hotel ; I do not know how long ; he just came into the house. Q. Do you know where he went? A. I do not know the exact place; he went somewhere and was secreted in the city, I believe. Q. He left the hotel instantly, did he ? A. He left it instantly. Cross-examined : By Mr. Braulev, jr. : Q. You say he left the hotel instantly on the ISth. What is the entry on the ISth ? A. There is no entry excepting the name on the register. Q. He may have been there or somewhere else ? A. He may have been ; he paid no bill. Q. And had no room assigned him? A. Yes ; he had a room assigned to him. Q. And he may have been there Avithout your knowing it ? A. He may possibly have been there. Q. Do you identify this gentleman at the hotel as the prisoner at the bar? A. No, sir; I cannot say that I identify him. Q. Have you ever seen the prisoner at the bar before you came here ? A. I cannot say that. Q. Are there any circumstances that would recall this man to you ? A. The circumstances were, that after the death of Lincoln parties came there inquiring for him. and from the description they gave of his dress 1 remembered such a party there answering to that description. Q. What was this dress ? A. He wore Avhat is called a Garibaldi jacket. Bv the Coi'RT : Q. What is a Garibaldi jacket ? A. It is a kind of straight coat, or jacket, with a belt of the same material. By Mr. Bradley, jr. : Q. Do you recollect anything else peculiar about his dress ? A. I remember that he was tall — nothing more than that. At the time of these inquiries I remembered that such a party had been in the house. I do not remember now his appearance except that he wore a Garibaldi jacket. Q. Do you remember whether he carried a cane or not ? A. I do not remember that. Q. Or the style of his hat ? A. My impression is that it was a slouch hat — a kind of soft hat. Q. Do you remember the pants he wore ? A. No, I cannot describe them. The coat was close-fitting, buttoning up in front, with pockets in the sides. By a Juror : Q. Do you remember the color ? A. I do not remember the color. It was a style of coat not much worn there at the time, and attracted my attention. 168 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT Q. "Was the bat hard or soft 1 A. My impressiou is, it was a soft hat. By Mr. Pierrepont: Q. You saw the prisoner standing up just now. What do you gay as to height compared with this man ? A. I do not remember much about it. Q. Do you remember what description was given of this John Harrison by the parties who came to inquire ? A. I do not remember exactly what the description was. I remember they gave such a description that I knew the party had been in the house ; what it was I do not recollect. Mr. PlERKEPONT. I am informed by counsel upon the other side that they are going to bring in a dress they claim to coi'respond to that of this John Har- rison ; 1 will not, therefore, ask any further question at present. Mr. Bradley. I will say that we had sent a subpoena for Mr. Sangsterfor the purpose of proving these facts. I state it in order to ascertain how far it may be taken as a stipulation that the prisoner, John H. Surratt, on the 6tli of April, 1865, arrived at that hotel, and entered his name on the register as John Harrison ; that he left there on the 12th of April, returned on the ISth, and again registered his name as John Harrison. jNfr. PiERREPO.N'T. And that these two entries are in his handwriting. Mr. Bradlev. That he registered that identical name. We wish to exhibit to Mr. Sangster not the dress worn by the prisoner, but a dress of the same kind. Mr. Pierrepo.\t. That will certainly save us the necessity of taking a very considerable amount of evidence. The dress referred to was here brought into court, and the question asked by Mr. Bradley, jr., " Is that the style of garment worn by the person entering his name as John Harrison on the occasion referred to ?" Ans. "That is the style of garment." The court took a recess until to-morrow at 10 a. m. Wednesday, June 19, 18fi7. The Court met at 10 a. m. The court said that on Monday a request had been made by the counsel for the defence to have the court direct the prosecuting attorneys to furnish them with a list of the witnesses who were to be examined on the part of the government. He had carefully considered the subject, and had come to the conclusion that he had no power to make such an order, and that such an order would look like an infringement on the rights of the prosecution in thus com- pelling them to make known and lay open their case. There were various rea- sons why the order should not be made. It would gratify him to accommodate the counsel in this respect, if he could do so consistently with his view of the law. In regard to the subject proposed yesterday, relative to the defence being allowed the privilege of retaining witnesses and cross-examining them at any time during the trial, he would say that he had never known that course of practice to be allowed, and could not see any good ground for permitting it in this case. The same principle should apply in this case as in all others, which was that the cross-examination be restricted to the subject-matter brought out on the examination in chief. He then read the rule as set forth by the Supreme Court, to the effect that the defence had no right to cross-examine except as to matters brought out on the examination in chief. Mr. Bradley said they were advertised of a list of seventy witnesses which the prosecution had, but they knew nothing as to Avhat these witnesses would testify to, and could not therefore contradict them, and they had accordingly asked that the cross-examination of each witness be postponed. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRA.TT. 169 Carrol Hobart, conductor, sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. What is your present occupation ? A. 1 am running the train on the line of the Vermont Central railroad. Q. Will you tell the jury from what point to what point that train run? ? A. I run- it from Wliite River Junction to St. Albans. The train runs to Montreal. Q. Where is this White River Junction ? A. It is on the line of the Vermont Central railroad, at the terminus of the Northern New Hampshire railroad. It is on a direct route from Boston to Montreal. Q. State how far this is from Burlington. A. One hundred and three miles. Q. Does the road from Burlington unite with this road of yours ? A. Yes, sir. It is the Vermont Central and the Vermont and Canada prop- erly. We run out of the Vermont and Canada road at Essex Junction. The Vermont and Canada starts from Essex Junction, and runs to Rouse's Point. The Vermont Central and the Vermont and Canada is a consolidated concern. Q. In starting trom Burlington, Vermont, the road goes to R )use's Point ? A. Yes, sir. I go twenty-four miles over the Vermont and Canada road to go to St. Albans. I remain there one day, and the next morning I start and go twenty-four miles to Rouse's Point. That night I return and go back to White River Junction, the whole length of the route. Q. So that, then, the Burlington train comes up and meets your train ? A. Y'es, sir ; that comes up to Essex Junction, and the passengers from that train get on to mine. I stay that day and that night at St. Albans. Q. Do you take the Burlington passengers at Essex Junction .' A. I do. Q. From there you take them to St. Albans ? A, Y'es, gir. Q. At what time do you get to St. Albans, if you run regularly 1 A. I was due there at G o'clock in the morning. Q. Between the 10th day of April, 1SG5, and the 20th day of April. 1865, state whether you were the conductor on this same road ? A. I was, and have continued to be ever since. Q. Do you remember about what time in April, 1SG5, the first boat came up the lake, that left passengers at Burlington 1 A. I got the passengers from the first trip up the lake by the boat on Tues- day morning, in April. Q. Have you any memorandum of what kind of a night it was prior to this morning that you took these passengers ; I mean as to whether it was stormy or otherwise '? A. 1 think it was a clear night, but I am not sure. Q. At what time in the morning or night was it that your train started? A. I started from White River Junction at 11.55 at night; I cannot say whether we were then on time or not, but that was the time of starting. Q. Where did you go ? A. Directly to St. Albans. ,.;.• (The prisoner was here i-equested to stand up, that the witness might see him. lie did so.) Q. Will you tell the jury what occurred on the train that night that was peculiar 1 A. I arrived at E^^sex .Junction at 5 o'clock in the morning — Tuesday morn- ing. I left Essex Junction with the passengers from Burlington and the boat 12 170 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. ou Lake Champlain. As I went through the train, I found between the passen- ger car and the sleeping car two men standing on the platform ; they were on the platform of the passenger car, one on each side of the door. I spoke to these men, and asked them for their tickets. They said they had none, and that they had no money ; that they had been unfortunate. Q. Please describe these men ? A. One of them was tall ; he was about my height as he stood up in the car ; be was rather slim ; had ou a scull cap — one of these close-fitting caps — and short coat. His vest was opened down low, and his scarf came over under his collar and stuck in his vest. The other man was a short, thick-set man, of sandy complexion, with whiskers around his face, and had a slouched hat ou. Q. Of what color were his whiskers 1 A. Sandy, I think. Q. Was he a rrugh or genteel lookiug man 1 A. He was a rough-looking man. Q. How was he dressed 1 A. I cannot state about his dress. Q. With whom was the conversation 1 A. "With the tall man. Q. State what the conversation was ? A. I told him to come into the car, and put my hand on his shoulder. He came in. He said that three of them had been to New York ; they were Ca- nadians, but had been at work in New York ; that they had received some money two nights before — I won't be positive about the time — and that a third party who had been with ihem got up in the night, took all the money they had, and left ; that he had left them without anything — in a destitute condition. Q. What were they trying to do, did he say ? A. He said they must go to Canada ; that they wanted to get home ; that their friends lived in Canada, and that when they got home they wotdd get plenty of money, and would remit the amount of fare to me. Q. What further? A. 1 told them that I could not carry them. I spoke to them of the necessity of having money if they were going to travel, and that I could not carry them through free. They expressed themselves as very anxious to get through. I told them that 1 should leave them at the next station — Milton — between Essex Junction and St. Albans. I was busy when I got there with the train, and so forgot them. I went through the train again after leaving Milton, and found them in the rear end of the car. I tried them again to see if they had not some money. They said they had none, but that they must go to St. Albans ; that when they got there they could foot it. They inquired of me how far it was to Franklin ; that they were going through the country. I asked them how they were going to get there ? They said they were going afoot. Q. State where Franklin is ? A. Franklin lies northwest of St. Albans fourteen miles ; I think the distance is about four miles from the line — the Canada line. Q. When you asked them how they were going to get to Franklin, what did they say ? A. They said that they would have to go afoot ; that they had no money to pay their fare ou the stage ; that if I would carry them to St. Albans they would try and get home, or where their friends were. Q. AVho did this talking ] A. The tall man. Q. In the progress of this talk, or in the beginning of it, state what there was, if anything, peculiar about their dialect. A. This tall man tried to use broken English, as if he were a Canuck, but TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 171 occasionally lie would get a little in earnest for fear he was to be put off, and then he would drop the Canuck and speak good square English. Q. What did you discover as to his square English finally] A. That was what aroused my suspicions that things were not all right; that they were travelling incog., and I urged the matter more than I would if they had been really poor people and I had had strong proof of that fact. Q, Did anything happen in relation to the position of the tall man's hands at all ? If so, what ? A. His hands were not like those of a laboring man ; were not like those of a Canadian who had been used to hard labor. They were white and delicate. Q. You took them to St. Albans ? A. I did. Q. When they got to St. Albans what did they do 1 A. They went out into the yard, on to Lake street. I went into the general ticket office to attend to my business. Q. Did you see them any more that day ? A. I will not be positive. I cannot say whether I did or not. Q. If you did, it was soon after, I suppose? A. Yes, sir ; after I had done my work — about ten minutes, perhaps. Q. Can you tell us the time the train went on from St. Albans to xMoutreal after you got there ? or what time it would be due in Montreal ? A. Due there at 9.45 a. m. Q. That same morning ? A. Yes, sir, Q. At Montreal ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you seen anybody in court to-day that looks like the tall man that you saw 1 A. The man that stood up before me resembles the man that I saw very much. I should not recognize his face. He had at that time a moustache, with no whiskers on his chin. He had a cap on. Q. How did he wear his skull cap ? A. It was drawn down over his forehead, in the usual way. Q. Anything on one side at all ? A. Not that I noticed. Q. Did you hear anything soon after that about a handkerchief at St. Albans ? Mr. Merrick. That is hardly admissible. Mr. PiERRRPONT. I mean a handkerchief with Surratt's mark on it — the name of "J. H. Surratt." Mr. Bradley. That doesn't make any difference. The Court. Not anything that he heard. If he saw anything of the hand- kerchief it would be proper for him to state it, but not what he heard. Mr. Pierrepont. I do not believe that he did see it. That's all we wish with the witness. Before the cross-examination was proceeded with the following agreement was entered into by counsel on either side : "We agree that the time-tables of any railroad in the United States, duly certified from the office of the company, for the month of April, 186.0, and con- nected with the routes from the city of Washington to Canada, and from Detroit to Quebec, may be put in evidence, and shall be received without objection ; and, further, that these time-tables shall be produced on either side before the close of the case, in the regular process of the examination." 172 TRIAL OF JOHN 11 SURRATT. Cross-examination : By Mr. Bradley : Q. Have you any time-tables sliowing when the first steamboat went np tlie lake to Burlington from White Hall I A. I have no means of knowing the time that it arrived at Burlington — that is, the day of the month. I know it was on a Tuesday morning that I took the passengers from the first trip of the boat, because her trips are only Tuesdays and Fridays. Q. Can you ascertain the day of the month, when you return home ? A. I cannot. There is no way that I can get the date, sure. The accounts go in regularly every trip. There is no difference in them ; they are all alike. I could send you the account for the month ; that is all. Q. You do not know, as I understand from your testimony, whether these parties came by the steamboat to Burlington, or not? A. They told me that they lay in the depot at Burlington all night. Q. You started the next morning at 5.55 if A. No, sir. Q. What train brought them to you? A. It is a short train. There is a branch road from Burlington to Essex Junction. I think there are seven miles of road there. Q. They arrived, then, at Essex Junction before 5 55 in the morning ? A. 1 think, at that season, 5 o'clock in the morning was the time for leaving Essex. I left White Hall Junction at 11 55; arrived at Essex Junction at 5, and left there immediately, as soon as I could get the passengers removed and take on baggage, tVc. ; and then reached St. Albans, twenty-five miles further north, at G o'clock. Q. How far beyond St. Albans did you run? A. I go twenty-four miles to Rouse's Point the next morning. Q. From where? A. From St. Albans. Q. AVhat train took up your passengers at St. Albans, and went on im- mediately ? A. It was the morning mail train out of St. Albans, going west. Q. To Ogdensburg and Montreal ? A. Yes, sir. The passengers for Ogdensburg and Montreal went to Rouse's Point on the train, and then they separated. Q. What interval was there between your arrival at St. Albans and the de- parture of the train for Rouse's Point? A. I think the time allowed for breakfast at that season was twenty or thirty minutes. At. Rouse's Point there are two trains running northwest — one to Ogdensburg and the other to Montreal. Q. What time does that train to Montreal arrive in Montreal 1 A. At 9.45, I think. Q. I understand you ran up to Rouse's Point in the morning after your arrival at St. Albans and made a long stay there ? A. Yes, sir; I think from 7.15 a.m. to 5.45 in the evening. I took my departure for White River Junction at 5.45 in the evening. Q. At what time does the afternoon train which you took at Rouse's Point leave Montreal ? A. I think, at that season, it left at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Q. Did the passengers, by the Montreal train reach St. Albans in time to connect with you at 5.45 ? A. They came back to Rouse's Point at 5.30, I think — giving me fifteen minutes in which to change passengers, baggage, &;c. Q. That is the connecting train ? A. Yes, sir. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 173 Q. What time do you reach White River Junction ?• A. I reached White River Junction, at that season, at 1 o'clock a. ra. — in the Q. What train, coming south, takes up your passengers at AVhite River Junction 1 A. At that time it was a train going directly through Springfield. We have two roads to New York — one by way of Springfield, and the other by way of Albany. Q. Taking the New York road first, what time did the train leave which takes your passengers? What time does that train leave for Albany? A. It leaves for Essex Junction at 8.40, I think, in the evening, going to Burlington and Albany. Left White River Junction at that time at 1.10, I think, for Springfield. Q. The train from New York, then, leaves at Essex Junction ? A. Yes, sir ; for New York by way of Troy and Albany. Q. Is there any other route except the Springfield route ? A. No, sir ; except by way of the boats from Rouse's Point. The boats run from Lake Champlain to White Hall, leaving Rouse's Point at 5.45. Q. Do you recollect whether the tall one of the two persons who went on that trip with you had any " goatee," as it is called? A. I think not, though I would not be sure. Q. Was not his face quite clean 1 A. Otherwise than a slight moustache. Q. Do you recollect his eyes at all ? A. I could not state po.-=itively anything about them. Q. Did not his skin strike you as being quite fair? A. No, sir ; I should not think he looked very fair. He was poorly clad and looked as if he had been without his sleep for some time. Q. The taller one of the two ? A. Yes, sir; he did all the talking that was done. He looked rather rusty — not particularly fair. Q. Do you recollect Avhether or not, in the month of April, especially the April of 1865, the route from Albany to Burlington was very irregular? A. The boats were irregular in their arrivals at White Hall. They were not so irregular ont of P)urlington. Q. Did they fail to make their connection with you ? A. Yes, sir ; they did on the beginning of navigation. Q. That is a daily route, is it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you make more than a trip a day ? A. No, sir. It takes the boats some twelve or fourteen hours to make the passage over the lake. They go up one day and come down the next. Q. Do you know whether that same route goes to Rutland or not ? A. O, yes, sir ; we connect with a train through to Rutland, at Saratoga, Troy, and Albany. Q. Does the boat also go to Rutland ? A. No, sir ; it goes to White Hall. Q. Can you state whether or not the Troy train to Rutland connects with any train immediately — morning train ? A. Yes, sir; I think that train connected with us as it does now. I take the sleeping car that comes from Troy on at Essex Junction. Q. At that time, according to your recollection, the morning passengers from Troy did not lie over at Rutland for the evening train? A. I think I received those morning passengers from Troy and Albany, with the sleeping car, on my train at Essex. Q. Has the arrangement beeu altered since 1 174 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. No, sir. Q. If a passenger leave Troy in the morning, going north, does the train go through, or does he lie over in Rutland till the night train passes and then goes on ? A. No, sir: that train connects with the Rutland train. Some few weeks ago they did not run in connection with our express train. This irregularity, however, continued but a short time. It was caused by some misunderstanding among the managers of the road. Re-examination by Mr. Pierrepont: Q. I understood you to state, that in the beginning of the navigation the boats were sometimes irregular? A. Yes, sir. Q,. I understand you to state, also, that this train that you speak of contained the first boat-load of the season ; am I right? A. Yes, sir ; the first boat-load on the lake for that season. Q. I understand you to state that, after you arrived at St. Albans, you never saw these two men again ? A. I am not positive; I was questioned by a gentleman as I was passing to my boarding place. (Mr. Merrick objected. Objection susta'ned.) Mr. Bradley desiring some rule laid down as to the re-examination of wit- nesses, after the cross-examination had been concluded, The Court said: The rule Avill be, that wherever there is any doubt on the part of one of the counsel as to what the answer of a witness on cross-examina- tion has been, he may repeat the question to the witness, and ascertain from him what answer he had given. Charles H. Blinn, clerk, Weldon House, St. Albans, Vermont; residence, St. Albans, Vermont. By Mr. Pierrepont: Q. What was your employment, and where were you employed, between the 10th and the 15th of April, 1865? A. Between the 10th and the 15th of April, 1865, I was employed as night watchman in the passenger depot of the Vermont Central depot in Burlington, Vermont. Q. Do you remember when the first passenger boat of that season landed its passengers at Burlington that season ? A. The first trip made by the boat that season was the 17th of April. Q. What day of the week ? A. Monday. Q. Can you tell whether it arrived in time for the passengers to take the train ? A. It was four hours late Q. At what time did it arrive ? A. About twelve o'clock in the night. Q. Were you on watch that night in the depot ? A. Ye.'^, sir. Q. Did you see two men in that depot? If so, tell us about them. A. There were two men who came in from the boat; one was a tall man, and the other shorter. They requested permission to sleep in the depot until the train loft for Montreal. Q. At what time did the train leave? A. The train left at 4.20 the next morning. Q. Where did that boat come from ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 175 A. It came from White Hall, and connects with the cars from 'blew York city. It runs from White Hall to Rouse's Point, on the lake. Q. State what arrangement, if any, was made between you and them, about sleepinoj there. A. They requested permission to sleep on the benches in the depot. Q Which one made the request 1 A. The taller gentleman ; he did all the talking. Q. What did he say] A. He wished to know if he could sleep there. People very often come along in that way, when the cars from the Rutland road were late. Q. I am merely asking what he said? A. He wished to know if he could sleep there. I asked him if he did not wish to go to a hotel. He said he thought not ; he was going to Montreal on the early train, and would like to sleep there in the depot. Q. Did you call him 1 A. Yes, sir, in time for the train. Q. At what time did you call him 1 A. I should think 4 o'clock, Q. In the morning ? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was on Tuesday ? A. Yes, sir, that was on Tuesday morning, the 18th. Q. After he went out did you see anything where he had been lying ? A. I did not. Q. Any article ? A. I did not, until daylight. Q. Did you at daylight ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you it there ? A. I have, or something that resembles it very much. Q. Just look at it and state if you recognize it as the same. A. (After examining it.) I do recognize that as the same handkerchief. Q. Where, in relation to where the tall man slept, was that 1 A. That was near the seat, on the floor, where his head lay. (The handkerchief was here shown to the jury.) Q. Is there any name on it ? A. Yes, sir ; "J. H. Surratt, 2." Mr. Bradley : The name is all spelt right ; but we canaot admit the handwriting. If it is his, you will have to prove it. The Court : Q. When you picked it up was that name on it ? A. It was. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. What did you do with the handkerchief after you picked it up ? A I did not discover the name until three hours afterwards. Q. What did you do with it after you discovered the name 1 A. I gave it to my mother to be washed. Q. How soon after you discovered the name did you make known the fact that you did discover this handkerchief with the name on it ? A. I made it known during the day, I presume. Q. To whom did you make it known ? A. I showed it first to the agent of the railroad company at Burlington. Q. Do you know whether he communicated the fact to St. Albans ? 176 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. I scarcely tliiuk he did. Q. I say, do you know ? A. I do not. Q. Did you see either of these men after they left 1 A. I did not. SciPiANO Grillo, restaurant keeper and musician, residence navy yard, sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepoxt : Q. Where were you living in the month of April, 1S65 ? A. My residence was at the navy yard. Q. "What business had you here in the city 1 A. I kept a restaurant under Ford's theatre. Q. IHd you know John Wilkes Booth by sight ? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you first see him ? A. I knew him for five or six years before the assassination. I have been in the profession myself. Q. As an actor 1 A. No, sir, as a musician. Q. Did you know David Herold, one of those tried for conspiracy ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you know George Atzerodt ? A. By sight. Q. When did you see Herold last, before the assassination ? A. I saw him near about 5 o'clock. Q. On the same day ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when, before the assassination, did you last see Atzerodt ? A. About ten minutes after that; we walked together down Pennsylvania avenue, and met Atzerodt at the Kirkwood House, on the steps. Q. Who walked, with you? A. Herold. Q. How came you to take this walk with Herold ? A. As I was coming down Tenth street I met Herold, and he asked me if I bad seen John Wilkes Booth. I told him I had ; that I had seen him in the morning about 11 o'clock ; that he had some letters which he had received ; his letters used to come addressed to the theatre. Q. Proceed and state what further occurred. A. 1 told him that I saw him a little after 4, on horseback ; that he stopped in my place and got a drink. Q. AYhat kind of a horse was it that he rode ? A. A small horse — gray, I believe, as far as my recollection serves me. Her- old after this said to me, " Do you know that General Lee is in town V I told him no, I did not ; that I hadn't heard of it. He says " Yes, he is stopping down at AVillards'." Q. This, 1 understand you, was the day of the assassination ? A. Yes, sir ; in the afternoon. Says he, " Yes, he is stopping at Willards' ; let's take a walk up there, and find out something about it."' We started up, and as we got to the Kiikwood House we met Atzerodt sitting on the steps. He stopped to talk to him, and 1 walked ahetid as far as the corner to wait for him. He stopped wiih him two or three minutes, and then came back, and walked witli me up to Willards'. After we got inside of Willards', Herold met two young men. They talked together awhile ; I do not know what they said. As they were in the act of parting, Herold says : " You are going to-night, aiu't you V One of the young men answered and said, " Yes." TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 177 Q. In what tone of voice was the talk before that ? A. In a low tone. They were apart to themselves. Q. Was there anything more said that you could hear other than what you have repeated ] A. No, sir. Q. "What did this man who said he was going to-night do, after saying- "yes." A. Nothing:. AVe left him and went out toward Grover's theatre. I noticed Herold walking a little lame, and says to him, "What's the matter 1 You are walking lame." lie replied, "Nothing; my boot hurts me." When we got behind the park there, he pulled up his pants to fix his boot. I then noticed that he had, run down in his boot leg, a big dagger, the handle of which was four or five inches above the leg of the boot. I said to him, " What do you want to carry that for ?" He answered, " I am going into the country to-night on horseback, and it will be handy there." I laughed at him, and said " You ain't going to kill anybody with that ?" I left him at the door of Geary's bil- liard saloon. I went up stairs, and he walked ahead. Q. Look about in this room and see if you see anybody that looks like the man who said " yes," when Herold asked him if he was going to-night ] A. Well, the gentleman, I believe, is that man, (pointing to the prisoner,) but I don't know. As far as my knowledge goes, he looks very much like him. He had no beard, however. Q. Had he a moustache ? A. A little moustache, as far as my knowledge goes. I never was acquainted with the man before. Who he resembled I could not exactly remember. Q. You did not see anybody that told you that General Lee was there, did you? A. I inquired there, and found there was no General Lee about. By the District Attorney : Q. Were you in partnership with Mr. Taltaval 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. What sort of a hat did this person have on in Willards' Hotel — the one that resembled the prisoner ? A. As far as my knowledge goes, I believe it was a black hat. It was a slouched hat with a stiff brim. Cross-examination : By Mr. Bradley : Q. You say you have been in the profession as a musician of the theatre yourself, and had a restaurant close by Ford's theatre at this time ; I will ask you if you know Mr. Gilford? A. I do. Q. Do you know Mr. Carlan, who used to be connected there ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know an actor named Hest? A. Yes, sir. Q. On the night of the assassination did you see either of those three, or any of them, out on the pavement in front of Ford's theatre ? A. No, sir. I was not out of the place myself. I was in the orchestra be- tween the first and second acts ; but in the third act we had nothing to do, (being always dismissed after the curtain is down,) and so I went out and went inside of my place. Q. Do you recollect of seeing any soldiers sitting out on the platform there ? A. Not that I remember. There were a great many people out there all the tinie. Q. Did you see any one sitting on the carriage platform ? 178 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUEEATT. A. T could not tell, because I did not take any notice. Q. Did you return to the theatre again before the assassination of the Presi- dent ? A. No, sir. Q. You were in your restaurant. A. Yes, sir. Q. Uo you recollect of Booth coming in there ? A. Yes, sir. I was behind the bar at the time. Q. Was anybody with him ? A. No, sir. He came alone. Q, How long was that before you heard of the assassination ? A. It must have been between eight or ten minutes, or fifteen minutes ; I cannot remember exactly. Q. "Will you describe, if you recollect, what light there was in front of the theatre, and where it was placed that night? A. We had two lights outside in the street ; then there were two lamps in front of the theatre. The light is very brilliant there. Q. Do you recollect where the clock is placed in that theatre ? A. Yes, sir ; in the passage as you enter the building. Q. On the right-hand 1 A. In the centre. By a Juror: Q. In the centre of the doorway? A. In the centre of the doorway nearest the alley. On the one side is the ticket ofiice, and on the other is the door going into the theatre; and in the cen- tre of that door- way is the clock. Q. Fixed like the clock in this room ? A. Yes, sir. At this point the court took a recess of half an hour. aftp:r.\oo.\ session. John T. Tibbett sworn and examined. By the District Attorney : Q. Where do you reside 1 A. In Prince George's county, Maryland. Q. How long have you been living in Prince George's county ? A. I lived there twenty-two years first ; I left home then and went soldiering. I went back there and staid twelve months, and I have been here in Wash- ington ever since. Q. You are now living then in the city ? A. Yes, sir. Q. In what part of the city 1 A. On the island, near the Washington monument. Q, What is your business ] A. Blacksmithing. Q. How long have you lived in Washington ? A. I came to Washington about the 10th of December last. Q. You say you were in the army a portion of the time, in what regiment ? A. The first District Columbia cavalry. Q. You were enlisted in this city 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. How long were you in the army ? A. I enlisted August 5, 1863, and served until November, 1865. Q. What was your business in 1863 and 186'i 1 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 179 A. A part of the time in 1S63 I was soldiering, and a part of that year I wa3 carrying the mail from Washington to Charlotte Hall. Q. Where is Charlotte Hall ? A. I disrcmcmber whether it is in St. Mary's or Charles county, I was not very much acquainted in those parts. Q. How long were you engaged in the business of carrying the mail between those two points ? A. 1 am positive I was more than a month. Q. State to the jury if you know John H. Surratt, the prisoner at the bar ? A. I do. Q. How long have you known him 1 A. I have known John H. Surratt for the last ten or eleven years. Q. Have you been in the habit of seeing him frequently ? A. I have, in passing and repassing from Washington down to my father's, before carrying the mail. Q. Did you know his mother, Mrs. Mary Surratt ? A. I did. Q. Did you ever see the mother and son together ? A. Yes, sir, I have. Q. Have you ever heard them conversing in the presence of each other in re- ference to Abraham Lincoln, late President of the United States ? If so, state what you have heard them say ] A. 1 have heard them conversing but very little together. Mr. John H. Surratt had but very little to say when I would be passing there, but I have heard Mrs. Surratt say Mr. Bradley. I would like to know upon what ground this evidence is offered. The Court. Do you propose to prove the conversation betv/een the prisoner and Mrs. Surratt in reference to Abraham Lincoln ? The District Attorxey. Yes, sir; the convei-sation in presence of the pris- oner, expressing malice towards the President, and pointing directly towards his assassination. Mr. Bradley. How long before the assassination? Mr. PiERREPONT. We do not care how long. Mr. Bradley. Y'ou will hardly say a conspiracy was formed in 18G3. Mr. PiERREPONT. We will show, before we are through, that the conspiracy was formed in 18G3. Mr. Bradley. I think the evidence is not competent, but we waive any objection to it. WiT.\E.«;s. I heard Mrs. Surratt say ]\Ir. Merrick. In the presence of the prisoner at the bar ? Witness Yes. I heard her say she would give any one $1,000 if they would kill Lincoln. Q. State if you heard any other declarations by the prisoner, or by his m.it'ier in presence of the prisoner, during this period of time ; and if so, state what they were. A. I do not recollect anything more, except as I would hear them talk occa- sionally as I would pass, abusing the President; I paid very little attention to them. The District Attorney. I propose now to show by this witness that in speaking of the President of the United States they made use of the most opprobrious language, expressing feelings of personal hostility. I offer this upon the general principle that in a murder case I may show the feelings of the prisoner towards the deceased, and especially that he used expressions of malice towards him prior to the commission of the crime. Mr. Bradley. The witness has already said that he recollects nothing fur- 180 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. tlier, except that he has heard a kind of abuse of the President. If the object of the g-entleman is to know what kind of abuse, it may be obtained possibly in some other way ; I do not think in this way it can be reached. Mr. PiKRREPOXT. We put the question directly, then. Q. State what you have heard said. A. I have not heard much pass ; only occasionally I would hear abuse. Q. State the words that were said. A. I cannot recollect what the words were. I think, I will not be positive, I have heard Mr. Surratt say Mr. Bradlky. You need not state what you think you have heard. Mr. PiERREPO\T. You understand that we cannot expect you to repeat the precise words, nor do we desire you to state anything that is not strictly in accordance with the truth. You are permitted to state the substance of what you have heard the prisoner say in reference to Lincoln. Witness. Whenever there was a victory, I have heard Surratt sav, " The d d northern army and the leader thereof ought to be sent to hell." Mr, Bradley. We object to that. Q. In any of these conversations to which you have referred, did you hear the name of Abraham Lincoln mentioned ] (Question objected to as leading. The witness is to be asked simply to state what he heard.) The District Attorney. In any of these conversations did Surratt men- tion the name of Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States ? (Question objected to as leading.) Tlie Court. That is a leading question. Witness. I do not recollect whether he did or not, but at that time I thought Mr. Merrick. No matter what you thought. Mr. Pierrkpont. Did you in conversation with Mrs. Surratt hear Mr. Sur- ratt say anything in reference to who was the leader of the northern army 1 A. I did not. Q. Did you hear either of them say who was the leader of the northern army 1 A. 1 have heard Mrs. Surratt call the President's name often; but as to Mr. Surratt, I never heard him speak but very little of the President. Q. Was Mr. Surratt present when she spoke of the President? A. He then had the mail, carrying it into the room, if I mistake not, to open it. Q. Was he within close hearing 1 A. He was in the room ; I think he was within hearing. Q. In speakinj;- of the leader of the northern army, was there anything he said that indicated who he meant as the leader of the northern army ? A. I do not know who he meant by that word; he only said " the leader of the northern army." Q. And when his mother was speaking of Lincoln in his presence, he did not say anything about "the leader?" A. Xo, sir. Q. Tlien, when speaking after victories, at the time he used these words, " That they ought to go to hell, and the leader of the northern army too," who did he say ought to go to hell ? A. He did not say ; he immediately turned his back and walked off. Q. What was the manner in which that was said 1 A. He had heard of some victory won by the northern array, or of emanci- pation, or something of that kind; I disremember what caused him to use the words. Q. Did you hear him more than once use words to that effect ? A. T do not recollect hearing him say that but once. Q. Was his mother present ? TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 181 A. I do not recollect wlietlier she was or not. Q. Was anybody else present when she said she would herself give 81,000 to have Lincoln killed, except John H. Surratt, the prisoner 1 A. I do not think there was any one in the room but him and her. Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley : Q. At what time did yon carry the mail in 1SG3 ? A. In February or March. Q. Was it a daily mail 1 A. A daily mail ; yes, sir. Q. You were not then in the service ? A. No, sir. Q. Who drove the stage ? A. I drove a buggy, and carried the mail. Q. Who was the contractor? A. Mr. Thompson. Q. HoAV soon after you begun to carry the mail was it that you heard Mrs. Surra tt use that language ? A. It was, to the best of my knowledge, near about the first of March. Q. This was about the middle of your time of carrying the mail ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What were they talking about ? A. I do not know what they were talking about. I cannot recollect so far back. Q. You do not recollect any of the conversation ? A. No, sir. They must have been Q. Not what they must have been ; do yon recollect what they were talking about ? A. I recollect of her asking some question about Washington, as .she always did. Every day, as I passed backward and forward, they would ask if I had seen blockade runners, or something or other. When I would go down from Washington they would ask how were times in Washington, and when I came up from Charlotte Hall they would ask if I had heard any news from the south ? Q. On this occasion nobody was there but you three? A. No, sir ; not that I recollect. Q. And you do not recollect what they were talking about when you heard her say she would give 81,000 to any one who would kill Lincoln ? A. No, sir. Q. That is all you heard or recollect of the conversation? A. That is all I recollect. Q. You were then carrying the mail of the United States; did you go and tell anybody of that ? A. 1 do not think that I spoke that to any one. I paid very little attention to what I heard in that j)art of the world in those times. I did not notice it. Q. You never told anybody you heard Mrs. Surratt say she would give 81,000 to any one who would kill Lincoln ? A. No, sir ; not until it was somewhere, I believe, about two months ago, I 5poke it to a gentleman in Washington here. Q. Who was that ? A. It was my uncle. Q. Who is he ? A. Watson is his name — William J. Watson. I suppose he let the cat out of the wallet. Q. This Mr. Watson is the only one you ever told this to, and that i^iily two months ago ? s 182 TRIAL OF JONH H. SURRATT. A. If I mistake not, I told my father of it. I will not be positive. Q. Where does William J. Watson live 1 A. In Prince George's county, Maryland. Q. How far from here 1 A. Thirty-eight miles. Q. When were you discharged ? A. In November, I think. Q. Where were you stationed in the spring of 1S65 ? A. I was with the army of the James, on the north side of the James river. Q. With General Grant ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where were you discharged 1 A. At Fortress Monroe. Q. You say you heard John Surratt say — and you cannot recollect hearing him say it but once — that he wished the northern army and their leader was iu hell. Where was that ? A. It was at his own house, or at his mother's house. Q. Was it while you were carrying the mail, in February or March, 1SG3 ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You do not know whether that was after some victory, or something about emancipation 1 A. I do not know whether he was alluding to emancipation, or whether it was some victory ; it was something they were talking about. Q. Was anybody present then 1 A. I think there were some two or three in the room. Q. Do you remember any of them ? A. No, sir, I do not. Q. Mrs. Surratt and her son both knew you were employed by the govern- ment as a mail carrier ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Yet you heard these two expressions. Can you describe where Mrs. Sur- ratt was when you heard her make use of that expression ? A. She was in the bar-room, standing, I think, near about the centre of the floor. Q. Where was he ? A. He was then passing, as near as I can recollect. Whether he had opened the door to go into the room, or not, I cannot state. Q. Was that to assort the mail ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you state whether he had not gone through ? A. I do not recollect whether he had gone through or not. I am confident he was there just before the time she spoke. Q. Then she said that to you ? A. Yes, sir, she said that to me. Q. And so far as you are positive, you do not know whether any one else was present ? A. No, sir, I do not know of any one else being present. Q. You say you mentioned it to your uncle Watson, and you may have men- tioned it to your father. Who did you mention it to afterwards ? A. I cannot recollect who I mentioned it to after that. Q. Who came after you ? A. A detective, or some one; I do not know who he was. Q. What sort of a man 1 A. He was an aged-looking man, somewhere about thirty-five or forty, I think. I could not call his name. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 183 Q. Did you tell him ? A. No, sir. Q, Did he not come to ask you what you knew about it ? A, No, sir. Q. "What did he do when he came ? A. He said he had a summons for me, and gave me a summons to appear at the court-house. Q. Have you that summons with you 1 A. I have. [Summons produced.] Q. Did you go to any other place before you came to the court-house ? A. Yes, sir; I went to a good many other places before 1 came here. Q. Did you go to any other place and have a conversation about this busi- ness before you came here ? A. He ordered me to report to Mr. Carrington. I went there, and Mr. Car- rington told me to be here in the witness-room. Q. Did you go to anybody else besides Mr. Carrington after that ? A. No, sir. Q. When was that ? A. Yesterday morning. Q. Do you mean that you did not tell the detective or Mr. Carrington, or anybody else, about this 1 A. No, sir, not that I recollect. (Examination objected to by the district attorney. The Court. The witness may be asked whether the detective gave any promise or oftered any reward.) Q. Did you say anything to anybody yesterday about this matter ? A. No, sir. Q. You did not tell anybody what you knew about this business, or what you could prove 1 A. No, sir, I did not, that I can recollect. Q. Did I understand you correctly, that you did not mind these expressions much, considering tlie kind of people that were down there 1 Were these ex- pressions common in that part of the world 1 (Question objected to by Mr. Pierrepont, as too large a scope to inquire about expressions " in that part of the world." Objection overruled, on the ground that it was in explanation of what the witness had already said.) A. That expression was very common among the people of Prince George's county, Maryland. Robert H. Cooper sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepoxt : Q. Are you now in the army ? A. No, sir. Q. When did you leave the army ? A. In June, 1S65 ; I was discharged. Q. Were you in the volunteer service 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. From what State ? A. Pennsylvania, Beaver county, town of Beaver, Q. Do you live there 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. What is your occupation there ? A. I am a clerk in a store. Q. When did you enter the army ? A. I entered it in Augn.«t, 1SG2. Q. AVhat was your service ] 184 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. I was in the artillery. I belonged to Thompson's Independent Battery, company C, Pennsylvania artillery. • Q. Where was your company stationed 1 A. At Camp Barry, intersection of Camp Barry with the Baltimore pike. Q. At that time what was your office 1 A. I was a line sergeant. Q. In April, 1SG5, you were a line sergeant ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You remember the event of President Lincoln's assassination, of course ? A. Yes, sir. Q. In the afternoon of that day were you at your camp ? A. Yes, sir. Q. At what time did you leave your camp 1 A. It was after dress parade. Dress parade is about sundown. Q. This was April 14, 1865 ? A. Yes, sir. Q. After that, what did you do 1 A. I came to town. Q. How far. was your camp from Ford's theatre ? A. I presume it is two miles. I do not know the exact distance. Q. Who did you come in with 1 A. I came in with Sergeant Dye. Q. Where did you and Sergeant Dye go to ? A. We went down to Pennsylvania avenue, and from there we went up Tenth street to Ford's theatre. Q. What did you go to Foi-d's theatre for — in consequence of what ? A. There was no particular consequence — we were merely going to camp. We came down Pennsylvania avenue that far, and went up 10th street. Q. Did you hear anything that made you stop there ? A. No, sir. Q. When you got to the theatre what did Sergeant Dye do ? A. He sat down on the platform in front of the theatre. Q. W"as there any carriage near the platform ? A. Yes, sir ; the Presi Jent's carriage was standing at the platform. Q. What did you do ? A. I do not remember whether I sat down when he did or remained s*^and- iug. I presume I sat down alongside of him, but did not sit but a moment or two. Q. Then what did you do ? A. I think I moved up the street a few yards towards F street. Q. Then what ? A. I was walking up and down the street. I walked up to the corner of F street once, crossed over to the other side of 10th street and walked down the other side. Q. Did you cross back again on the same side the theatre was ? A. Yes, sir ; I went across right in front of the theatre. Q. -State whether you spoke to anybody ; and if so, to whom 1 A. I do not remember correctly. Sergeant Dye was sitting there, and he and I may have had some conversation. We had conversations at different times. Q. While you were walking about ? A. Yes, sir, we did. "When I came to where he was sitting I sometimes spoke to him. (Counsel for the defence objected to this kind of examination as leading. Objection sustained by the court.) Q. Did you speak to any other person that you remember 1 TRIAL OP JOHN H. SURRATT. 185 A. I do not remomber that I did. Q. You spoke of the President's carriage standing by the phitform ? A. Yos, sir ; Ave observed that when we went there. Q Did you see anybody about the carriage ? and if so, who did you seo ? A, The driver sat on the carriage, and while we remained there a gentleman ap|)roached the carriage to the rear and looked in at the rear of the carriage. Q. Tell what kind of a man he was ; I speak of age, height, dress, and ap- pearance? A. He was a young man, very genteelly dressed ; that was all I noticed about him. I did not observe him particularly. Q. As to height, what would you say ? A. I presume he was about five feet eight or ten inches. Q. Compared with yourself, what was his height, without going into feet and inches. »A. I think probably he was about the same height I am, as nearly as I can recollect. Q. Did you see any other man standing there near the wall ? A. I observed a rough-looking man standing near the wall of the theatre. Q. Tell about his height. A. I would say, to the best of my recollection, that he was not as tall as the other gentleman, who looked into the rear of the carriage. Q. Did you see anybody go into the drinking room by the side of the theatre ? A. Yes ; I saw a gentleman go into the drinking saloon below the theatre. Q. Who was he — did you know him ? A. I did not know the gentleman ; he was pointed out. Mr. Bradlkv. That is not evidence. Mr. Pierrepont proposed to show that this man was pointed out to witness as John Wilkes Booth. Objection sustained. (Witness at this point partially fainted, and proceedings were suspended for Bome moments until he had recovered.) Q. I will ask you if the same person who was pointed out to you went into the drinking saloon ? A. Yes, sir ; 1 observed him go into the drinking saloon. Q. Was he pointed out to you, and his name given 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see him come out ? A. Yes, sir. Q. After this man came out from the saloon, what did he do ? A. I did not observe him after he came out from the saloon. Q. Before that, did you hear any one call the time ? and if so, what did you hear the last time you heard it 1 A. The last time 1 heard it called was ten minutes past ten. It was after this gentleman came out of the saloon. Q. Did you hear the time called before that ? A. I cannot recollect distinctly whether I did or not. I have a faint recol- lection that I did, but I am not certain. Q. Were you so situated at the time you heard the time called, ten minutes past ten, that you could see the face of the man who called it ? A. No, sir ; T was ijot. Q. What did you and Sergeant Dye then do ? State what occurred. A. We started round a corner and Avent to a saloon to get some oysters. Q. Did anything occur exciting your suspicion at this time ? A. I do not know that I could say that there was anything particu' sr ih it excited my suspicion. 13 186 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Did anything occur from anybody else exciting your suspicion at the time ? Mr. Merrick. Anything that was done? Jlr. PiERRRPOXT. Anything that was said 1 The Court. He may state anything that was said or done by other parties who were there present acting together, if he saw or heard them. Q. I want to know whether you had completed your answer in regard to vour suspicion ? ' A. I had. Q. AVhat did you and Sergeant Dye do? A. We went around a corner to an oyster saloon and ordered some oysters. Before we had received the oysters a man came running in and said the Presi- dent was shot. Q. What then did you do ? A. We ate some of our oysters. I cannot say that we ate them all. We got up and went out to H street, and went down H street to camp. Q. As you were going down H street to camp, on which side of the street did \ou go 1 A. We went down the ria-ht-hand side to somewhere about the Printing Office. Q. What occurred, if anything, on your way down ? A. As we were going down H street there was a lady raised a window, put her head out, and asked us what was going on down town, or something to that effect. Q. What was the reply ? A. We told her the President was sliot. She asked us who shot him. We replied, Booth. Q. AYas there anything about the house to mark it ? A. I observed there were high steps there. Q. Have you seen the house since, or passed it ? A. I have seen a house that resembles it. Q. What is the number of the house ? A. 541 H street. Q. Have you seen it lately ? A. Yes, sir ; a few days ago. Q. What did you do then ? A. We went on to camp, A little further down the street we met two po- licemen. Q. What occuj-red between you and the policemen? Mr. Merrick. That will not do, unless they were part of the conspirators. Mr. Pierrepont. They were not a part of the conspirators, but we desire the witness to answer what occurred. A. Nothing occurred. We met them and passed on. As we met them wo told them the President was shot. Mr. Merrick. No matter what occurred between you and the policemen ; it is not proper to be shown. Objection sustained. Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley : Q. In what street was that oyster saloon where you got your oysters ? A. I do not know now. It was after night, and I did not take notice of the street. Q. Did you cross any street before you turned ? A. No, sir, I think not. We went round the corner of a street. Q. The first street above the theatre? A. I cannot recollect whether it was the first one above or first below. Q. When you came out from there, did you not start directly for the camp ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 187 A. Yes, sir, and we would naturally start out F street to go directly to the camp, but we may have gone along the next street below, and then gone up to F street. Q. You cannot recollect whether you went towards the avenue or towards II street 1 A. If we Avent towards the avenue we did not go more than to the next street below, I do not recollect which way we went, whether north or south. I know we went not more than two squares to get the oysters, and then went up to H street and went home. Q. Just after you had ordered your oysters some one came in and said the President was shot. Tell us what was said at that time. A. We were very much confounded. Q. What did the man say as he came in ? A. I did not hear him say anything that I know of but that the President was shot. He was a stranger. I did not know him. Q. H»' did not say who shot him, or anything more about it ? A. He said J. Wilkes Booth had shot him. Q. That was immediately after the shooting ? A. Yes, sir; it was just a few minutes after we had left the front of the theatre. Q. When I inquired particularly as to where the oyster saloon was, it w^l9 in order to get at the lapse of time after you left the theatre. What time did it take you to get to the oyster saloon ? A. It could not have been more than a minute or two — a very short time. Q. Do you recollect whether you did not cross Tenth street on to the other side of Tenth street 1 A. No, sir, we did not go there. Q. You know {here is a saloon there? A. There may be one ; I do not recollect. Q You are sure you turned a corner ? A Yes, sir, 1 am sure of that. Q. Do you recollect whether, in going into the restaurant, you had to go up some steps ? A. No, sir, we went straight in from the pavement. Q. Do y. lu recollect whether you turned to the right or left, at the corner? A. No, sir, I cannot recollect that. Q. You say that on your way out to camp, some lady raised a window and called to you to know what was going on down street, an 1 that you had seen that house since ; who pointed it out to you ? A. It was not pointed out to me at all. Q. Did you go up to look at it for yourself? A. I was told to go along the street to see if I could observe a house that re- sembles the one described as 541. Q. Did you find more thail one that resembled it ? A. I do not know that I did find more than one that resembled that house. Q. Was there any house adjoining it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Has it an entrance of the same kind ? A. No, sir • Q. What is the difference? A. There is an all y riglit at the side of the house where the lady rai^^cd the window ; there is none by the one adjoining. Q. Did you observe the alley that n glit or when you looked at it recently ? A. No, sir; I observed it that night, I observed that the window which was raised was next to the alley. Q. Was it over the front door ? 188 TRIAL OF JOHN 11. SURRATT. A. No, sir; it was not over the front door, it was to the left of the front door Q. East or west ? A. East. Q. Was there any light in the room 1 A. 1 cannot distinctly recollect, I do not know as I observed that. The moon was shining. I could not say it was shining bright, but it was shining so that I could see a considerable distance ahead on the street. Q. Was it a clear or a cloudy night ? A. I think it was a clear night. Q. What time in the night was it ? A. It was probably about twenty minutes to eleven o'clock, as near as I can recollect. Q. Do you remember quite distinctly about the moon shining and the night being clear 1 A. I remember the moon was shining, but to say whether it was shining bright or not I could not tell. I think it was a clear night. Q. Are you as confident about that as you are about anything else that night ? A. I am confident the moon was shining. As to the night being clear I did not charge my memory with it. I think, to the best of my recollection, though, that the night was clear. Q. When that man called the time, do you recollect anybody else out in front of the theatre besides yourself and Sergeant Dye. A. I presume there was. Q. Do you recollect 1 A. Yes, sir ; I noticed two or three other gentlemen standing around the door of the theatre, but 1 did not observe them particularly. Q. Therefore you cannot tell whether they had been there some time or not ? A. No, sir, I cannot tell. Q. Were you armed that night ? A. No, sir ; I had nothing but a penknife. Q. You did not carry your revolver wrapped up in a handkerchief? A. No, sir. Q. Do you recollect your purpose or object in coming into town that particu- lar night of Good Friday, one of our solemn fasts ? A. We had no particular object in coming into town. The principal thing we came in for was to witness a torch light procession that was passing up the avenue Q. Did you see that 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. What time did you go up to the theatre ? A. It was about half past nine o'clock. It may have varied a few minutes from that, but not more than two or three. Q. You staid there until you heard this man call out "ten minutes past ten?" A. Yes, sir; and immediately after that left. Q. Did you see anything like a military movement — of men aligning them- selves about that place 1 A. I did not observe that. I was not standing in front of the theatre ; I was walking up and down, and was not paying particular attention. Q. You say you saw one gentleman go into the saloon ; did not you see any one else go in ? A. Yes, sir, I saw several gentlemen go in ; that one gentleman was pointed out to me. Q. Do yoiT recollect whether a good many went in before that gentleman or after he had gone in ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 189 A. I think the}' all went in before that gentleman. I do uot-recollect that I observed any go in after that gentleman came ont. Q. Your attention had not been drawn to that gentleman until he went into the saloon 1 A. No, sir. By a Juror : Q. When you went to get those oysters to which you refer, did you turn a corner ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you do not know whether it was to the right or left ? A. I do not know whether it was to the right or left. Q. As you proceeded down H street and a party put her head out of a window, could you distinguish the features of the person ? A. Yes, sir, I could see her plain. Q. Could you see her features ? A. I do not know as I observed the features closely, I just remember looking at the lady. Q. Could you tell whether she was white or black ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Young or old 1 A. She was not a young lady, and I did not think she was an old lady ; about middle-aged. Q. In what part of the house was she standing, the second or third story t A. The second story. The winduw was on a line with the steps. Q. How many stoi'ies are there to the house ? A. I think three. Q. And she was on a line with the steps ; did you go up the .steps ? A. No, sir. Q. Did your companion go on the steps ? A. No, sir, not to the best of my recollection. Q. Could you see much of her body ? A. No, sir, not very much. Q. Could you tell whether she was a stout lady or otherwise ? A. She was a very stout-looking lady. By the Court : Q. When you speak of the second story, do you mean that the steps landed at the second story ? A. The second story ; yes, sir. Q Then the house was what you would call two stories and a basement ? A. Yes, sir; that is it, I think. By Mr. Bradlky : Q. Can you recollect whether she had a cap on or not? A I do not know whether I observed that or not. 1 think she had not. Q. Can you recollect whether she had curls by the side of her head, or whether she had her hair brushed back ? A. I think her hair was plain combed back. The court took a recess till to-morrow at 10 o'clock. Thlrpdav, June 20, 1S67. The Court met at 10 a. m. Mr. Bradley moved that an order be made that Carroll Hobart, Charles Blinn, and Sergeant Dye be recalled, stating that information had come to the ' knowledge of the defence since those witnesses had been examined, in reference to which they wished to further cross-examine them for the purpose of laying the foundation for contradicting the testimony they had given. 190 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. The court stated that he could not entertain the motion until proper affida- vits were presented. E. L Smoot, residence Charles county, Maryland, sworn and examined. By the District Attorney : Q Where do you reside ? A. In Charles county, Maryland. Q. How long have you resided in Charles county, Maryland ? A. Since the 1st of January, 1864. Q. I believe you are a native of Maryland ? A. Yes, sir, of Charles county. Q. Do you remember removing your residence from Charles county to Prince George's 1 A. Yes, sir; in the fall of 1864. Q. After your marriage ? A. I was married in 1860. Q. To what part of Pi'ince George's county did you remove your residence 1 A. About a mile from Surrattsville. Q. During what years were you residing near Surrattsville ? A. 1865 and 1866. Q. Did you know Mrs. Mary E. Surratt ? A. Yes, sir ; I have seen her. Q. State if you know the prisoner, John H. Surratt ? A. I do. Q. Do you knoAv him well 1 A. Yes, sir ; pretty well. Q. How long have you known him 1 A. Some three or four years I do not recollect exactly where I first met him. Q. Do you recollect of his paying you a visit when you were living in Prince George's county near Surrattsville, some time, I think, in the mouth of* January or Februf^ry, previous to the assassination? A. Yes, sir ; I recollect he was at my house on one occasion. Q Which month was that 1 A. I disremcmber now. I know it was in cold weather — soon after I moved there. Q. How long did he remain with you on that occasion ? A. He went to my house at night, and went away the next morning — he staid the night there, that is all. Q. Will you state if you had any conversation with him at that time. A. Yes, sir ; I was talking with him. Q. State what the conversation was. A. I do not now recollect the exact conversation. We were talking about different things all the while. Q. Go on and state, if you please, how he employed himself at that time. A. I saw him very often. 1 was joking him about his going to Richmond. He never acknowledged to me that he had been to Richmond, but laughed and said : " If the Yankees knew what he had done, or what he was doing, they would stretch his neck." Q. Describe his manner when he made use of that remark. A. He smiled, and raised his head up in this way, (witness throwing his head back in illustration of the manner,) and said : " They would stretch this old neck of mine." Q. Wliat further did he say at that time ? A. I really don't recollect now what took place afterwards. Q. I Avill ask you if you did not in those conversations speak to him of going to the city of Richmond 1 TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 191 (Objected to on the o^round of being leading. Modified as follows :) Q. State what he did say in response to anything you said about his going to Richmond. A. He laughed, but never acknowledged it. Q. I wish you to state to the jury, if you can, the substance of what he said, and it will be for us to determine whether he acknowledged it or not. A. I do not recollect now exactly what he said, it has been so long. Q. State the substance if you can ; if you cannot, say so. A. I do not recollect. Q. Did he deny that he had been to Richmond? (Objected to as leading. Question withdrawn.) Q. Can you recollect of anything that he said at that time ? A No, sir, Q. Have you had any unkind feelings for Surratt ? (Objected to. Question withdrawn.) Cross-examination : By Ml-. Merrick : Q. When did you move from Charles county to Prince George's? A. In December, 1864. Q. Did Surratt come to your house on the occasion referred to alone 1 ^ A. Yes, sir ; he was alone. Q. When did you first communicate this fact that you have just stated to the jury? A. It was after the assassination, Q, When did you come to Washington city the last time? A. The other day. Q. On last Sunday? A, Yes, sir. Q, Were you summoned ? A. Yes, sir; I was summoned to appear before the district attorney. Q. Did you go? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you tell him what you have just stated ? A. Yes, sir, I think I did. Q. To what ofiicial did you go after talking with the district attorney about this matter ? A. I was afterwards examined by Judge Holt ; I did not know his name ; he told me he was Judge Holt after I had been examined. Q. Where was it that you were examined before him ? A. Up at Winder's building. Q. Opposite the War Department? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who were in the room ? A. Judge Holt and another gentleman; T do not know his name. Q. Was what you said taken down in writing? A, I think so, Q. Were there any other witnesses in this case that you know of up there at this time ? A. Yes, sir ; nine othei's went up with me, Q, How ofien have you been up before Judge Holt ? A, Only once, Q. Were you present at the examination of any of the other witnesses ? A No, sir. Q. Do you know Mr. John T. Davis, from Charles county ? A. Yes, sir. 192 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Have you ever said to Mr. Davis or any one else that they had offered to pay your expenses at the hotel here and give you some ten or fifteen dollars a day if you would testify ] A. No, sn-; I said that a certain gentleman had told me that he would guarantee me, if I would do what was right. I asked him when I got here if he had me summoned? He said he did not know anything about it. I told him I was losing a good deal by being up here. " Oh," says he, " I will see you all right; you will g«^t ten dollars a day if you will do what is right." Q. Who was that? A. It was Townly B. Rodey. Q. Was he getting up testimony in this case ? A. Not that I know; I do not know anything about it. Q. Didn't you state that Townly Rodey had brought you a message from some official personage that you would get ten dollars? A. Yes, sir; he told me that he had seen Mr. Wilson, and had made it all right. By the Assistant District Attorney: Q. Have not yon been to Mr. Merrick's office since you have been in the city ? A. I passed Mr. Merrick's office yesterday morning. Q. How often have you been to Mr. Merrick's office ? A. Only once. Q. Have not you been talking with Mr. Merrick on the street about this case ? A. Yes, sir; he asked me some questions about it. He said he was after me with a sharp stick, or something of that kind. Jambs M. Wright, recalled: By the District Attorney : Q. Y^ou have already stated that you are a chief clerk in the ofiice of the Judge Advocate General ? A. Yes, sir Q. State what those papers are that you hold in your hand. A. This is one of the exhibits of the conspiracy trials. It is marked " Ex- hibit No. 63," Jacob Thompson's account with the Ontario Bank, Montreal. Tills piper is marked "Drafts on the Ontario Bank for d£6l I2s. lOd." The drafts are enclosed in this envelope, Avhich is marked "Exhibit 37." This is the bank book of J. W. Booth, marked " Exhibit 11." Q. Those papers are all exhibits belonging to the conspiracy trials, and have been in your possession as chief clerk j A. Yes, sir. Cross-examination by Mr, Bradley: Q. Have you had charge of those conspiracy files ? A. Y^es, sir. Q. Is there among those files a paper or package marked " Diary of J. Wilkes Booth ? " A. It has never been on file with the records of the trial of the conspirators. Q. Do you know if that diary has ever been in your office ? (Objected to by the assistant district attorney on the ground that the ex- amination was not responsive to anything that had been brought out on the examination in chief, nothing having been said on that examination about the diary of Booth. Objection sustained.) Robert Anson Campbell, Teller Ontario Bank; residence, Montreal, Canada. By the Assistant District Attorney : Q. What is your occupation ? A. I am teller of the Ontario Bank, Montreal. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 193 Q. How long have 3'^ou been teller there 1 A. For some eight or niue years. Q. You were teller there, then, in 1865 ? A. Yes, sir. Q. "Will you examine this paper contained in an envelope marked "Exhibit No. 63," and state what it is. (j\Ir. Bradley objected to the introduction of any proof in regard to Jacob Thompson's accounts in Canada as being irrelevant. The Court. It is just one of those cases Avhcre we have to admit the testi- mony for the time being ; but if the prosecution fail to connect it in any way with the prisoner, it will be peremptorily ruled out. To this ruling Mr Bradley reserved an exception.) Q. State what that paper is. A. It is the account of Jacob Thompson with the Ontario Bank, Montreal. Q. For what time ? A. Commencing on June 28, 1864 — May 20th really, for that is when he made his first deposit — and ending April 11, 1865. The balance was then struck, but the account was not closer!. Q. What was the balance then still left to his credit 1 A. $1,766 2.3. Q. Examine the papers marked " Exhibit 37," and state what they are. A. This is a bill of exchange in favor of J. Wilkes Booth for c£61 12*. lOi., dated 27th of October, 1864. Q. Is that in your account ? A. No, sir. This is a bill of exchange which I sold Mr. Booth on the 27th of October, 1864. Q. That is not in Thompson's account 1 A. No, sir; it is a different thing. Q. J. Wilkes Booth came and bought a bill of exchange on New York from you? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the date of it ? A. 27th of October, 1864 ; in three sets. Q. Indorsed and paid ? A. Not indorsed. It was payable to Mr. Booth's order, but I see it is not indorsed. • Q, Neither of the three ? A. No, sir. Q. They are still outstanding claims of yours on the Bank of New York? A. No, sir; it is sterling on our agents in London. Q. It has not been paid yet ? A. No, .lir ; still outstanding I do not know who will get the monej-. ]\Ir. Bradley. We will try and get it. He is one of the parties to this suit. Q. State what that i.< — Exhibit 11. A. Tliis is a pass-book showing the account of J. Wilkes Booth with the Ontario Bank. (The counsel for the prisoner desired it to be understood that they objected to the production of each of the three exhibits; and that, each said objection being overruled, they reserved an exception to the ruling iu the three cases respectively.) Q. State what entry is in that. A. It is a deposit of S455, made October 27, 1864. Q. Deposit bv whom '( A. By J. Wilkes Booth. Q, Is his handwriting there ? lh\ TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. No, sir. Q. Oa the certificate ? A. No, sir; not on the certificate at all. Q. Will you examine this account that you first looked at, and state what it shows as to deposits made on the 6th of April, and what those pencil-marks indicate in Thompson's account ? A. There are three entries on the 6th of April — one for S7,098 ; that is a check. Q. State what that was on. A. That was deposited in a check. (Afti^r examination,) No, sir, this is not a deposit. It is a check drawn. He drew a check, which we accepted that day, for $7,098. Then we gave him a deposit receipt for SlSO.OOO, for which he gave his check. By Mr. Pferrkpont : Q. That was a deposit with you by a check? A. We gave him a deposit receipt in place of keeping this deposit in our ledger, for which he paid us by check, of course. Q. What I want to know is how he got it iu your bank — whether by bill or check. A. He deposited sterling exchange on London. Q. That $180,000 was deposited on sterling exchange ? A. No, sir. Having a large amount to his credit, he just drew this check of $180,000 against his account. Q. What was his balance on the Gth of April ? A. The papers don't show it. I should say about $200,000 before drawing this check. Q. When was this $180,000 drawn ? A. On the 6lh of April. Q. And for it you gave sterling ? A. No, sir. We gave a deposit receipt. He wanted that so that he could make use of it in a foreign country if he wanted to go there or anywhere else. Q. He gave a check for the receipt 1 A. Yes, sir. You call them here. I believe, certificates of deposit. Q. What do those pencil-marks there indicate ? A. Those show the amount of exchange he purchased on the 8th of April. Q. You will observe there that on the Gth, iu that second line, there are some pencil-marks ? A. That is " D. R.," deposit receipt. Cross-examination : By Mr. Bradley : Q. By whom were those pencil-marks made ? A. They were made by myself. Q. Was the account made out by you ? A. No, sir : but I examined it. Q. Is this pencil memorandum, " Close order and deposit receipt and return," in your handwriting ? A. No, sir. Q. Further down is another memorandum — pencil figures ? A. This is a check in favor of our counter branch for a certain amount. Q. Is that in your handwriting ? A. No, sir. Q. Have you any personal knowledge of those pencil-marks, when they were made, and by whom ? A. 0, yes, sir; made out by the party who made out the account — the bookkeeper. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. 195 Q Just below there are three or four other entries; are they iu his hand- writing also ? A. Yes, sir. By Mr. PlERREPONT : Q. This account I see is headed " Jacob Thompson," which doesn't convey a very definite idea as to who Mr. Thompson is 1 A. He passed in Canada as the Hon. Jacob Thompson. Q. From where ? A, From the United States. John Lee — residence near Vicksburg, Mississippi — sworn and examined. By the District Attorney : Q. Where do you reside 1 A. Between Vicksburg and Meridian, Mississippi. I have been residing there for the last twelve months. Q. Where did you live previous to emigrating there ? A. Here, in Washington. Q. How long did you live in Washington ? A. Somewhere in the latter part of 1SG2 I was detached from my regiment and brought here. . 1 was detached from the ninety-fifth New York regiment and oi'dered on duty at the War Department, under Colonel Baker. Q. Had you resided in New York before you came to Washington. A. Yes, sir. Q. You e«listed as a soldier in the ninety-fifth New York 1 A. Yes, sir; 1 was sergeant of company E. Q. How long were you iu the army "r* A. I enlisted for three years, and was in three years, lacking ten days. Q. In what service were you detailed ? ^ A. In the secret service, under Colonel Baker, provost marshal of the War Department. Q. You were a detective officer under Colonel Baker? A. Yes, sir. Q. In that capacity, did you have opportunities of becoming acquainted with the people here in the city 1 A. Yes, sir; I got more or less acquainted with everybody Avho lived here in Washington. I was over the streets every day, not excepting Sunday, on pub- lic and private business for the departments, making arrests, looking into the departments, and so on. Q Did you know John II. Surratt, the prisoner? A. 1 knew John II. Surratt by sc^eing him. Q. Look at the prisoner and state if you recognize him ? A. Yes, sir; I recognize that young man; but he did not have that "goatee" on when I saw him. Q. State if you saw him on the 14th of April, 1865; and if st, where you saw him, and about what time in the day. A. On the 14tli April — I was at that time with Major O'Beirne, the provost marshal of the District of Columbia — I went to the Washington depot with reference to men who were deserting. I was not looking for des(!rter3 myself, but was chief of the men employed for- that purpose under Colonel O'Beirne. Q. What force was that ? A. The detective force of the Provost Marshal's department. I went down to the depot, and on my way back, at the corner of Sixth street, I stopped a minute to answer a question — the man who asked it I do not know — but he in- quired about some young fellow wlio was in my regiment. When I left him I continued on up the avenue, the right-hand side going up towards Thirteenth 196 TRIAL OF JOHX H. SURRATT. Street. When near Mr. Stinemetz's hat store I passed a man whom I took to be John H. Surratt. He was coming this way, and I was going in an opposite direction. It was between Franklin's spectacle store and Stinemetz's hat store. Q. Are yon satisfied the prisoner was that man ? A. To the best of my knoAvledge that is the man. (Pointing to the prisoner.) Q Had you seen him frequently before 1 A. Not as frequently as I have seen some people about Washington. Q. How often had you seen him ? Did you know him well by sight ? A. I should suppose I had seen him a dozen times before that. Q. Was he walking rapidly or slowly at that time 1 A. He was going in an oi*diuary gait. I was going fast myself, walking quickly. Q. I will ask you if, on the 15th — the next day — you were called upon to make any examination, or any investigation, into this matter? A. I was. I went to the Kirkwood House. Major O'Beirne got an order to bring all his force to the Kirkwood House to protect Mr. Johnson. I got an order from Major O'Beinie to go up on top of the house to see that nobody came in from the roof. I detailed men to all parts of the house ; and then went up on the roof to look around. I afterwards went down into the clerk's office, or -book-stand in the office, when a young man came up to me. Getting certain information, I went up to room No. 126, and finding it locked, endeavored to get the key, but it could not be found. I then got Mr. Sprague to go up stairs with me. When we got there I asked him if we should burst the door open. He said he did not know ; that it might make trouble. I told him that I had an idea that everything was not right about that room. 1 finallj^ burst open the door and went in. Finding a pistol, I went down stairs to hunt for Major O'Beirne ; I found he was in a great hurry to go up the street ; and so he left me to manage the matter myself. I then took this young man, Mr. Jones, whom I found in the office, up stairs witb me. On the wall I found a black coat hang- ing, in the pockets of which was a spur, and also a bank book of J. Wilkes Booth. Q. Look at that book and state if that is it. (Handing witness bank-book of J. Wilkes Booth.) A. That is the book. Q. What else did you get ? A. It is very difficult for me to get at these things as I did before, because it is a long time ago, and I have not kept any notes whatever. Mr. PiERREPONT, It is not of the least consequence that you should state them in the same order. WiT.XESS. I got from the pockets also a handkerchief, and a half stick of black licorice. I then went to the bed, lifted the covering, and got, between the sheet and the mattress, a large bowie-knife, Avith a red case ai'ound it. I then hunted the room all over to see if I could find any letters or papers. T did not find anything else. I took the coat, and these things that I had found, and went down stairs to the parlor, right next to the Vice-President's room. I kept them until Major O'Beirne came in. Major O'Btirne picked them up and car- ried them into Mr. Johnson's room ; showed them to him, and then brought them out and gave them to me. I locked them up at my own house. Q. State where Mr. Johnson's room was witli reference to this room from which you took these things ? A. It was on the next floor above. Q. Which was above, President Johnson's room or No. 126 ? A. Mv. Johnson's room was on the second floor facing Q. On what floor was this other room ? A. The third floor. Mr. PiERRBPO.N'T. Btrfore you go any farther I want to fix one thing. T un- derstand from my associate that the witness said he found this paper (holding TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 197 up a piece of paper) iu this bank-book. I did not so understand him. I want to ascertain whether tliat is so. Q. Was this paper iu the book at the time you found it ? A. 1 never saw that paper before now. Q. Go on aud state what else you did with these things. A. The next day Major O'Beirne came and gave me an order to honk up the horse and wagon and take this bundle to Secretary Stanton's. Q. "Was that the same day ? A. That was the next day — Sunday. I went and showed them to Mr. Stan- ton, and told him we had showed them to the President. He was very angry. District Attorney. Never mind about that Witness. I gave him the things and he handed them back to me. He ex- amined them all carefully except the pistol. He didn't care to hiok at that. He told me to roll them up and keep them in my possession until the military commission tried the parties at the arsenal. I was then sent for to bring those things, and I took them up to Judge Holt's office and delivered them to Judge Advocate Burnett. Q. That was the last you saw of them ? A. Yes, sir ; until I saw them in court. I see some of them here now. Q. Have you seen them within a day or two 1 A. No, sir ; I have not seen them since I left them in possession of the gov- ernment. The court here took a recess of half an hour. AFTERNOON SESSION. John Lee cross-examined : By Mr. Bradley : Q. You say you were a detective officer in the force of Colonel Baker, in the spring of 1865, and then in that of Colonel O'Beirne ? A. No, sir ; not in 1865. Q. When did you go under Colonel O'Beirne ? A. I could not give you the exact date, it was before 1865, 1 think ; I was with Colonel Baker before 1865. Q. How long were you with Colonel Baker 1 A. A year or more. Q. What year] A. 1863, I think, and 1864. Q. Can you come no nearer to it 1 A. No, sir ; not by my memory. Q. That year was embraced in the years 1863 and 1864 ? A. I left Aquia Creek at the tirst burning of the place by General Burnside. I came to Washington and went to Colonel Rucker's office (now General Rucker) with Captain West, who was post quartermaster at Aquia Creek. While I was there Colonel Baker met me and asked me what I was doing. I told him we had all left Aquia Creek ; that Fredericksburg was all gone, and that we had come to Washington. Q. I do not desire you to go over all that ; Avhat I wanted to know was when you left Colonel Baker and went with Colonel O'Beirne ? A. I think it was in 1864. Q. What time of the year? A. I cannot recollect the exact time. Q. Was it in the winter, spring, or fall ? A. I cannot tell tliat. Q Did you go directly to Colonel O'Beirne ? A. No, sir. 198 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURKATT. Q. What did you do after you left Colonel Baker? A. I went with Captain Putnam. Major O'Beirne succeeded Captain Put- nam, Q. "What was Captain Putnam's duty ? A. He was captain of the detective force in the provost marshal's office. I got my discharge from my regiment a few days before T went with him. The Secretary of War gave me my discharge some ten days before my time was out to take an office, but I did not accept the office. Q. Were you in the military service while you were under Baker 1 A. Yes, sir ; in the United States military service. Q. What was your position ? A. Sergeant. Q. And you then went with Captain Putnam. Where was his headquarters ? A. At the corner of 19th and I streets. Q. State whether your duties confined you very much to that office, or whether you were much about town while you were with Captain Putnam. A. I was all the time on duty going about — very busy. Q. Can you state when you went under Colonel O'Beirne ? A. Captain Putnam resigned and Colonel O'Beirne took his place. It might be six months before the assassination, and it might be a little more than that. * Q. That was in the fall of 1864 ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you cannot tell how long you were with Captain Putnam ? A. No, sir ; Captain Putnam was not there long after I went with him. Q. A month, six weeks, or two months 1 A. yes, sir ; more than that. I suppose I was there with Captain Putnam about six months. Q. And with Colonel O'Beirne about six months, which would make a year before the assassination 1 A. About that time. Q. And you left Baker some time in the spring of 1864 ? A. I cannot tell ; I do not know the date when I left Colonel Baker. If I had my discharge I could tell. Q. When did you first see Surratt ? A. The men were sent round looking after people who were carrying medi- cines through the lines. Sometimes there would be fifty notices and sometimes three or four notices of people running the blockade, carrying quinine, mor- phine, &c. There was a good deal of excitement about it among all the men on the force. 1'hey were sent to hunt up these men. Every now and then some one would be pointed out as a suspicious person. Q. Did you understand my question — when did you become acquainted with Surratt ? A. It was during this time. We were looking after parties carrying quinine and morphine. Q. What time was that? A. The time myself and the meu an-ested a man by the name of Bay ley and a Miss Buckner. Q. I want you should tell about what time it was. A. I could not tell without seeing Colonel Baker's books; I cannot recollect the dates. il. Do you rccolh'ct where Surratt was pointed out ? A. The first place he was pointed out to mo was down by the Baltimore depot, Washington. Q. How long was that before the assassination ? A. I could not tell how many months ; it was a long time before the assassina- tion. TRIAL OF JOHN 11. SURRATT. 199 Q. Was he riding, walking, or sitting ? Where was he ? State whether any- body was with him. A. I do not recollect whether there was or not. Q. When did you see him afterwards ? A. I saw him on the avenue, and I saw him on the road going across the East- ern Branch bridge. Q. How often 1 A. Once or more ; I do not recollect. Q. Did you know where he was living then ? A. No, sir ; I did not. Q. You did not know whether he belonged here or somewhere else 1 A. No, sir ; I could not say whether he belonged in the city of Washington or outside the city. 1 had no particular notice about him, more than generally that he was a rebel. Q. Was it not your duty to find out who he was and where he belonged, in or- der to j)revent him as well as others from going through the lines ? A. The same as any other person that there was any suspicion about. Q. On that sort of duty did you not find out who these people were, a great many of them 1 A. I did. Q. AVas it not a part of your duty to find out who they were, and where they belonged ? A. Some of thorn I found out the exact locality. It was our duty, if we had a special order to that ellect. Q. When you were informed that such a person was carrying passengers or medicines through the lines, was it not your duty to ascertain who they were and where they belonged, without any special orders ? A. Not particularly. We got our orders through the office, and when they related to any particular party, if we could not get names, we took a description. Q. When they were pointed out, was it not a part of your duty to find out where they were, and mIio they were 1 A. Yes, sir, if there was any special charge against them. Q. The chai'ge ag'ainst Surratt was that he was carrying quinine, calomel, &c., to the enemy. Did you ever try to find out who John Surratt was 1 A. No, sir; 1 did not. Q. Ordinarily when you saw him, was he riding or walking ? A. I never saw him on horseback at all, nor in a carriage. Q. Then when you saw him going down towards the navy-yard bridge, was he on foot ] A. Yes, coming up from the Eastern Branch bridge on foot. Q. What was his ordinary dress? A. I could not tell you that. Q. You could not tell how a man you were cautioned against was dressed, or where he was 1 icated 1 • A. I did not tell you I was cautioned against Surratt. Q. Did you not tell us he was pointed out as one of those people suspected of passing through the lines, and a rebel ? A. I did not say he was carrying anything through the lines. Q. You did not say he was pointed out as a suspected person going through the lines, and a rebel if A. I said that he was liable to be pointed out to me, or to any of the men, as a perscfli suspected. Q. Did you say he was liable to be pointed out as a person suspected, or did you say he was pointed out as a person suspected ? A. I said he was pointed out the same as others were to me, as a suspicious man. 200 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. As a suspicious person alDOut going through the lines ] A. Yes, sir. Q. Then he was pointed out to you as a suspicious person 1 A. Some of the men said " this man goes through the lines." Q. Did you observe whether he wore the same sort of dress commonly or not, or whether he changed his dress ; whether there was any disguise ? A. No, sir ; I never saw any disguise at all. Q. Did you ever see any change of dress that attracted your attention ? A. No, sir ; I did not. Q. You could not tell how he was dressed ? A. No, sir ; there was nothing that induced me to pay particular attention, Q. There was nothing that induced you to mark a man you were on the look- out for ? A. 1 was not on the lookout for Surratt. Q. You were not on the lookout for a man who was suspected ? A. Not especially, Q. Were you not on the lookout for other men suspected of going through the lines 1 A. No, sir ; there were a great many men pointed out that I never paid any particular attention to. Q. Then, did you pay any attention to Surratt? A. No, sir. Q. Can you tell whether he wore a goatee, whiskers, or moustache at that time? A. I think he had a little heard on his lip ; I am not positive about that. Q. Can you tell anything about the color of his moustache or hair ? A. It was the same color it is now, sandy. Q. I am not speaking of what it is now. Can you, without looking at him, from the picture in your mind, say whether he had a moustache or beard, and what was the color of his hair? A. I think he had a little beard on his upper lip, a moustache, and that it was sandy in color. O. Is that from memory or from what you see now ? A. No, sir ; it is not frofn what I see now at all. Q. Now tell us what notice you had ever taken of him ? A They would go along and say, " There goes a rebel ;" I would look at him so that I would know him again when I saw him. Q. You would know him so well that, in the course of a year or two, having never exchanged a word with him, and seeing him pass by in the street, you would say that was him ? A. I might be mi.^taken in that, too. Q. Was there anything on the 14th of April in your mind to direct your at- tention particularly to John H. Surratt ? A. No, sir. • Q, Did you meet him ? A, I passed him on the street. Q. How was he dressed ? A. I cannot tell Q. Did you turn around and look at him 1 A. No, sir ; I did not. Q. "Were you examined before the military commission in the conspiracy trial after the assassination ? • A. Yes, sir ; I was a witness on that trial. Q. Did you, as a witness on that trial, say one word of having seen John H. Surratt on the 14th of April ? A, I never was asked the question. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 201 Q, Did not you know, in your office as detective, and especially in your re- lation with the apprehension of the conspirators, that it was most important to find out whether John H. Surratt was here or not ? A. No, sir ; I did not think so. Q. Did you tell any human being that you had seen him 1 A. No, sir ; I do not know that I did. Q,. Before you appi>ared as a witness on the conspiracy trial, were you ex- amined as to what you knew by any officer of the government ? A. I had some questions asked me by a deputy judge advocate. Q. By whom, ■\Ir. Bingham ? A. Colonel Burnett, I think. Q. Did not you know that it was of first importance to find out whether John H. Surratt was concerned in that assassination or not? A. No, sir; I had no thought about John H. Surratt. The only man I had special thought about was Atzerodt. Q. When did you ever think of John H. Surratt as connected with it I A. I heard general talk about the complicity of John H. Surratt, but I had nothing to do with him ; my whole business was after Atzerodt. Q. Was not your business to find out every man connected with the assas- sination 1 A. My whole time was taken up with Atzerodt. Q. Was it not your business to communicate all the information you had upon the subject relating to any man charged with that conspiracy ? A. It was my business to find out anything against him. Q. Did not you know that John Surratt was charged as one of the con- spirators ? A. I heard it said so. Q. Was it not a common subject of conversation 1 A. Yes, sir, it was. Q. Was there not evidence about him on the trial ? A. No question was ever put to me. Q. Was anything said by you on the trial about Surratt i A. I do not know that there was. Q. Did you ever communicate, then, to any human being about your having seen Surratt ? A. No, sir ; I do not think I told any one of having' seen Surratt until I was brought here, at this time. Q. Who did you tell then ? A. I told one or two of my friends or acquaintances. Q. Who else did you tell besides a friend or two of yours ? A. I do not know that I told anybody else. Q. Were you not interrogated as to what you could prove on the trial by an officer of the government ? A. Here ? No, sir Q. You were not examined by the district attorney, or anybody else, here'? A. I simply said to him, " How do you do, sir;" and I spoke to one of the other counsel and asked him who I was a witness for. Q. You did not tell anybody connected with the government about your hav- ing seen John H. Surratt on the 14th of April, at anytime since you have been here ? A. Yes, sir, 1 did. Q. Who did you tell ? A. I told the district attorney. Q. I thought you did not tell the district attorney ? 14 202 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Yes, sir ; I told Mr. Wilson, Q. I asked you if you did not tell the district attorney and you said •' No." Now you correct yourself. Mr. PiERREPO.\T. 0, no ; he did not correct himself. Mr. Bradley. I beg your pardon, I am speaking to the witness. If you LaAC any objection, make it to the court. Mr. PiERREPONT. I do object. The Court. Go on with the cross-examination. Q. Now I ask you, did you not tell the district attorney about this 1 A. May -be I can give you the exact words. He asked me if I was acquainted with Surratt. I told him " Yes." He asked me if I was well acquainted with him. I told him " No, only by sight." He then asked nie when 1 last saw him. I told him, " On the 14th of April." Answer objected to by Mr. Pierrepont. Mr. Bradley. I endeavored to stop him from stating his conversation. I merely wanted to know whether he did not communicate to the district attorney about his having seen Surratt. Mr. PiERREPOM'. We do not object to that. Q. Now I want to know who else you told it to besides the district attorney. A. Mr. W^ilson. Q. Who else? A. I think I told it to Mr. Butler. Q. What Butler ? A. Ferdinand Butler. Q. Who else? A. I may have made a remark out in the witness-room. Q. 1 mean before you came to the court-house at all ? A. I did not speak to anybody before I came to the court-house. Q. W^hen did you come to the court-house ? A. I came here on Sunday morning. Q. And you did not tell anybody, except the district attorney, what you knew about this matter, unless you spoke to Mr. Butler about it. A. I may have spoken to two or three persons about it. Q. Who else do you recollect except Mr. Bntler ? A. I recollect, I think, Mr. Tucker. Q. What Tucker ? A. He lives at Mr. Butler's, I believe. Q. When did you tell him about it? A. I think it was yesterday. Q. And you do not recollect anybody else ? A. Nobody, that I recollect now. Q. Did you speak of it to any one who wrote it down or made a note of what you said ? A. Not to my knowledge. T did not see anybody writing. It may have been done behind me. By a Juror : Q. The first time you saw Surratt, who pointed him out ? A. Some one of the men of the force. I do not know who it was. These things would happen sometimes a dozen times a day. It is the peculiar busi- ness of the men to go about all the time. They do not know sometimes who they are looking for, and it is a common thing, for them to remark, seeing a person pas?, that is so and so. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 203 Q. Do you recollect the date when you first saw him? A. No, sir. By Mr. Bradlev : Q. "What time in the day was it that you overtook Surratt on the avenue? A. I think, as near as I can tell, it was between 3 and 5 o'clock. I wanted to get up to the office. Q. And you were walking rapidly past him? A. Going at my ordinary gait. Q. Did you not say you were walking fost ? A. I always walk fast. Q. You were walking fast and he was walking slow? A. Yes, sir. Q. This was between 3 and 4 o'clock, as well as you recollect ? A. Between 3 and 5. By a Juror : Q. I understood you to say that he was going down ? A. I was going on the right-hand side of the street. He was on the left- hand side of the pavement, near the curb. Q. Then you met him; you did not pass him ? A. I passed him on the. sidewalk. He was going the other way from what I was. Q, You said you were walking rajjidly and he was walking slowly. How fast was he walkinsc ? A. He was walking ordinarily along ; not so fast as I did. Q. You do not recollect the time when you first saw him ? A. No, sir; I do not. Sa.muei. a. Raixey sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrbpont: Q. Where do you live? A. In "Washington. I have lived in Washington about twenty years. Q. Whaf is your business ? A. My business for the last twelve or fourteen yeai'S has been dealing in horses and keeping a livery stable. Q. Where has been your livery stable the last four or five years ? A. On Sixth street. Q. In the same place ? A. No, sir ; in two different places. Q. State where it was from tlie 1st of January to the 1st of June, ISG-^i, A. It was on Sixth street, south of the avenue. I did not keep the stable at that timp. I was there, and kept my horses there occasionally. Q. When did you first take an interest in the stable ? WiT.VKSS-. Which one? ^[r. riERREPOMT. Either. A. I could not say exactly the date. Q. It was as early as January, 1864 ? A. It might be. I am not |iositive. I have been in business all the time ; but I am not positive, from the fact tliat I never kept any account of it. Q. What do you think about its being in January, 1864? A. I do not think I had the stal)le in 1864 Q. AVben did you first have an interest in any stable? A. I have had an interest in stables for the last twelve years. Q. When in '64, and in what stable were you interested ? 204 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. I was keeping a stable at tte corner of Sixth and streets, and was buying and selling some horses. Q. When did you take this stable you occupied in 1865; when was it first opened by you ? A. I took it the 1st of January, 1865, to the best of my recollection. Q, Who took it with you ? A. Dr. Cleaver ; his name is William E. Cleaver. Q. Was he a veterinary surgeon 1 A. Yes, sii-. Q. How long did you and Cleaver continue together in that business ? A.. To the best of my recollection some eight or nine mouths ; not quite a year. Q. He and you, from the 1st of January to the 1st of June, were partners ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you equal partners 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you keep the books of the firm 1 A. They were kept by Dr. Cleaver. My health was bad during that year. I was very little at the stable ; and it is bad still. I was there off and on, but not regularly. Q. Did you know John Wilkes Booth? A. Only by name. I was not acquainted with him. Q. Did he come to your stable, and did you see him there two or three times ] A. I remember seeing him there once or tAvice ; once that I remember. Q. I suppose you know what Surratt came there for ; if so, state. A. Yes, sir. It is customary for men coming there to have business, generally. Q. What was his business ? A. Surratt came thei-e on one occasion to get a horse. Q, At what time was that 1 A. I do not remember. My partner hired the horse. Q. You saw him there ? A. I saw him there. Q. Have you any memory of what kind of a horse that was ? A. To the best of ray recollection it was a bay mare. Q. Do you remember what time in January it was, or whether it was in January 1 A. 1 do not. Q. Was it in January or February ? A. I cannot say. Q. It was after the 1st of January? A. It was after the 1st of January, for we did not take the stable until the 1st of January. Q. You say your partner kept the books ; look at the books now shown you and state whether these are the books of the firm 1 A. Yes, sir ; these books have been used at the stable. Q. Whose handwriting are they in ? A. Dr. Cleaver's, principally. William E. Cleaver sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. Are you the Dr. Cleaver Avho kept a livery stable in 1865 on Sixth street ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Near what place ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUREATT. 205 A. Near the corner of Maryland avemie ; between B street and Maryland avenue. Q. When did yon commence there? A. In January, ISGo. Q, Who kept the books of the firm ? A. I did. Q. Who was your partner, if yon had any ? A. Mr. Rainey. Q. Did you see him on the stand ? A. No, sir; I was not here. Q. Samuel A. Rainey, was it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you seen him lately ? A. Yes, sir ; 1 saw him in the witnesses' room just now. Q. How lono^ did he and you continue as partners ? A. About eighteen months. Q. What was your business then? A. Livery stable and veterinary surgeon. Q. How long had you been a veterinary surgeon ? A. Seventeen years in this city. Q. How long have you lived here ? A. About seventeen years. Q. Were you educated as a veterinary surgeon ? A. Yes, sir. Q. In 1865, or prior to 1865, did you keep any other stable in any other place 1 A. Yes ; I kept a stable on B street. Q. Did you know J. Wilkes Booth ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you know John H. Surratt ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you known John H. Surratt ? A. About twelve years, I think — ten or twelve years. Q. Have you had a speaking acquaintance with him ? A. Yes sir. Q. What was the mode in which yon addressed him and he addressed you ? A. He came down to hire a horse of me at the time Booth kept his horse with me. Q. What did you caII him and what did he call you ? A. I usually called him "John," and he called me " Doc." Q. When did Booth first bring his horse to you to keep ? A. The Ist of January, 1865 — the day we got the stable. Q. And to that stable on Sixth street ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Wliat was the health of your partner at this time ? A. He is sickly all the time. Mr. Bradley. What on earth has all this to do with this case? The Court. I cannot see its relevancy. Mr. PiERREPONT. I think your honor will see some relevancy before we are through. It is a single fact proven by itself. Q. State what horse Booth brought. A. He brought a one-eyed bay horse first. Q. What next ? A. About ten days afterwards he brought a light bay horse, very light bay. Q. Did he bring any others ? 206 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. No, sir. Q. At what time was this ? A. In January, 1865. I think you will find it in the book there. Q. State whether you saw him and Surratt there together. A. Yes sir. Q. What were they there together about ? What did they say and do ? A. I do not know ; the first time, I hired a horse to them. (Objected to by Mr. Bradley, as having nothing to do with the conspiracy. Mr. Pierrepont said they would connect it with the conspiracy. Question allowed by the court, to be ruled out if not connected subsequently.) A. The first time I saw Surratt there with Booth, Booth came, I think, and paid one or two weeks' livery. Then, three or four days after, he came down and I hired him a horse to go into the country. Mr. Bradley. Hired to whom? A. To Surratt. He came and hired a horse two or three times. The next time, Booth and Sam. Arnold came there together. Mr. Bradley. I must object to that. Sam. Arnold is not named in the in- dictment. The District Attorney. Your honor will remember that the count in the indictment refers to "divers persons to the jurors unknown." The Court. If you show that Arnold was connected with the conspiracy, the evidence will be proper. Mr. Bradley. That is all we desire. Mr. Pierrepont. I understand that we shall show that. A. The last time Surratt came there and hired a horse he came there about three or four o'clock in the afternoon. Q. When was that? A. That was the 25th of January, 186^. Q. Previous to that time, when he had met Booth there, had he any conver- sation with him ? A. He always came with bim, except on this occasion. Q. On this occasion, who did he come with ? A. Nobody. He came alone. Q. He hired a horse 1 * A. Yes, sir ; and ordered me to have Booth's horse ready by seven o'clock that evening — this bay mare. Q. What time was it that he got there 1 A. About seven o'clock that evening. It was raining very hard. He came about three and ordered them. Q. When he came at seven, what occurred ? A. He came there; I was standing in the gangway. It was raining very hard. I asked him if he was going to the country such a night as that. He said yes, he was going down to T B to a dance party. I told him it would have to be a fine dance party that would take me down there such a night as that. I asked him if he would go over to the Clarendon and get a drink. He said he thought he had had enough then. I thought so too. Q. Did Booth come? A. He had not come yet ; I asked Surratt into the ofiice to sit down. Q. Did he come in? A. Yes, sir ; he came in and sat there some few minutes. He told me he was going down in the country to T B, to meet a party and help them across the river ; that he and Booth had some bloody work to do ; that they were going to kill Abe Lincoln, the d d old scoundrel ; that he had ruined Maryland and the country. He said that if nobody did it, he would do it himself, and pulled out a pistol and laid it on the desk. TRIAL OF JOHX H. SURRATT. 207 Q, Was anything said on this occasion as to what he represented? A. He said he represented two counties in Maryland. Q. State whether the rain continued ? A. Yes, sir ; very hard. Q. Did Booth come 1 A. He came about 8 o'clock. Q. State whether there was any conversation afterward between Booth and Surratt 1 A. Mr. Surratt chastised him for being so late — for keeping him waiting so long. Q. "Will you explain what you mean by the word "chastise" 1 A. I think he was going to hit him in the face with a glove or something of that kind — in joke, of course. He either hit at him, or hit him, I do not know which. Q. Jokingly? A. Yes, sir. Q. I simply wanted to know whether you nsed the word "chastise" in the ordinary meaning of it, or whether you meant to chide — find fault ? A. Yes, sir ; to find fault. Q. Were you in Washington on the day of assassination ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you any distinct memory of what you did on that day ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you state whether you were riding or walking ? A. I was doing both that day ; I was pretty busy ; I was driving a black horse that day to exercise him. Q. At what time in the day 1 A. I started out about two o'clock in the afternoon. Q. Which way did you go ? A. I went down to the Navy Yard first, and then doAvn to the congressional burying ground. Q. Wlien you came back, what street did you come 1 A. I went around by the Bladensburg toll-gate, and came in H street. Q. Did you come in late or early ? A. I got to the stable, I reckon, at four o'clock, or a little after four. Q. Before you got to the stable, when you came down H street, did you meet anybody that attracted your attention 1 A. 1 met a great many. Q. Did you meet any one in particular that attracted your attention 1 A. I met John H. Surratt. Q. 'J'he prisoner at the bar ? A. Yes, sii\ Q. Did you know him very well ? A. 1 have known hini a good long while — T think I ought to know him. Q. Was anybody riding with you at the time ? A. Y'es, sir. Q. Is that person living 1 A. Yes, sir. Q,. How was Surratt moving when you met him, on horseback or on foot ? A. He was on horseback. Q. What kind of a horse was it ? A. I did not notice the horse much ; I think it was a chestnut-sorrel, a rather darkish horse. Q. Is chestnut-sorrel a dark color ? A. Yes, sir. 208 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q State whether you spoke to him? A. 1 spoke to him and said "How are you, John ?" He uodded to me ; I do not know whether he spoke or not; I was jogging along at a pretty good gait. Q. He bowed to you, and you said, ''How are you, John?" A. Yes, sir. Cross-examined by Mr. Bkadlev: Q. How was he dressed ? A. He had on a kind of rusty colored coat : he had a muffler around his neck, something like a lady's victorine. Q. What did he have on his head ? A. He had on something like a jockey cap crown. Q. You say it was abovit four o'clock in the afternoon, and that you met him down Sixth street ? A. No, sir ; on H street, between the Printing Office and the railroad, as near as I can judge. Q. Were you examined before the military commission ? A. Yes, sir Q. Did you state any single one of the facts you have stated here ? A. No, sir ; I was not asked ; I was only asked about Booth keeping horses in my place. Q. You have seen your examination ? A. 1 have seen it since it was printed. Q. You have not seen it lately, have you ? A. No, sir, I have not. Q. Yuu say you are a veterinary surgeon ; did you use to train horses and break horses also ? A. Yes, sir, sometimes. Q. When you were before the military commission were you asked about John H. Surratt 1 A. No, sir ; I do not think you will find a word in that book in my exami- nation about him. Q. Did not you, at that military commission, say that John H. Surratt was at your stable in the January previous, with Booth ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was not your attention called then to John H. Surratt? A. Yes, sir ; you asked me if I was asked about him. Q. No ; I asked you if you stated any single fact before that military com- mission that you stated to-day ? A. Then I misunderstood you. I thought it was whether they asked me any question about Surratt. They just called me to ask about Booth's horses. Q. Then you did state that John H. Surratt came there ? A. Yes ; I told them too about Arnold's buying a horse. Q. Have you told to-day about Arnold buying a horse ? A. I have not been asked it. Q. I ask you if you stated anything about John H. Surratt there that you have stated to-day ? A. No, sir, only in regard to hiring a horse. Q. Were you not examined by an officer of the government before you were called to testify as a Avitness at the arsenal ? A. Colonel Burnett called me out into the witness room. I told Mr. Cotting- ham, the man that summoned me, that I would give him $,5 to get me off; that I had some horses to ship at Georgetown. Mr. Cottingham went and fetched Colonel Burnett out. He asked what I knew. I was going ou to state. He said he did not want to hear about that ; that 1 could come the next day TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 209 I came, and told about Sui-ratt's hiring a horse. They sent me to 17th street to identify the horse Booth kept with me. Q. Did not you know that the great point of inquiry wa?, who was concerned in the murder of the President; and did not you know that John II. Surratt was charged as being one of the parties 1 A. I did. Q. Why did you not tell what you have told the jury here to-day 1 A. T was not asked about it. Q. You were asked Avhat you knew about Booth and Surratt ? A. No, sir; 1 was not asked about Surratt. I told about Surratt's hiring the horse on my own motion. Q. Why did you tell that 1 A. I do not know ; they asked me about horses and I told them about Sur- ratt. They may probably have asked me if Surratt did not hire a horse from me. I do not know. Q. You stated that you were not asked about Surratt at that time, but what you stated about him was of your own accord ] A. I might ; I do not know whether I was or not. Q. Why did not you tell at that time all you have told the jury to-day? A. I was very glad to get off the stand and get away from the place. Q. Yet you did tell them about Surratt being at your stable with Booth ? A. Yes, I told them. I do not think I was asked it. Q. I ask you again whether you told them anything at all of what you have stated Iiere to-day l A. I did not tell them anything about the conversation with Surratt I have stated. Q. Did you tell them you saw John H. Surratt in this city on the afternoon of the 14th, the day of the murder 1 A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Did not you know it was of importance to find out whether John H. Sur- ratt was concerned in the murder or not ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then why did you not tell them what you knew ? A. I was well acijuaiuted with Surratt and inclined to shield him. Q. Yet you told them that he was with Booth at your stable ; that he was there using Booth's horse ; and you told them that without being asked ? A. I told them about hiring a horse to go down to the dance pai'ty. Q. You told them about Booth's going, and about that little passage between Booth and Suiratt ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you tell them about Surratt being tight that night ; that he had too much on board already ? A. No, sir ; I was scarcely on the stand five minutes, or two minutes. Q. In that two minutes or five minvites you told them these things without being asked 1 A. I told them all they asked me. Q. But they did not ask you about Surratt being there, and yet you told them ? A. I think they asked if anybody used Booth's horses besides himself, and that I told them he let Surratt use his horses ; and I think they might have asked whether Surratt hired horses. I think it probable they did, but 1 do not know. Q. Then you think it is possible that they might have asked you about Sur- ratt ? A. I think so ; I do not know. 210 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. You think you did not volunteer to state it of yom* own accord? A. I do not know Avliether I did or not, it is so long ago. Q. Did not you tell us at first that you were not asked questions, but that you told all this without being asked 1 A. I told you at first that I did not tell them anything about the conversa- tion between Mrs. Surratt and myself. Q. Did you ever take a horse from me to break ] A. Yes, sir, Q. Did you sell that horse while in your custody 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ever pay me the money for it ? A. No, sir. Q. You took him and sold him without my authority ? A. No, sir. Q. You had my authority for it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You swear to that ? A. Yes, sir. (Examination objected to by district attorney.) Q. Are you the same Dr. Cleaver indicted, tried, and convicted in this term ? (Objected to by district attorney ) The Court. The question may be asked; it will be for the witness to say whether he will answer it. Q. I ask whether you are the same Dr. Cleaver who was indicted, tried, and convicted for rape upon a poor little girl in this city, and whether you have not obtained an order for a new trial 1 Witness. I cannot answer that question. The Court suggested that it would be better to bring in the record of bis conviction if such is the fact. Mr. Bradley said he had the right to ask the question, and the witness would answer or not, as he pleased. The District Attorney denied his right to ask the question. Q. Where have you been for the last month or two ? A. In the city. Q. Where in the city ? A. I cannot tell you that. Mr. Bradley. Will your honor inform the witness whether he is obliged to answer the question or not ? He declines to answer it. Witness, I stated that I had been in the city. Q. Where in the city ? A. In different places, Q. In what different places ? A. I have been in Philadelphia. Q. Then you have not been in this city ? A. Yes, I have been in this city. Q. Where have you been for the last three weeks 1 A. I cannot answer that question. Mr. Bradley. I hope the court will instruct the witness that he must answer the question. The Court. The question may be put, and if the witness does not choose to answer it he may decline to answer it. Mr. Bradley. Can he decline to answer it unless he states that it would tend to criminate him ] The Court. Criminate or degrade him. TRIAL OF JOHN IT. SURRATT. 211 After a statement made by the witness privately, the court statefl he was sat- isfied the witness had a right to decline to answer the question. Q. Have you recently seen a man by the name of Sanford Oonover, other- wise known as Dunham ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you been in daily intercourse with him ? A. Sometimes I have. Q. In this city 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you talked with him about this case ? A. Yes, sir; I told him all 1 knew about it two or three months ago. Q. Did he write down what you told him ? A. No, sir ; not that I know of — not in my presence. He is a man I very seldom spoke to. Q Yet you were in daily intercourse with him, and told him all about this case? A. I may have been in his company. Q. How came you to tell him about this matter? A. We were talking about Surratt's trial, and I got to telling him about Sur- ratt's hiring a horse of me. Q. Did you tell Sanford Couover the same things you have told in court to-day 1 A. Pretty much the same. By Mr. Merrick : Q. Where was it you saw Sanford Conover ? A. I decline to state where it was. I believe it was on 4th street somewhere. Q. Was it on the corner of the street 1 A. No, sir. Q. Near the corner ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Jus t round the corner from Gr street, on the left-hand side of Fourth street as you go up 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Is that where you have been staying for the last two or three weeks ? Mr. PiKRREPONT. 1 ask the court to instruct the witness as to his right to answer. The Court. I have done so. By Mr. Bradley: Q. I want to know whether Sanford Conover is the first man to whom you told the things you have stated in court to-day. A. No, sir. Q. AVho else ? A. A young man who was keeping stable for me by the name of Charley Lewis. I told him of the conversation they had after they went down the country together. Q. Did you tell Charley Lewis you saw Surratt in this city on the 14th of April, 1865 ] A. I do not know whether I did or not. Q. Y'ou do not know ? A. No ; I saw a great many people in 18G5 that I did not tell him about. Q. Are there a great many people in the city of Washington that you know anything about, charged with complicity in this murder ] A. No, sir ; not that I know of. Q. You do not know where Charley Lewis is ? 212 TKIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT. A. ISTo, sir. Q. How long is it since you have seen him 1 A. About a year and a half. Q. Where did he belong ? A. In Connecticut. Q. Do you know where he went when he left here ? A. No, sir ; he went away in a hurry from me. Q. How long after this conspiracy trial did he go away 1 A. Three or four months, or four or five months ; I cannot state exactly the time. Q I want to know the first person to whom you told that you saw John H. Surratt on the 14th of April. A. I may have told a great many — I cannot recollect. Q. Do you know whether you told it to anybody before you told it to San- ford Conover ? A. No, sir. Q. Were you at large in the city when Surratt was arrested 1 A. No, sir; I was in the city. Q. Have you not been examined in a civil suit in this city since John H. Surratt was arrested 1 A. No ; it was a few days before. Q. Before he was brought here ] A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you quite sure about that? A. I know it, sir. Q. Up to that time, had you told anybody of this thing 1 A. I might ; I cannot say. Q. Can you not tell when you first spoke of a fact so important to the life of a man as this 1 A. I did not think it important at the time I met him. Q. And you carried the secret for how long a time ? A. I did not think it a secret at the time I met him. Q. I do not speak of the time you met him. Daring the conspiracy trials you knew it was an important fact to ascertain whether he Avas in the city on that day or not 1 A. Yes, sir; and I should not have told it now if it had not been for Conovei". He soon told som'-body, and the first thing 1 knew, somebody came to the jail to see me. I got very mad at Conover. I told him I did not want to answer the question. , Q. Did you say it was in the jail 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Who came to see you? A. I think it was Mr. Ashley, a stoutish gentleman. I asked him, and he told me how he came to know of it. I would not answer the question until he told me who had told him of it. I knew I had not said it to anybody but Con- over. When I went back I never spoke to him for six or seven days. Q. Then you had a talk with Mr. Ashley ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you tell him about all these things ? A. No, sir. Q. What else did you fail to tell him ? A. I did not tell him a great many things ; I never told him of the sale of Booth's horse to Arnold. Q. Did Mr. Ashley write down what you said ? A. No, sir. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. 213 Q. Did lie have paper when he came in 1 A. Not that 1 know of; I never saw any. Q. Was he in Sanford Conover's company? A. No, sir. Q. Did you not see him in Sanford Conover's company at other times? A. I never saw him in his company in my life. By Mr. Pibrrepont. Q. You have been asked about the sale of a horse to Arnold. What was that ? Mr. Merrick. We have not asked that. Mr. PiBRRKPONT. It came out in some way in cross-examination. The court ruled that the question might be asked. A. Booth came down to the stable on the 27th or 28th of January and paid his livery ; I think to the 26th. Then he came about the 27th or 28th and paid his livery up to February 1, and Sam. Arnold in company with him. He then told me, in Arnold's presence, that he had sold the horse to Arnold, and that Arnold was to pay the livery from that time on. Q. Now, about Booth's order you spoke about, what did that mean ? (Question objected to as not relating to what was brought out on the examination in chief. Objection sustained.) By j\[r. Bradley : Q. Who was the IMr. Ashley who called on you at the jail ? A. I don't know him only by that name. I believe he is a member of Con- gress. I never saw him before in my life. Q. What sort of a looking man is he ? A. A stoutish man. Q. Did you understand he was a member of Congress ? A. Yes, sir ; he told me who he was. Q. Have you received any offer of favor or reward for the testimony you have given in this case ? A. I have not, from anybody. Q. You are quite sui-e of that ? A. Yes, sir; I have not, from anybody. By the District Attorney : Q. And we understand you to say you had no idea of revealing this ? A. I did not ; I told it to Conover confidentially. Mr. Eddy Martin sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepont: Q. State your residence and occupation. A. I reside in New York. I am a commercial broker. Q. In the year 18G5, did you go down to Port Tobacco from the city of Washington ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now state briefly what occurred there, and what you saw connected di- rectly with the prisoner at the bar. A. I went to Richmond, and I will state the circumstances under wliicli I went, if you will permit me. In the fall of 1SG4 a gentleman Avcnt to Rich- mond and consulted with the confederate authorities there in regard to the dis- position of the entire cotton crop of the south. On his return, in company with some persons, personal and political friends of Mr. Lincoln, he called to see Mr. Lincoln, and had a consultation with him in reference to it. 214 TRIAL OF JOHN H SURRATT. Q. Were you there ? A. No, sir ; I have seen the affidavits of the parties. Q. Then you need not go into anything in regard to that — growing out of that. You went down there ? A. Yes, sir ; and it will take me but a moment to state the facts and circum- stances under which I went. I think it is my right to do so. I think you promised it to me. Mr. PiERREPONT. I have no objection, if it is legitimate. Mr. Bradley. There is no objection on the part of the defence. Witness. Mr. Lincoln expressed a desire to see this thing consummated. He suggested a certain course to be pursued, in which our government should not be directly connected with it. The confederate government wanted to treat directly with Mr. Lincoln. He objected to that; he said he would not recog- nize them and he would not treat with them, but that if these gentlemen, or any association of individuals, could enter into arrangements to purchase the cotton and tobacco in the south, he would guarantee them the protection of the gov- ernment and afford them every facility for carrying out that arrangement. At the close of the interview these gentlemen asked for a pass to return south, and consummate the affair. Mr. Lincoln said he would rather not give a pass ; but that they had been there once, and he guessed they could go again. In the mouth of December these parties came and laid the facts before me ; asked me to take hold of the business, and prosecute it to its consummation. After con- sideration, I agreed to do so, believing I acted with the tacit consent of the President, if not his full approval. Mr. PiERREPONT. And the reason you asked to make this statement was iu order to show that you were there legitimately ? A. That is precisely the reason. By the time I got there Mr. PiERREPONT. That is sufficient to show your reason. Now please state what occurred. Witness. I think I have a right to complete this explanation. Judge Pierre- pont promised me I should. The Court, As it will probably take less time for the witness to complete his statement than to argue the question, I think he had better be allowed to go on. WiTNE.'^s. I went to Richmond; but so long a time had elapsed after the original proposition, that they declined to carry it out as first proposed, but ex- pressed a desire that 1 should purchase cotton freely, which I did to the extent of about S6, 000, 000, and obtained the refusal of about 815,000,000 worth more. 1 came back to Washington, and reported promptly what I had done. There was nothing criminal or irregular in it. It was done with the tacit consent of the President. Q. And that was the reason of your going? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now go on and state what relates to this subject. A. While in Port Tobacco, I remained for ten days, in order to get an oppor- tunity to cross the river. I employed a man by the name of Andrew Atzerodt, and paid him to make some arrangements for me to cross ihe river. Q. Was that his lull name? A. I do not know ; he went by that name. Q. Was his name George A. 1 A. I presume so ; he went by the name of Andrew. Q. There was no doubt about the other name being Atzerodt ? A. I think not. I heard his name, and recollect asking him once if it W!i,s a Russian name. He tried to make arrangements for me to cross, and went down TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 215 the liver several times. I paid him for his trouble, aucl finally abauiloned the idea and left there. 1 did not cross there at all. Q. What time was that ? A. A'oout the 10th of January, 1865; from the 7th to the 15th. Q. Who else did you see there connected with this conspiracy ? A. I saw Suriatt there on one occasion. Q. Tell what you know about it ; Avliat was said or done. A. I had 110 particular conversation with him. I was introduced to him. He did not refer to his business, and I do not think I did to mine. On one evening after dark a man told me that a party was just about to cross over. 1 said I would like to be introduced to him. He said he would do so. In probably fifteen or twenty minutes he came in and said he was mistaken; that they were not going to cross. During the evening I was introduced to Surratt. No par- ticular conversation passed between us. I may have told him I was going to cross the rivei'. I think 1 did. I remained that night. The next day when he came in to supper he had on his leggins. I asked him if he was going. He said he was going back to Washington ; that he was employed in Adams's ex- press office ; that he had three days' leave of absence ; that his t^me was nearly expired, and that it was necessary for him to start back that night. Q. State whether you saw he and Atzerodt speak together. A. I am not positive whether I saw them speak at all with each other. Q. Did you see them after that day ? A. 1 did not see him after this conversation at the supper table, and have not seen him since till I saw liim here. Q. Did you see Atzerodt afterwards 1 A. Yes, sir. I remained two or three days and tried to get across. I saw him there all the time I was there. (4. Did you see him on the other side ? A. Never. Q. Did you see either of them on the other side ? A. I never saw or heard of either of them on the other side. Q. Did you see either of them at any other place, at any other time, that yoii remember of ? A. I did not. Q. You did not know Payne? A. No, sir. Q. Did you know Herold ? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. You had other conversation with Atzerodt, did you ? A. I did the night tSurratt left there. I was losing confidence in Atzerodt. I thought, although I had been paying him tolerably liberally, thai he had been throwing off on me. I staid up pretty late tliat night. He came to the hotel about 11 o'clock. I accused him of intending to cross over that night with other partie.-i ; told him I had been paying him all that he askcl, and that I must cross by the first boat. He denied that anybody was going to cross that night. 1 reiterated the charge 1 had made of duplicity upon his part. He then made this explanation : He said no one was going to cross that night, but on Wednesday night a large party would cross of ten or twelve persons ; that he had been engaged that day in buying boats ; that they were going to have relays of horses on the road between Port Tobacco and Washington. Said I, "What does this mean?" He said he could not tell. Alter a moment I said I supposed that confederate officers were to escapt' from prison, and that he had made arrangements to cross them over into Virginia. He said " Ves, and I am going to get well paid for it." Q. When you asked him first what it was, he did not tell you ? 216 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Xo ; he said he did not know, or something. Q. But when you made this suggestiou he agreed to it ? A. Yes ; he assented to it in a moment. Brooks Stabler sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepoxt : Q. What was your occupation from the first day of January until the first day of June, 1865? A. I was in a livery stable ; taking charge of a livery stable. Q. Whose stable was it ? A. John C. Howard, on G street, between 6th and 7th. Q. Do you remember the number ? A. I do not. Q. Did you know John Wilkes Booth ? A. I did. Q. Did you know John H. Surratt 1 A. I did. . Q. Did you know George A. Atzerodt ? A. I did. Q. Did you see them at your stable ? A. Frequently. Q. Did you see them all together there ? A. I have seen them togethei", and sepaiately. Q. What did you see them doing ] A. They were talking, sometimes. Q. Talking together 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. State when you first saw John Wilkes Booth at your stable, as near as you can remember. A. I cannot remember exactly the time; it was about the time Surratt entered his horses at that stable in my care. Q. When did Surratt put his horses at that stable in your care ? A. That, I think, is stated in my testimony on the other trial ; I do not re- collect it now, Q. Can you state whether it was about February, lS6o ? A. It was along about that period. Q. In what manner did Surratt put his horses in your charge ? A. He left them there to be taken care of — to be fed and watered. Q. How many were there 1 A. Two. Q. Will you describe these two horses ? A They were both bay horses. One was an ordinary horse ; the other was a rather fine horse — saddle horses. Q. Were both horses, or one a mare 1 A. Both horses. Q. What was the direction he gave you about them ? A. His direction was that he wanted them taken care of in the best maimer I could. Q. In i-efereuce to their use, what did he direct ? A. That they were not to be used except by his order. Q. Did he give you any order about their use ? A. He gave me an order on one occasioa for Booth to use them ? Q. What did lie say in giving t4iat order ? A. His directions were that Booth and no one else was to have his horses, but that Booth could get them at any time. TRIAL OF JOHN II. SUKRATT. 217 Q. Booth could get either horse at any time; he did not mention any one 1 A. I do not recollect that he did ; Booth usually got one horse. Q. Which one ? A. The better one, Q. Wlien these men came, did they come together or separately ? A. Sometimes two of them would come, and I believe all ihree of them have come together. Q. How was it generally, did they all come together or separately ? A. There w^ere generally two of them. Q. HoAv often in the course of a day were they there sometimes ? A. Two or three times a day sometimes. Q. Did yon see Atzerodt ride out with Surratt on any occasion ? A. I did on one occasion. Q. Did you have any written order from Surratt. A. I had one. Q. Have you it with you 1 A. I think I have; (paper produced.) Q. Do you know who brought this note 1 A. I did not know the gentleman Q. It was brought by a gentleman was it? A. I never saw him before or since. Q. You know the handwriting ? A. It is Surratt's handwriting. Mr. PiERREPoxT read the note as follows : " March 26, 1865. "Mr. Brooks : As business will detain me for a few days in the country I thought I would send your team back. Mr. Bearer will deliver in safety and pay the hire on it. If Mr. Booth, my friend, should want my horses, let him have them, but no one else. If you should want any money on them, he will let you have it. I should have liked to have kept the team for several days, but it is too expensive, especially as I have women on the brain and may be away for a week or so. " Yours, respectfully, -J. HARRISON SURRATT." Q. "Will you state what team this alludes to 1 A. The team I hired to him. Q. "What team was it 1 A. A horse and buggy. Q. This was on the 26th of March ; how long prior to that did you let him have the team ? A. The day before, perhaps ; I could tell by reference to my books. Q. Did he tell you where he was going with it 1 and if so, where ? A. I think not ; I do not think I knew where he was going then. Q. Who did you see Surratt ride out with from your stable with any of the horses ? A. I have seen him ride out with Booth, and I have seen him ride out with Atzerodt. Q. Did you receive any other note from John II. Surratt '( A. Not that 1 recollect of now. Q. I allude to the one produced on a former trial ? A. I may have received several. Q. Do you recollect Mrs. Surratt sending a note to you ? A. Sending an order for a horse and buggy. Q. Who did you see ride out on that order sent by Mrs. Surratt ? 15 2,18 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Mr. Merrick, "We do not know that there is any sucli note. Mr. PiERREPOXT. 1 supposed the note was here ; I beheve it is attached to the record of the military commission. I will therefore waive that question until it is here. Q. Please state whether in the spring of 1865, or in April, 1865, you had any conversation with Atzerodt about Surratt 1 Mr. Bradley. As that conversation, I presume, is the same as that stated in the book containing the assassination trial, I will ask the court to examine it and determine whether it can properly be admitted in evidence or not. Mr. PiERREPOiXT. I suppose the statement there is substantially what the wit- ness will say. Pending the decision of the question, the court took a recess until to-morrow at 10 a. m. Friday, June 21, 1867. The Court met at 10 a. m. Mr. Merrick presented to the court affidavits of the prisoner, asking that the witnesses Carroll T. Hobart, Charles H. Blinn, and Sergeant Joseph M. Dye be recalled. After examining the affidavits, Judge Fisher said that he had carefully noted their contents, and had also considered the arguments submitted by counsel yes- terday. His views were that the custom which had always prevailed was cor- rect ; that a witness should consider himself discharged after examination, unless told to remain. He thought it better to pursue the common practice. Mr. IMerrick desired to know if the witness could be cross examined if brought here by the defence. The Court said that he could be examined as a witness for the defence. Mr. Merrick said he understood counsel on the other side to agree that if the witnesses were here they could be cross examined. The Court said that that was a subject for agreement between counsel. Mr. Merrick inquired if he understood the court right, that the bail bond of Dye could be offered in evidence. The Court said that that was a subject for future consideration. He had only remarked that that was the way to prove it. Edward L. SiMOOT, recalled. Examination resumed. By the District Attorney : Q. Will you state if you made any erroneous statement, or whether you made any mistake in your testimony of yesterday, which you desire to correct? A. I have been told since I got off the stand yesterday that I was mistaken as to the gentleman who examined me up at Winder's building. I said yesterday, in reply to a question put by ^Ir. ]\Ierrick, that I was there examined by two gentlemen — one a young gentleman and the other an old one. He then asked me their names. I told him I did not know the name of either, but that I heard after I left the room that the elderly gentleman was Judge Holt. J-«ome of the witnesses avIio went up there with me told me that the older gentleman of the two was Judge Holt. I never saw Judge Holt in my life to know him. By Mr. Merrick : Q. Just describe the gentleman who examined you. A. The gentleman was sitting down at the time, and did not get up at all. I was questioned first by the young gentleman, I saw him this morning, and he tells me his name is Colonel Barr. They both questioned me. Q. Describe the old gentleman. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 219 Mr. PlERREPON'T. I submit to your honor whether that is a proper question. The Court. I will say that I supposed there would be some end to this matter of inquiring as to who has examined witnesses. It is altogether wrong. It is a needless waste of time ; and I here take occasion to say, that if any government officer did not use due diligence, in an important trial, to find out what he could prove by witnesses, he would be very derelict in his duty. If I were a public officer prosecuting causes, I should feel it my duty, i)i every important case, to see and examine the witnesses; and a lawyer who does not do so, in my estimation — I may be wrong — does not do his duty to his client. Mr. PiKKREPONT said it was the duty of the government to prosecute crime, and find out who committed it. If a govei'ument could not prutect its citizens, such government could not protect itself. Mr. Bradley thought the government had abundant means in the judicial department, without bringing in extraneous aid from any other branch of the government, to seek out and to bring to punishment criminals. He thought it the duty of every citizen to communicate any facts; but he solemnly protested against any secret tribunal to investigate proof, and probably to create proof. He agreed that as to matters connected with the army Mr. Holt had authority ; but he denied that Mr. Holt, or the War Department, had a right to investigate matters as to private citizens. There was a great difference between now and three years ago, Avhen a great struggle was going on in the country. Under what law did Mr. Holt undertake to examine into a case pending in a civil tribunal ? If there was such authority, he called for the statute. Judge Holt was a private citizen. The prosecution must show some authority for Mr. Holt's investigating matters. Mr. 3Iekrick said it must be shown that the party examining was a duly authorized attorney of the United States. The Court said they could proceed with the examination of the witnesses; that it was proper to ask a witness who he had spoken to concerning the testi- mony he would give, with a view of showing that he had said on another occa- sion something different from what he had said on the present one. He only desired to intimate to counsel that a great deal of time was taken xip in examin- ing into matters of this sort, where there did not appear to be any point in the question. ]\[r. Bradley stated that, whenever the court required it, they would always disclose the object of their question ; but he would submit that, on cross- examination, it had the effect to cut the throat of the examination, to be called upon to make known the object, of the question. Examination resumed by Mr. Merrick: Q. Describe the elderly gentleman. A. He was sitting down at the time he was examining me, and I couldn't tell whether he was a very tall man, or not. He was an old gentleman, however ; his hair was gray. It was not white, but it was a silvery gray. Q. Was it long 1 A. Yes, sir, it was rather long, tolerably so. He had a little gray beard just on his jaw. Q. Was there anything remarkable about his face that you observed ? A. I did not see him full in the face. I was sitting just between the two gentli men. I saw his side face only. Q. Did he have a heavy, large head? A. I did not notice it particularly. Q. Did you notice his nose ? A. Not particularly. 220 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. • Q. In what room were yo^^ examined? A. If I am not mistaken, while in the passage-way, looking round, I saw over the door the words, "Judge Advocate General's office." The District Attorney. If your honor please, I think it proper for me to state that the Judge Advocate General is not examining witnesses in this case; not assisting us at all. Mr. Bradley (to the court.) If so, let him state it under oath. Brooke Stagler. Examination resumed. By Mr. Pierrepo\t : Q. Yesterday you produced this letter of March 26, 1865, from Mrs. Surratt* Tell us what that team was that came back with this letter 1 A. It was a horse and buggy. Q. Were there two horses 1 A. There was one horse and buggy. Mr. Bradley. I object. That was all brought out yesterday. Mr. PiERREPONT. It was, and I am coming to that. I think he was mistaken about the team. Q. Will you tell the color of the team ? A. That I cannot. Q. Can you tell whether they were gray or white horses ? A. I do not recollect of his having a double team but once, and I do not think that was the time. Q. What was the double team] A. I cannot put them together now. Q. Can you state what color the double team was ? A. I do not recollect. Q. Can you tell whether you had a team of white hoises, or gray, at that time ? A. I had one that was sometimes put double — rarely two grays together. Q. Were you accustomed to speak of a single horse as a team ? A. O, yes ; that was a common thing. Q. Will you name the persons you saw at your stable conversing together with Surratt ] Mr. Bradley. I object. That all came out yesterday. Mr. PiKRREPOXT. He may not have stated them all. Name the persons, if you please. A. I have seen Booth, Atzerodt, and Herold, Q. With whom ? A. With Surratt. Q. Did you omit any name yesterday ? A. Yes, sir ; Herold's name was omitted yesterday. Q. Did you have any conversation with either of those men in relation to Surratt's trip anywhere; and if so, what was it ? A. I had with Atzerodt. Q. State what it was. A. He showed me the conclusion of a letter which he had received from Surratt, stating Mr. Bradley. Never mind that. Mr. PlERREPONT. You can state what Atzerodt said. What did be say ? A. He told me that he had a letter in his hand from Surratt, but that he would not let me see it all. He opened it, and the concluding paragraph I read. Q. What further did he say? A. He said that in that letter Mr. Bradley. I thought you said that you read that part of the letter. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 221 Mr. PlERBEPONT. I am not asking liira as to what he read, but as to what Atzerodt said to him regarding the contents of that letter. He has a right to tell lis what Atzerodt said to him. The Court. Whatever Atzerodt said is testimony, whether he said it was in the letter or not. His saying so and so was in the letter would not put it there ; nor his saying so and so was not there would not take it away if it was there. The object, as I understand it, is to get at the conversation. Mr. PiERREPO.XT. AVill you state what he said ? A. He told me that he would not show me the letter — the body of it — but that he would show me the latter part of it. He stated that the letter was dated In Richmond, and that he had understood that the detectives were after him, and he was making his way north as fost as he could. That is about the amount of what Atzerodt told me. Q. Did he say anything further ? A. Nothing more than a reiteration of the same. He said it over two or three times. He positively refused to show me any more of the letter than that. Q. Did he, at the time of this conversation, state where Surratt then was 1 Mv. Bradley. If your honor pleases, I think it is time to interpose an ob- jection to this line of examination. The witness has stated that Atzerodt showed to him a letter which he said was dated at Richmond, and which contained what the witness has repeated. To follow it up looks very much to me like a cross- examination. Mr. PlERREPONT. I have a right, I suppose, to call his attention to specific matters, such, for instance, as to inquire whether he stated where Surratt was ? The Court. You have a right to put such questions as will have the effect to refresh his memory, but not to put them in such a form as to render them leading. Mr. PlERREPONT. I will then make the question more general. Q. Will you state how the conversation between you and Atzerodt com- menced ? A. lie called me out on the edge of the pavement and told me what he had. Q. Did you ask him anything 1 A. Nothing more than to let me see the letter, Q. And when he declined to do so, what did you say further, if anything ? A. I do not recollect saying anything particular. Q. Was there anything said as to where Surratt was at the time of this con- versation 1 If so, what was it ? A. There is nothing on my mind now that I can recall. I do not think there was any impression made on my mind that would lead me to say where he was. He did not say. Q. Did he say anything that explained to you what he meant by making his way north — north from what point ? A. North from Richinond. Q. Did he say anything more to you in relation to the difficulty that Surratt was in ? and if so, what ? A. That is the only difficulty that he spoke of — about detectives. Q. Did he name to you whose detectives they were — ^\-hether they were Colonel Baker's, or any other squad ? A. I do not recollect whether they were Colonel Baker's, or whose they were — government detectives. Q. He did not name whose particular squad that you remember ? A. No, sir ; I do not recollect that he did. Q. You say government detectives — detectives of Avhat government ? A. Government of the United States. 222 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. By Mr. Bradley: Q. Do you mean Atzerodt said United States detectives, or was that your in- ference from what he said ? A. I mean that he told me that the detectives were after him. Q. And you understood they were government detectives ; but I do not un- derstand you to say that he told you they were government detectives ? A. I do not recollect that he said government detectives, but that is what he meant. By Mr. Pierrepoxt : Q. Preceding that, did you have any conversation in relation to the payment of any bill ? Mr. Bradley. Conversation with whom? ]\rr. PiERREPONT. Why, with eitber of those parties? To the witness. I do not mean to ask you with regard to anybod}'^ else, except some one of those that you have mentioned ? ^ A. I think I had a letter from Surratt, telling me, in his absence, to call upon Booth. Mr. Bradley. Wait a moment. Where is that letter 1 Mr. Pierrepoxt. I have not yet asked the witness about the letter. I am going to, but I do not choose to interrogate him about it at this point. Q. I ask you what conversation you had in March, at the stable, if any 1 A. I do not know that I can particularize anything. There was frequent talk about our money matters. Surratt woiild frequently ask me if I wanted any money. Q.. I will call your attention to the time when Atzerodt took away a blind horse, if any such thing ever occurred. Do you remember of any such thing ? A. I do. Q. About when was it tbat he took away the blind horse 1 A. As to the time, I cannot tell you. Q. Can you tell abont the time 1 A. No, sir, I cannot. Q. Blind of one eye, I understand this horse was ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What kind of a horse was it 1 A. It was a saddle horse — a fine racking horse. Q. Was there any other horse taken away at the same time ? A. There was a bay horse. Q. What kind of a horse was that in size ? A. Lighter than the other. Q. Why did Atzerodt take away those horses ? Who claimed to own them 1 "Who was the owner, in fact ? A. Tliey were Surratt's horses — entered by him, at least. Q. Who paid for their keep ? A. Booth. Q. Were these two horses returned afterwards ? A. Ko, sir. Q. I do not mean to keep, but for any purpose ? A. They were brought there by Atzerodt to selL Q. That is what I am asking about. Did they succeed in selling them? A. They did not. Q. Then what was done with them ? A. He took them aM'ay. Q. Who took them away ? A. Atzerodt. Q. When did you last see this one-eyed horse — this fine racker? A. I saw him in the government stables on 19th street. TRIAL OF JOHN H SURRATT. 223 Q. When ? A. Dnriiis^ the tvinl at the arseual Q. What is called the couspiratorrt' trial ? A. Yes, sir. I went up there at the instance of the judge advocate, to see if he was there and to see if I could recognize him. Q. Did you ? A. I did. Q. Please state whether that is the written order of which you have spokeu heretofore. (Handing witness a paper.) A. (After examining tlie paper.) That is it. Q. In Avhnse handwriting is it ? A. John H. Surratt's. Mr. Bkadley. Did you ever see hira write"? Wft.xr.ss. Yes, sir. More of these papers are on file now, I presume. I put them away. They are orders and directions of various kinds. Mr. 3[krrick. What is that paper marked ? Mr. Wilson. "Exhibit 27." Mr. PiERRKi'ON'T. I will now read this note to the jury. He then read as follows : "Mr. Howard will please let the bearer, Mr. Atzerodt, have my horse when- ever he wishes to ride; also my leggings and gloves; and oblige, yours, &c. (Signed) "J. H. SURKATT, "541 H street, between Sixth and Seventh streets. "Feb. 22, I860." Q. Will you now state to the jury whether you acted on this order, and did let him have the horses under it ? A I did, until that order was rescinded. Q. When these horses of Surratt's were taken from the stables who took them away ? A. Mr. Booth took them away. Q. Who paid for them? A. Booth. Mr. PiERREPO.\T. It is possible that you have stated, when tlicy were brought back to sell, who took them again. If so, I do not want it again. A. I have. Q. In reference to the men coming to your stable, to what part of the stable did they go ? A. They went down to the lower end of the stable. Q. That was the back part? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did they do when they got down to the back part of the stable ? A. That I do not know. They would be conversing together. Frequently I noticed that. Q. Will you state what the manner of the conversation Avas, so that these gentlemen can understand it ? I mean as to whether it was in a loud or in a confidential, whispering tone. A. They would generally be about 150 feet from me; from 100 to 150 feet. Sometimes I would see them when they would be down there ; at other times I would not ; I would be busy in the office. Q. Could you hear anything they said ? A. No, sir. Q. What was their manner of conversation ? A. It was not so that I could hear any voice at all. Q. It was in a low tone, then ? A. AVell, the usual tone, I suppose ; I could not tell from the distance I was. Q. You could not hear anything that was said ? 224 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Xo, sir. I could not hear anything of the conversation, of course. They would be further from me than the length of this room. Q. Their appearance indicated conversation 1 A. Yes, sir; indicated conversation, of course. Cross-examination by Mr. Bradley: Q. You say those hoi-ses were claimed by John H. Surratt when they were taken away by Booth. Was it under any claim of ownership ? When they were taken by Booth who paid for their keep ? Did he take them away, or claim that he bad purchased them ? A. He took them away after I had received information from Surratt that he would take them away and pay for their keep. Q. Was anything said about their having been sold? A. Not that I recollect of now. Q. You say Booth paid for them when he took them away. Had not Surratt before that paid for them from time to time ? A. He had paid previously, certainly. Q. When you say that Atzerodt held that letter in his hands and stated that it was dated Richmond, do you recollect whether he did not tell you that Surratt had been to Richmond, and on his way back had had a difficulty, and that the detectives were after him 1 A. I saw the date of the letter myself. He may have said that. Mr. Bradley. Never mind about that; I want to know what Atzerodt said. I want to know whether Atzerodt did not tell you that Surratt had been to Richmond, and coming back had got into difficulty, and that the detectives were after him, and that he was making his way to the north ? A. The idea conveyed to my mind was that he had heard the detectives were after him, and that he was about to leave, or may be, had left Richmond. Q. You were examined before the military commission about the middle of May? A. Yes, sir. Q. Your memory was fresher then than it is now ? A. On some points it was. Q. Do you now recollect with any distinctness what time in April that con- versation occurred ? A. I cannot tell you the time precisely. I cannot say whether it was in April or not. I only recollect the circumstances. Q. You have stated before that in the early part of April Atzerodt told me so and so. Is that your recollection now, that it Avas the early part of April ] A. It must have been iu the early part of April, or previous to that. I do not recollect dates very well. By Mr. Pierrepont. You stated to the counsel that you saw the date of the letter. Mr. Bradley. That was not in answer to any question of mine ; and, therefore, I do not think it proper that you should refer to it at all. I told the witness at the time that I did not want him to state anything about that, but only to state what Atzerodt said; and I will now ask the court to tell the jury that that is not evidence. The Court. Of course, gentlemen, that answer of the witness is not evidence. You will understand that. Mr. Pierrepont. I will not ask the witness the question I intended, but will put another. Q. I simply want to ask you one question, and that is regarding your name. There seems to be some misunderstanding among us both in regard to it. A. My name is Brooke Stabler. TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 225 Q. Do you go by the name of "Brook" or" Stabler" generally, when spoken of? A. Familiarly they call me by my first uaine, "Brook." By a Juror : Q. Is it not a very common thing for gentlemen who keep horses in your stable to walk to the end of your stable 1 A. Many do. James "W. Pumphrky, livery-stable keeper — residence, Washington — sworn and examined. By the District Attorney: Q. Where do you reside ? A. I reside at No. 252 C street. Q. State yoiTr business, and your place of business. A. 1 am keeper of a livery stable, 244 C street, between Four-and-a-half and Sixth. Q. In this city 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you been doing business there ? A. 1 have been in business about eleven years. Q. State if you knew John Wilkes Booth. A. I did. Q. State when, where, and under what circumstances you first formed his acquaintance. A. John Wilkes Booth came to my stable one day for a saddle-horse. He asked for the proprietor; I stepped up and told him I was the mm. He said he wanted a saddle-horse to ride for a few hours. I cannot tell the exact day that he came there. I did not know at the time it was Booth, but found out that it was after talking with him a short wliile. He said he wanted a sad- dle-horse to take a few hours' ride in the country. I told him I could let him have one. He said he did not wish any but a good one. I told him I had a very good saddle-horse, I thought. He then said : " I wish you Avould have him saddled." I ordered him saddled, and then said to him: "You are a stranger to me ; and it is always customary with me when I hire a horse to a stranger to have him give me some securit3^ or some satisfactory reference." At that time Jlr. Surratt — I do not know whether he stood across the street, or came over Q. The prisoner ? A. Yes, sir. Surratt said he knew him ; that it was Mr. Booth, and he would take good care of the horse. I cannot now tell wliether the prisoner came over and said this to me, or stood on the opposite side of the street and hallooed across. Q. How long have you known the prisoner ? A. A great many years. Q State as near as you can all that Surratt said at that time. A. I think he said he would see me paid for it ; that he was going to take a ride with Mr. Booth. Q. Go on. A. That is about all. I went in and ordered the horse to be saddled aiul brought out. There were some gentlemen sitting in front of my stable at the time. Who they Avere I do not know. Q. What kind of a horse was it ? A. A light sorrel. When I came out with the horse saddled, he was gone. I asked some of them out at the door where he went? They said they thought he went to the Pennsylvania House. The boy stood at the door with the horse 226 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. and I stood out there, watchinr^ for him. I saw him come out of the Pennsyl- vania Houi^e. He came out alone, and came over and started off on the horse alone. Q. Where is this Pennsylvania House 1 A. It is on the south side of C street, between Four-and-a-half and Sixth, opposite to the old Exchange Hotel. Q. Will you state the next time you saw John Wilkes Booth ] A. I could not tell the date when he next came to my stable. Q. When was it you had this interview — how long previous to the assas- sination of the President ? A. I really forget — may-be six weeks or two months before. May-be a little more and may-be a little less. I cannot tell the exact time. Q. State the next time you saw the prisoner. A. I do not remember of ever seeing Mr. Surratt after that. He never called at my stable after that time. Q. State the next time you saw John Wilkes Booth. A. That I could not do ; but it was not a great while — may -be a week or ten days, or two weeks. He was in the habit of coming to my stable and hiring horses after the time to which I have alluded. He generally rode the same horse ; always when he could get him. Q. I will ask you if you saw him on the 14tli of April, 18G5 ] A. Yes, sir. He called at my stable that morning. Q. State what time it was you saw him. A.. Somewhere between 11 and 1 o'clock, as well as I can remember.^ I did not pay much attention to the time. He called for a saddle horse, stating that he wanted to take a ride that afternoon. He expressed a desire to have the same horse that he had been in the habit of riding. I told him he was engaged, and therefore he could not have him. He wanted to know if I could not put the person off to whom I had engaged him, and let the man have the horse that I was to ffive him. I told him I could not do that. He then wanted me to give him a good one. I told him that the horse I was going to give him was a very good saddle horse. I told him I thought so, and he would think so after he had ridden him. He says : "Well, don't give me any but a good one." I told him I wouldn't ; that I would give give him a little mare ; that she was small, but a very good one. Q. What color was the mare ? A. She was a bay mare, about fourteen hands high. I put on her an English saddle, and a snaffle-bit bridle. I have never seen saddle, bridle, or Booth since. Q. Did you ever see the prisoner afterwards ? A. I never saw Mr. Surratt from the first time he came there with him. If I did, I do not remember it. He never called at my place. Cross-examination : By Mr. Bradley : Q. You say that you have been in business eleven years ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you keep a stable at the corner of Sixth and C streets 1 A. I did. I went there in 1856. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Surratt there ? A. I have seen Mr. Surratt come with his father very often to that corner, and where I am at present. Q. How large was he then ? A. He was very small. I went to keep the stable in 1856. Q. At what time did you go where you are? A. In 1S5S. Surratt was but a small boy when I first knew him. TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 227 The Court. A small boy in 1858 ? IVfr. Bkadi.ry. Yes, sir. He is only 23 or 24 years old now. Q. You say you took charg:e of tlie stable Avhere you are now in 1858 1 A. Yes, sir. October 5, 18-58. Q. Did you ever see Mr. David Reed about that stable? A. He has been there ; but he never stopped over five minutes. I do not thiiik he was ever there more than half a dozen times in his life. John Fletchkr — residence in Washington — sworn and examined. By Mr. Pikrrepont : Q. Where do you reside ? A. At Tim Nailor's livery stable, upon E street, between Thirteen-and-a half and Fourtoonth ^^treets. Q. When' did you reside on the 14th of April, I860 ? A. At Nailor's stable. Q. At the same place 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. On the 14th of April, 1865, did you see Atzerodt and Herold? A. Yes, sir. Q. State where you saw them and what occurred. A. I saw them at Nailor's stable, but not together. Q. Who did you see first ? A. Atzerodt. Q. Subsequently, did you see Herold ? A. In about an hour after. Q. Will you state whatHerold did 1 A. He engaged a horse of me. Q. What did he say ? A. He wanted to know what was the price. Q. How long did he tell you to keep it, or did he tell you 1 A. He told me to keep it for him until ten minutes past 4 o'clock. Q. Did he come there at that hour, or about it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then what did he say ? A. When he came in he asked me if I had the horse ready, and I told him I had. He asked me how much I charged, and I told him $5. Q. Did he tell you -what he wanted the horse for ? A. He told me he was going to ride with a lady. Q. What did you say to that ? A. I said nothing to it. Q. Did he inquire for any particular horse ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What horse ? A. A light-colored roan horse in the stable, called Charley. Q. Did he get that horse 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have any conversation with him about taking another horse ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did he say about that ? A. He rlid not lik-? that horse so well. He wanted that light-colored roan horse. Q. Did you finally give it to him 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. What else did he want 1 A. He wanted an English saddle and bridle to the same horse. 228 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT. Q. Did lie ask to see tliem ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you show them ? A. Yes, sir. Q. "What did he say when you showed them ? • A. He did not say anything. I took him into the harness room. Q. Did he say anything about the size of either ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you show him a saddle ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did he say of that ? A. I showed him two diiTerent saddles, neither of which suited him, and he picked out one of his own choosing. Q. Did he take that 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he say anything about the stirrups of the saddle ? A. Y'es, sir. I showed him a saddle on which were military stirrups, but he did not like that so well as the English saddle and stirrups. Q. Which did he take 1 A. He took the iron stirrups, and the English saddle. Q. Did he want a particular bridle ? A. Yes, sir ; and I took him into the office and showed him the bridles. Q. What kind of bridle did he select? A. A double-rein bridle, with two bits on. Q. What did he ask you before he mounted 1 A. He did not ask me anything. Q. Did he at any time say anything to you about staying out ? A. I asked him how long he was going to stay out. He said he did not know. I then told him he could not keep the horse out any later than 8 o'clock — 9 o'clock at the furthest. Q. When 8 or 9 o'clock came, what happened 1 A. Nothing happened at that time between him and myself. Q. What did you do ? A. I did not do anything. Q. Did the horse come back at that time ? A. No, sir. Q. What then did you do ? Did you go out to look for the horse 1 A. Not at that time. Q. Did you at any time ? A. Yes, sir, Q. Did you see Atzerodt and Herold ? A. No, sir. Mr. Bradlev. I do not like to interpose, but I must say that this is a most leading examination. Mr. PiERREPONT. I admit it is leading, but I cannot get the witness to nar- rate. The Court. Let us try and see if we cannot. It is always best to avoid leading questions. Q. Can you tell when you saw these two men together 1 A. I never saw the two of them together that day at all ; I saw them sep- arately. Q. Did you see them separately at your stable 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you do about 9 o'clock ? A. When it came to 9 o'clock I had suspicion about the man not returning TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 229 ■with tlie horse. Atzerodt came after his horse about 10 oV-lock. I sent one of the boys down the stable to get the horse ready for him. He afterwards wanted to know if I would not 2:0 and take a drink with him. I told him that I had nf) objection. He and I then went down to the Union Hotel and had a Q. Lewis Payne, you mean ? A. Yes, sir. 'Q. How long were these three talking together 1 A. They remained there a few minutes. Q. Could you hear what they said 1 A. No, sir ; I was not paying attention ; they were conversing together. Q. State, if you please, where that box was — in what part of the theatre. A. I think it was an upper box. I do not remember which side of the theatre it was on. Q. In what part of the play was this conversation — in the middle or near the close 1 A. It was near the last part. Q. After they separated, which Avay did they go, and which way did your party go? A. We returned to Mis. Surratt's house. Q. Which way did Booth go r A. I don't know, sir. Q. Which way did Wood or Payne go ? A. I don't know, sir. I returned to my room. I did not see him any more that night. Q. Did Wood go back to Mrs. Surratt's that night ? A. He came up in the carriage with us. I do not know whether he remained there or not. Q. Did you continue in the city, or did you go away ? and if so where '? A. I went to Baltimore the next morning. Q. How long did you remain in Baltimore ? A. I remained in Baltimore a week, Q. Do you know where this man Wood or Payne was living at the time you boarded at Mrs. Surratt's ? A. No, sir. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 235 Q. Do you know wlietlier lie called at the Heradon House in tliis city ? A. Yes, sir. Q. "Where is that 1 A. I do not know what street it is on. Q. I allude to the llerndon House corner of ninth and F ; you know the house ? A. I know the house, but I do not know what street it is on. Q. Do you recollect passing by that house some time in the month of ^Earch, shortly before the assassination of the President, in company with Mrs. Surratt and others ? A. I remember passing with Mrs. Sui'ratt; I do not know what month it was. Q. Who were in company with you and Mrs. Surratt at that time ? A. Mrs. Surratt, Mr. Weichman, and Miss Jenlvins. Q. When you got to the Herndon House, state what Mrs. Surratt did and what the rest of the party did 1 A. Mrs. Surratt went in, the others of us walked up the street a little ways. Q. Did you wait for her up there ? A. Yes, sir. Q,. How long did you wait for her ? A. Only a few minutes there. Q. Where had you been coming from ? A. From St. Patrick's church, on F street. Q, What day of the week was it 1 A. I don't remember, sir. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt tell you or any of the party, to your knowledge, while you were going in that direction, that she intended going into the house I A. No, sir f I did not know she was going there until she stopped. Q. Did you or any of the party ask her what she went there for ? A. No, sir. Q. Did she state to you afterwards what she went in there for ? A. No, sir ; I do not remember asking her. Q. Did you ever hear it spoken of afterwards ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know how long she staid there ? A. She remained tliere a few minutes. Q. After Mrs. Surratt had been in the house did she come up and join the party ? A. Yes, sir. Q,. Where did you then go ? A. We returned to Mrs. Surratt's house on H street. Q. Where was John at that time j A. I don't know. Q. How long after that was it before you sxw Wood or Payne at Mrs. Surratt's. Did you not see him the next day 1 A. No, sir. Q. How long was it before you did see him ? A. I do not remember how long after that. By Mr. Pierrei'ont : Q. Do you remember John Surratt going to New York, A. No, sir ; I do not remember his going. Q. Have you any memory of his going to New York during the y.ar 1865 at any time? A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember hearing him say anything about it at any time ? A. No, sir. 236 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. George F. Chapin sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. State your residence and occupation. A. I live in Stockbriclge, Vermont, and I am a farmer. Q. How long have you lived in that place? A. Since a year ago last February. Q. Have you at any time been in Burlington, Vermont ? A. I moved from there in February, 1866. Q. In the month of April, 1865, where M'ere you ? A. I was in Burlington most of the time — not all of the time. Q. What day near the middle of April were you in Burlington ? A. I left Burlington on Friday evening. I have forgotten the day of the month. I was on my way to New Haven, Connecticut, with some recruits aud stragglers for Grapevine Point. I left there on Friday evening ; I have forgot- ten the day of the month. Q. Can you fix the day with reference to the assassination? A. Tt Avas previous to it, that is, it was previous to when I had heard of it. I heard of it when on my way down, at Springfield, Massachusetts. Q When did you go back ? A. I went back on what they called the 3.1 o train from New Haven, Monday. I think the train left New Haven at 3.15. Q. State whether this was before or after the assassination. A. This was after the assassination. Q. State whether it was the Monday immediately following the assassination, or otherwise. A. It was the next Monday after the assassination. Q. You know, do you not, on what day of the week the assassination was ? A. It was on Friday of the previous week. Q. Wlien you got back to Burlington did you see a witness who has been on the stand, Charles Blinn ? A. Not immediately. I did not go to Burlington that day. Q. When did you see Charles Blinn, after your return from New Haven ? A. I should judge it was on Wednesday evening. I think that was the first time. Q. Where did you see him ? A. At the Central depot in Burlington. Q. AVill you state whether you there received anything from him that after- noon 1 A. If I may be allowed, I will explain why 1 saw him on that occasion. I was not in the habit of speaking to him usually ; but on my way from Essex Junction ]\Ir. Bradley. You must not state your conversations with Blinn. Q. Did you see him ? A. I did. Q. Now tell US what occurred ? A. He showed me an article ; I looked at it, and told him I would like to have it. Q. What was the article? A. A pocket handkerchief. Q. How was it marked ? A. It was marked "John H. Surratt;" I think, "No. 2." Q. Have you it before you now ? A. I should not recognize it, from the M-ay it looked then, because then it was very dirty. I think it is the same handkerchief. It looks like it. Q. Have you seen Mr. Blinn here ] TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 237 A. I have not. He left before I arrived. Q. What mark is there on the handkerchief you have before you? A. It is marked" John H. Surratt, 2." Cross-examined by ^Ir. Bradlky : Q. To whom did you give that handkerchief? A, I gave it to George A. Gurnett. Q. Who is he ? A. Gurnett, he called himself to me. He called himself one of Baker's detec- tives. He came to Burlington. Q. And you think that was on Wednesday ? A. I gave it to him the next week ; Tuesday, I think it was. Q. Where did you see him 1 A. In Burlington. Q. Were you a detective 1 A. I was. Q. In Baker's employ ? A. No, sir; I do not know whether I was properly a detective. My appoint- ment came from Captain Gleason, provost marshal of the od district of Vermont. Q. Did you report at all to Major Ginut, comuiiuding at St. Albins ? A. I did not ; I had notliing to do with him. Q. Do you know where Gurnett is now ] A. I do not ; I have never seen him since that day. Q. You left Burlington to go to New Haven on Friday evening? A. Yes, sir, by the 8 o'clock train. Q. And at Springfield you heard of the assassination ; what time did the traia arrive at Springfield ? A. About 7 o'clock ; sometimes later. Q. What time that morning? A. I could not tell you the exact time. T had to wait there one train before I went on to New Haven with my recruits. If we met the other train from Boston we could go right on without stopping five minutes ; but if not, we had to stop over until 2 o'clock. I arrived there in the early part of the afternoon. Q. When was it that you received that handkerchief from Blinn ? A. I did not receive it direct from Blinn until the day I gave it to George Gurnett, on Tuesday, the 25th of April. I had previously seen the handker- chief. Q. When did you first see it ? A. On the Wednesday evening previous. Q. What enables you to fix that date ? A. On Tuesday morning when I returned from New Haven I went directly home. I lived two miles out of Burlington. Then about the middle of the day, Tuesday, I drove over with ray team and reported to the office and returned immediately back. My wife was A-ery sick. I staid there until Wednes- day. On AVednesday I went down to Essex Junction and left my team, and went down in the Wednesday evening train. Q. And you think it was on that Wednesday you first saw the handkerchief? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you leave Burlington then, or remain there ? A. I was at Burlington every day, more or less. Q. Between the first time you saw the handkerchief and the time you gave it to Gurnett, how many times were you at Burlington? A. I think I did not leave there again until Friday, when, I think, I was at home. On Saturday I returned to Burlington, and left again on Sunday. I could not say I did not leave Burlington. I went home Thursday and staid at home Thursday night, if I remember right. 238 TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. Q. Now, sir, was it not on Saturday morning that you first beard of and saw tba*; handkerchief ? A. I think it was not. Q. Is there anything in your memory which will enable you to fix whether it was Wednesday or Saturday morning, or some time during the day on Satur- day 1 A. I could not have seen him during the day on Saturday, or any other day, because be was away from Burlington during the day. Q. He was not there on Saturday afternoon ? A. He came in Saturday evening to the depot. Q. Before sunset ? A. I don't know what time in the evening. He came in the evening and left early the next morning, Q. What fact is there to fix it in your mind that you saw that handkerchief on Wednesday evening instead of Saturday evening ? A. I do not know that there is anything that I could tell to you. I was boarding at the hotel. Mr. Blinn said he would take it home for his motlier to wash it. I called for it once after that, and he said his mother had been away; that his brother had died ; that she bad not washed it, but would do so. Q. Can you fix the day when he said his brother died ? A. I cannot ; and I cannot tell you whether it was Friday evening or Saturday evening that he made this excuse. Q. Did not he tell you that bis brother had died and his mother was absent attending him on Thursday evening ; and did he not tell you this on Saturday 1 A. He did not tell me the particulars at all, Q. Did you see any more than one handkerchief? A. I think I did not. Q. Did he not show you two handkerchiefs, one marked " John H. Surratt, 2," and one not marked, and both very dirty ? A. If be did, I took very little notice of it. It was nothing I paid particular attention to. Q. Did you not tell Gurnett there were two handkerchiefs ? A. I do not think I did. Q. Did you not tell Gurnett that you got a handkerchief on Saturday evening', marked John U. Surratt 1 A. 0, no, sir ; because I did not get it there. Q. Did not you tell him that you first saw it on Saturday afternoon 1 A. No, sir ; I did not tell him any such thing. I could not have told him that, for I could not have seen him at any time during the middle of the day. Q. I did not say any particular time ; I mean in the afternoon of Saturday ] A. I do not think I told him anything of the kind. Q. Did you tell him when you first saw it ? A. I probably did. I could not say. Q. You do not recollect telling him that Blinn showed it to you on Saturday afternoon, and that there were two handkerchiefs together, both very dirty, one marked and one not marked 1 A. I have no recollection of anything of the kind. Q. Do you mean to say you did not tell him ? A. I do not mean to say I did not tell him, for I cannot remember everything I said tAvo years ago. Q. Did you make any statement to anybody else except Gurnett at the time in regard to that handkerchief? A. No, I think not ; I do not think I ever made a statement in regard to it from that time until last Saturday night. Q. Did you make any report of it as a detective ? TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 239 A. I presume I might at the office have reported it verbally to Captain Gleasou' at the provost marshal's office ; I do not know. Q. Where is Captain Gleason now ? A. At Richmond, Vermont, I presume ; I have not seen him lately. Q. What is his first name 1 A. Rolla, I think ; I do not know that he has a middle name. Q. You remember seeing Captain Gleasou at that time? A. I saw him usually every day. I was in his office when not on duty else- where. Q. You have no recollection of reporting this foct to him particularly ? A. I do not think I did. He may have heard of it before I did. Q. Did not you report the fact to him that yoa had given it to one of Colonel Baker's detectives ? A. No, sir; I do not think I did; the detective came there after me. Captain Gleason showed him where I was, and he and I went away together. Q. You and the detective? A. Yes, sir. Q. Which way did you go ? A. We went to Winooski Falls, two miles nearly. It is in Burlington, near the village. Q. Did you go there in reference to this handkerchief ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you go there in pursuit of any particular person ? A. I went in pursuit of Charles Blinn. Q. When you found Charles Blinn did Gurnett take down his statement in writing ? A. I do not think he did ; I am not sure. lie may have done it. I did not see him do it at that time. Q-. And you think that was the 25th of April ? A. 1 think that was Tuesday, the 25th of April. Why I feel so confident is from minutes I took at the time from day to day of what I was doing. Q. Please turn to the 25th of April and see if you have a minute that you received the handkerchief on that day ? A. I do not think I have a minute of that kind. It is merely a minute of being with Gurnett, and reads as follows : "Tuesday, 25t7i of April. George A. Gurnett, Baker's detective from Washington. Went to Platts- burg on boat Canada. Came back on United States." Q. Xow turn to the 23d and see what entry you have there, if anything in reference to this matter. A. Nothing in reference to this matter. By Mr. Merrick: Q. You say you went from Burlington to Plattsburg on the boat Canada, and came back on the United States; are there two boats? A. Certainly, there were more than two boats at that time. One started from Rouse^'s Point, going south, and the other from White Hall, going north. Each boat from the north and soutli touched at Plattsburg. W(; went down on one and came up on the other. These were the two night-line boats, so called at that time. Q,. The Canada left White Hall on the night of the 25th, and the United States left Rouse's Point the night of the 25th ? A. Yes, sir, at the same time ; or the boat at Rouse's Point may possibly have left later, because they went further north than half way. Q. Did these boats run both on the nights of Saturday and Sunday ? 240 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. I should juflge the boat starting south and that going north on Saturday night would arrive on Sunday morning and lie over till Monday night. Q. I understand the only circumstance that enables you to fix these dates is that you called on Blinu for this handkerchief, and that he told you his mother had not washed it ? A. Yes, and the reason was on account of the sickness of his brother. Q. You heard of the assassination on Saturday morning at Springfield, Mas- sachusetts. When did you first hear the names of any persons charged with complicity in that assassination? A. That I could not tell you. I could not fix any particular time. Q. Did not you hear the name of Booth connected with the assassination at the same time you heard of the assassination 1 A. Very likely I did. I could not tell you positively in regard to that. I did not hear it, I think, at that moment. I was just stepping off the train when the conductor said " Chapin, our President is murdered." Said I, No, you are fooling." He said, " No, it is so," and then turned and went off about his business. That was the first I heard of it. Q. Do you recollect when you first heard of John H. Surratt as being con- nected Avith the assassination ? A. I have no recollection of hearing in regard to that any particular time. I probably heard it before I came back from New Haven, and I may have heard it at New Haven. There was great excitement in New Haven at that time. Q. You heard it before Bliun told you he had the handkerchief, didn't you ] A. I probably did. I presume I must have heard it. Q. And that was the reason you wanted to have that handkerchief? A. There could be no other reason. Q. And you think that was on Wednesday evening, when you came down on the afternoon train ? Did you not also come down on the afternoon train on Sat- urday ? A. No. I was in Burlington on Saturday, and left with my own team on Sunday ? Q. You were then a detective ? A. I was appointed as a special. As- I understand the law, it allows two deputy provost marshals in the district. Captain Gleason had his complement of provost marshals, and he gave me an appointment as special. I was in the ofiice most of the time when I was not away on business. I was sent to New Haven with recruits and deserters, and went wherever I was ordered. By Mr. Pier report : Q. Please turn to Wednesday and state what date it was. A. The 19th of April. By Mr. j\rKRRiCK: Q. Did you go any further in pursuit of any matters connected with that handkerchief than simply to go and see Blinu? A. I did nothing further, only to deliver it to Gurnett. ^Benjamin W. VaiNderpoel, sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepont: Q. State your age and residence. A. I am in my 29th year. I live in the city of New York; was born and raised there. Q. What was your father's name ? A. Jacob Vanderpoel. Q. W^ill you state where you were in the commencement of the war ? A. I was an attorney and counsellor at law in the city of New York. Q. Who were you with ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 241 A. Brown, Hall &: Vanderpoc;!. Q. You were a counectiou of the Vanderpoel of that firm 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. What is your occupation in New York now ? A. An attorney at law with Chauncey SchafFer, 243 Broadway. Q. Where did you go in the commencement of the war ? A. Into the army, in the oOth New York volunteers. Q. What position did you hold in the army ? A. I was first lieutenant of company G in that regiment. Q. Were you captured by the enemy ? A. I was captured at Ream's station, Virginia, on the 24th of August, 1864. Q. Where were you taken after you were captured ? A. I was taken first to Richmond, from there to Salisbury, North Carolina, then to Danville, and from Danville back to Richmond again, when I was paroled in the latter part of February, 1865. Q. Before you went to the war did you know J. Wilkes Booth 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. How happened you to know him ? A. He used to visit a club that I belonged to in the city of New York, nest to Laura Keen's theatre. Q. What was the club ? A. The Lone Star Club. Q. Do you remember the day of the assassination? A. Very well, sir. Q. Where were you? A. I was in the city of Washington. Q. How many days before the assassination were you here ? A. Three days before. Q. How many days after ? A. About two or three days after, Q. Did you see John Wilkes Booth on the 14th of April ? A. I did. Q. Did you speak with him ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he know you well, and you him ? A. Yes, sir — that is, he called me major; that is the title he generally ad- dressed me by. Q. Did you see him more than once on that day ? A. I saw him at least three times. Q. Where did you first see him? A. It was just above Willards' on the sidewalk. Q. Where did you next see him? A. The next place I saw him was between 11th and 12th, or between 10th and 11th, on the left-hand side of Pennsylvania avenue, going from here to the White House. Q. State whether you saw this prisoner on that day ? (The prisoner made to stand up.) A. I did see him at this place I speak of on the avenue. Q. AVho did you see him with ? A. With Wilkes Booth, and two or three others in the party. Q. Tell the jury what they were doing. A. They were sitting around a round table, with glasses on it. This is all I recollect now. Q. Tell the jury the circumstances of your seeing him that day and what they were doing. A. I had beeu up to the paymaster's department on some business relating 242 TRIAL OF JOHN H, SURRATT. to my accounts. In coming out, I came down the avenue on the opjiosite side from the place I have described, and hearing music, I went across to see what was going on at this place. As I went up stairs I think there was a woman dancing a sort of ballet dance. There was a stage or something of the kind in the back part of the room. Q. How was the room as to there being people in it 1 A. I should say there were 50 or CO people there. Q. Describe the table where Booth and Surratt sat. A. It was a round table, as near as I can remember, probably four or five feet across, Q. What were they doing ? A. Apparently, talking. Q. At what time in the day was it ? A. It was in the afternoon. Q. Was the room light 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see them plainly ? A. 0, very plainly. Q. Were you near them 1 A. I was about as far from them as I am from you at the present tioie, (twelve or fifteen feet.) Q. Did you see them clearly ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Could there be any mistake 1 A. There is no mistake that I can see. Cross-examined : By Mr. Bradley : Q. Did you speak to them in this place ? A. No, sir, I did not. They were in conversation with themselves. Q. Booth did not address you as major at that time ? A. Not at that time. Q. What time in the day did you make out it was ? A. It is hard for me to say exactly the time. I went to the paymaster's department about 1 o'clock, and was there half an hour or an hour — I don't know how long. I transacted my business and came down the avenue and went into this place. Q. It was not dinner time? A. I hardly know what you call dinner time. I had not had any dinner. Q. Did you notice Avhether these gentlemen had anything to drink there or not? A. I did not ; I merely, as I came into the place, glanced at the table Avhere they were sitting and talking the same as anybody else would do while sitting down there. Q. Did you take anything to drink while there 1 A. I don't recollect that. Q. Did you ever see Surratt before ? A. I cannot say that I did. Q. Did you ever see him since ? A. Not until this morning. Q. You have examined him very carefully this morning ? A. I noticed one alteration. The goatee he has on now he did not have on then. Q. You have examined him carefully, and you have no sort of doubt he was the man ? A. I have no sort of doubt he was the man I saw in that place. TRIAL OF JOHN IT. SURRATT. 243 Q. You saw him for how long a time ? A. It may have been five or it may have been ten minutes. Q. Then you stood five or ten minutes looking at the group of people around that table ? A. I did not say that. Q. Then you did not stand there looking particularly at them 1 A. Not more particularly than at any others that I know of. I noticed a man I knew and some people in his company. Q. Then you just glanced around on the party and saw Wilkes Booth and three strangers Avith him ? A. I looked, not expecting to find him, and said to myself " Halloo, he's got up here," and looked at him and saw two or three in his company. Q. And you have daguerreotyped that look in your mind's eye ? A. I have. Q. Two or more together? A. Two or more together. Q. And you therefore undertake to swear positively to the man you had that glimpse of? A. I undertake to swear to what I believe. Q. You are as certain as that you see me 1 A. As certain as that I see you. Q. Just as confident that you see the man you had that glimpse of two years ago as that you are looking at me now ? A. Just as confident. Q. Who else was at the table 1 A. Two or three others besides Booth and this man. Q. Can you describe them ? A. I know one man was a thick-set, dark-complectioned man ; looked as if he was a Frenchman. He had a foreign appearance about him — that was all I noticed. Q. You think you would recollect that man if you saw him ? A. I think I could. Q. The other two you did not notice so particularly 1 A. You will understand that with men sitting around a table I certainly could not get a full view of every one unless I walked right round the table. I had a full view of Booth and this man, who were sitting alongside of each other, and that is the way I recognized him so particularly. Q, This was between 1 and 2 o'clock ? A. It was some time in the afternoon ; it may have been after 3 o'clock. Q. Can you describe how this gentleman was dressed at the time ? A. I cannot describe his dress. I am a very poor observer about dress ; I generally observe a person's featux-es, but not his clothes. Q. Can you tell whether he was dressed in light or black clothes ? A. That I cannot tell. Q. Did they have their hats on or not ? A. Some did and some did not. Q. Do you remember about his hair, whether it Avas short or long ? A. That I do not recollect. 1 think his hair was very nearly as it is now, perhaps a little longer. Q. You remember he had no goatee ? A. I think not ; it was very light if he had any. Q. I want to know whether that man had a goatee at that time or not ? A. I do not think he had. Q. You think he had a moustache ? A. Yes. Q. You did not hear them conversing at all ? 244 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A- Not close; witli fifty or sixty persons in the room, all talking, and tlie music, it would be impossible for me to hear conversation. Q. Did you bear their voices at all 1 A. No ; I could not even say that, with all the noises going on. Q. Then you went into a room, saw fifty or sixty persons sitting around tables and a Avoman dancing at the lower end of the hall. You recollect certainly about that ? A. I recollect about that ; it was a novelty to me. It was the first time I had ever been in the place. Q. You remember there was a woman dancing ? A. It. was a woman or something. Q. It was dressed like a woman ? A. It was dressed like a woman. Q. You are quite distinct about that ? A. That is what I swear to. Q. You are quite distinct that on Friday, the day of the assassination, you went in there and saw a woman dancing at the lower end of the hall; you are very clear about that. A. Yes, sir. Q. And you think it was between Tenth and Eleventh or Eleventh and Twelfth streets. A. It was along there ; I have not been there since to see. Q. You do not know what the place was ? Was it the Metropolitan Hall ? A. Metropolitan Hall or Washington Hall, or something of that sort, I could not swear positively to the name. Q. Who did you tell of it ? A. I do not recollect that I told anybody of it. Q. Did not you know that there was a hot pursuit after Surratt, and an inquiry whether he was with Booth or concerned with Booth on that day ? A. Certainly I do. Q. And you did not tell anybody that you saw him and Booth together that afternoon 1 A. I did not, and for this reason : After this affair, a number of my fellow officers who had been present with me in the city, came to me and said, " Van- derpoel, I would not be in your shoes for anything in the world ; you will lose your commission." Said I, " What for ? " They said ; " Because you were along with Booth." I packed up my traps and started for the army. The detectives arrested me just as I was getting on the boat, and took me np to Tenth street; finally I got round to General Augur's office and explained matters as well as I could, and went back to the army. Q. Had you not leave of absence? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was it not of the utmost importance, if you had seen Booth and been with him that day, that you should have made it known ? A. I can see now that it was ; but I have explained what my motives were then. When officers jeered at me and told me they would not be in my shoes for anything, I wanted to get av.'ay, and that was the reason for what I did. Q. Did you not know that if you had been in Washington only two or three days, on leave of absence and on legitimate business, you were safe here ? A. Certainly. Q. And yet with this knowledge that there was a hot pursuit after Booth and all persons concerned in this horrible crime, you locked this information in your own breast and waited until now to disclose it. A. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. I wanted to take care of my- self first. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 245 Q. Let me ask you whether self-preservation would not have been best con- sulted by giving all the assistance you could in the arrest of Booth 1 A. I do not knoAV. Q. Did it occur to you that the fact of your departure, after having been seen with Booth, might render you in much greater danger ? (Question objected to by district attorney as calling for opinions of witness, and not facts. The Court. The witness may answer the question ; it is not evidence though.) A. I think, in the view you put it, it would have been better for me to come out with what I knew. We can all see these things afterwards, on second thought. I'robably I did wrong in not coming out and ttdling what I knew. Q. When did you come out? A. Now, here, to-day. Q. AVhen before to-day ? A. I have never said very much about it. Q. Plow was it known that you knew anything about it ? A. T saw the trial of John H. Surratt in the paper, and came on myself. I paw that the trial was progressing, and read an editorial in the New York Herald about it, and came on. Q. When you came on what did you do ? A. I reported myself to Mr. Carriugton. Q. Without a summons ? A. Without a summons. Q. Now I understand that you had never seen John H. Surratt before, nor since, so far as you can recollect ? A. I said I saw him that particular day; I did not say whether I had seen him before or since. Q. HdW could you know it was John H. Surratt you saw there, and come and tell the district attorney you saw him there ? A. I could not; I came on here to see if one of the men I saw was John H. Surratt. When I came into court I was convinced it was, and that is all I know about it. Q. And that is the whole matter ? A. That is the whole matter. By Mr. Pierrepont: Q. I want to know if there is a difference in people in their capacity of remembering faces 't (Question objected to as immaterial, unless the witness is an expert.) ]\Ir. PiERUEi'o.XT. I am going to ask whether he is an expert in remembering luiniau faces or not. The Court. You can ask him Avhat his capacity is for remembering faces. Mr. PiERREPO.XT. I will ask that question. A. I have very seldom seen any one who would remember faces so well as I do. 1 have met people 1 have not seen in ten years and gone up to them and called them by name. Q. You may state whether you have had it tested ? A. Yes, sir, I have. By Mr. Bradley : Q. You have recognized persons you have not seen for ten years ; did you ever recognize a man you only had a glimpse of once after an absence of three or four years ? A. Yes. sir; I have done that. I have recognized people I have only been in company with once, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five minutes. Q. There you have had your attention drawn to them by conversing with 246 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUEEATT. tliem and seeing their manner. Can yon recollect any instance in which you have heen able to recollect a man you have seen casually sitting at a table, just to glance at him, and not see them for two years afterwards ? A. Yes, sir ; I have known occasions of that kind. By Mr. Merrick : Q. Do you recollect that woman's face you saw dancing ? A. I did not pay much attention to her face ; I paid much more attention to her legs. Q. ]3o you think you would recognize them if you were to see them 1 A. I do not think I would. Saturday, June 22, 1867. The Court met at 10 a. m. Mrs. Martha Murray sworn and examined; residence, Washington. By the District Attorn ky : Q. State where you live. A. I stop now at the Herudon House, corner of Ninth and F streets. Q. How long have you been living at the Herudon House ] A. For ten years, there in the house. Q. What is your husband's name ? A. Patrick Jones Murray. Q. Is he proprietor of the Herndon House ? A. He was at that time, but he sold out long ago ; he is not now. Q. What period do you refer to when you say "at that time?" A. To the year 1865; about the month of April of that year. Q. It was a hotel at that time ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where is the Herndon House 1 A. At the southwest corner of Ninth and F streets, opposite the Patent Office. Q. During the year 1865, did a man by the name of Lewis Payne or " Wood" board at that house 1 A. There was a man who stated he was that man who boarded there. I tes- tified before the military commission at the arsenal on the occasion of the trial of the conspirators, and I at that time stated, when asked about the man Payne, that to the best of my knowledge I had seen his (Payne's) face before, and that it was at our house that I had seen it. Q. How long did he remain with you 1 A. From Friday till that day two weeks. Q. Do you remember what month ? and if so, what day of the month it was that he left your house ? A. I declare I cannot tell now. I gave the statement on the occasion of the other trial, and I suppose it is on record. I think it was on Friday. Q. Was it ou " Good Friday," the day of the President's assassination ? A. I know he was tM-o weeks at our house. Q. What month was it ? A. It was before the assassination of the President. Q. How long before ? A. Two weeks before. He left our house on Friday, and it must have beeu that very Friday. It is on record there, and I presume you can ascertain from that. I mean the day of the assassination. Mr. Merrick. I object, your honor, to the witness stating conclusions from premises of her own, and desire that she should be restricted to facts. The Court. She can state the fact as to what day it was, and then give the reasons why she believes it or knows it to be that day. The witness will pro- ceed. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURKATT. 247 "WlTNKS^s. The day of the as-sassiuatioii this man was at otir house. "We always had a four o'clock dinner. He came into the sitting-room, or the place where persons generally came in to pay their board, and said that he wanted to pay his bill; that he was going away to Baltimore. He paid his bill, and I ordered dinner for him; or rather, called the man and told him to have his din- ner sent up to the dining-room earlier than usual. It was then three o'clock. It was done, and that was the last I saw of him. Q. Do you know what room he occupied in your house ? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. State it. A. He occupied the front room right on the corner of Ninth street; room called " No. 6." Q. What story ? A. I do not know, but I suppose the third story. The parlor is on the second story, and it was the room over that. Q. Do you know whether any one caine to your house in company with him when he first applied for board / A. No one at all. It was to me he applied. I was coming down stairs when he came in and asked me for a room. No one was with him at the time. Q. Did you know Mrs. Mary E. Surratt 1 A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember of her coming to your house on any occasion ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know the prisoner, John H. Surratt ? A. No, sir. Q. Any member of his family ? A. No, sir. "William H. Bell, servant — residence, "Washington — sworn and examined. By the District Attorney : Q. Whose servant are you ? A. Secretary Seward's. Q. How long have you lived with Secretary Seward ? A. Three years. Q. In the month of April, 1865, were you living there ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State whether you remember the occurrence at ^h. Seward's house on the 14th of April, on the evening of that day. A. I do. Q. A\ ill you commence at the beginning and state what you saw ? A. On the 14th of April, 1865, I Avas in the house of Mr. Seward, at the time of the assassination. About a quarter past ten, I presume it was, the bell rung. I went to the door. A tall and heavy-built man approached. He seemed to be a young man, so fVu' as I could judge. He said he wanted to see Mr Seward. 1 told him that he could not see him, from the very fact that Mr. Seward was sick in bed, and the orders wore strict not to allow any one to come in. He said, "I am sent here by Dr. Verdi, Mr. Seward's family physician." He held in his left hand a little package, which 1 supposed to be a prescription. It had a prescription paper on it. He said he wanted to see Mr. Seward. I stated he could not see him. He says, "I must see him; I am sent here by Dr. "Verdi to let him know how to lake this medicine, and I must see him." I says, "You cannot see him by any means at all; he is asleep just ab(mt this time." He insisted that he must see him. I spoke rather rough to him. He started to go up ; and having spoken rather rough to him, I said to him that I hoped he would excuse me. I had no idea then that he Avas an assassin. He spoke rather politely to me, and said, "Oh, that's all right." I told him that I 248 TRIAL OF JOHN 11. SURRATT. was just doing my duty. Of course I had no right to insult him, not knowing who he was. He started up stairs, and I Avent on ahead of him. When he had reached the third story, and got near Mr. Seward's door, Mr. Frederick Seward came out of his room and spoke to him. He told Mr. Frederick that he wanted to see his father ; that he had been sent there by his family physician. Dr. Verdi, with a prescription. Mr, Seward went into his father's room, and observing that he Avas asleep, came out and pulled the door to after him, and told this man that he could not see his father ; that he was asleep, and that he would give him the prescription ; lie would attend to it. The man said that would not do ; and thereupon a discussion arose between the two as to whether he should be ad- mitted or not, Mr. Frederick insisting that he should not, and the man insisting that he would see him. Finally, he commenced talking so rough, that I said to him, "Don't speak so rough to that gentleman ; that is 3Ir. Seward's son, the Assistant Secretary," I had been standing by the side of the man all this time. He was very polite to me, and said, "I know that; that i^ all right." After awhile he pretended that he had come to the conclusion to leave the house, I suppose, as he started to come down stairs, I got in front of him, and attempted to lead him down. He walked very heavy going up, and also coming down. He had on new boots from all appearances, from the noise they made. 1 turned round to him, after having come down three steps, he behind me, and said to him, "Don't walk so heavy, please." He replied, "I know that; that is all right." By the time I turned round to make another move to come down stairs, he had jumped back, and had Mr. Frederick by the collar hitting him over the head. What he struck him with I am unable to say, but I think il was a knife, 1 then came down stairs immediately, ran to the door and gave the alarm. I ran down as far as General Augur's office. Q, Where was that ? A, At the corner of Fifteen-.and-a-half street and Pennsylvania avenue. From the noise that I made three soldiers ran down off the piazza ; but by that time he had run out. Q, You have stated where General Augur's headquarters were; will you now state where Mr. Seward's house was 1 A. Mr. Seward's house is riglit in the centre of Fifteen-and-a-half street, be- tween H and Pennsylvania avenue. Q. In this city and District? A. Yes, sir. Q. District of Columbia, and city and county of Washington ? A. Yes, sir. Q. On what square does it front 1 A. It fronts on ]\Iadison square, west side. Q. What square is front of it 1 A. Lafayette square. Q. Is there any statue in the square? A. Yes, sir. Q, What is that ? A. Jackson statue, Mr. PiKKRL';i>()j\T. Now proceed Avith your narrative. A, After those three soldiers came down, as I was groins' on to sav, the assassin ran out of the house and got on his horse. When 1 came down from the stairs I did not observe his horse at all in front of the door. When he got on his horse these three soldiers Mere about three paces behind me, I hallooed, " There he is, getting on his horse now," He got on his horse and started off toward H street, 1 behind him, and also these three soldiers. He kept on up 15^ street to I, when I lost sight of him. Whether he w ent out Vermont avenue or loth street, I am unable to say, Q, When did you next see the man I TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 249 A. To the best of my recollection it Avas the ITtli of April, at General Augur's headquarters. Q. Who was he A. He gave his name as Lewis Payne. Q. He was the one who was tried as Lewis Payne 1 A. Yes, sir ; the one who was tried and convicted. Q. I do not remember whether you picked up anything, or Avhether it was some other person ? A. No, sir ; 1 did not. Q. You neither picked up a hat nor a pistol ? A. No, sir ; but they Avere both picked up ia the house next morning. Q. Did you see them ? A. Yes, sir ; Mr. Stanton, the Secretary of War, showed them both to me. Q. You would recognize them if you were to see thein again. A. 1 would recognize the hat, but I am unable to say whether I would recog- nize the pistol or not. Q. After you went back, did you go into Mr. Seward's room ? A. After 1 came back, I went into the hall, and lirst met Colonel Seward. He had a wound on his forehead and one on his wrist, and was standing there with a pistol in his hand, .the hall at the time being crowded with people. That was not over two minutes after the assassin had left the house. The whole occur- rence occupied but a minute or so. No cross-examination. FRhUKRiCK W. Seward, Assistant Secretary of State — residence, Washing- ton — sworn and examined. By Mr Pierkkpont. Q. Will you state, if you please, Avhai official position you occupy ? A. That of Assistant Secretary of State. Q. Were you such in April, 18G5 ? A. Ye?, sir. Q. In April, lS6o, where did you reside ? A. I resided with the Secretary of State, at Madison Place, where I do at present. ,, Q. Opposite what square ? A. Opposite Lafayette square. Q. What is the number '{ A. I think there is no number. Q. How is it with reference to the square ? A. It is about opposite the middle of the end of the square. Q. State where General Augur's headquarters were at that date. A. General Augur's headquarters at that time were in the next house, on the left-hand side. They were on the corner of the avenue and Madison Place, or 15 i street as it is sometimes called. Q. Close by? A. The next house. The houses do not adjoin, but they stand near each other. Q. As a mere technical matter I will ask you in what District and county the house was ? A. In the city of Washington, District of Columbia. Q. Did you know Ford's theatre, the place where the President was shot 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. On what street was it? A. I am not sure that I can state the number of the street. Q. You have been at the theatre ? 17 250 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Yes, sir; I know its locality, but I cannot state wliat street it is on. Q. Will you state in what city, district, and county, the theatre where the President was shot and killed is ? A. In the same district, city, and county that I have previously mentioned. Q. City of "Washington ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State where you were on the night of the 14th of April, 1865. A. I suppose you have reference to the time of the attempted assassination ? Mr. PlERREPONT. Yes, sir. Witness, resuming. At that time I was in my own room, which adjoins that of my father, in the third story of the house. Q. Will you please explain which way the house fronts ? A. The house fronts towards Georgetown. Q. It fronts the square exactly 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. State the position of your father's room in the third story 1 A. His was the front room in the third story, on the south side. Q. At the corner, was it? A. Yes, sir; the left-hand corner as you front the square. My room was on ^he other side. Q. Same front? A. Yes, sir; the two rooms occupy the Avhole width of the house. Q. What was your father's condition then? Describe how he was situated that night; and state where he was. A. He had been badly injured by a fall from his carriage several days before. He had a fractured arm, and a fractured jaw, and some appi-ehensions were entertained that he might not recover from his injuries. He was under medical treatment at the time, and was kept as quiet as possible in his room. Q. Will you state his condition and position ia the bed, whether he was lying, or whether he was on a frame work, or how? A. He was usually lying in a recumbent position, but generally about half raised by one of those frame works which are made for the accommodation of the sick, and mostly used in hospitals, Q. What was his physical condition on this night ? A. He had been very restless during the day, and it had been difficult to compose him to sleep. On this night we were all endeavoring to keep him as quiet as possible, in order that he might sleep. Q. Which arm Avas broken? A. The right arm. Q. Do you know on which side of the bed he was lying? A. He was lying on the side towards the front of the hoirse. Q. State whether that was the right side of the bed. A. It was the right side of the bed as he lay in it. His object in lying there, as we understood at the time, was to prevent his broken arm from coming in contact with the bed. He lay right on the edge of the bed, and his arm pro- jected over. During the day the nurses were continually watching to see that he did not fall from the bed, as be insisted on lying just at the edge in order to ease this arm. Q. State who the nurses were, and who were in the room at this time. A. My sister was in the room. The nurse, George Robinson, was in the room also, when I left it. I had, as I have before stated, stepped into my own room. From our anxiety to keep the sick-room quiet, we had as few remain in there as possible. Q, Your sister was a young lady, unmarried ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is she living ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 251 A. No, sir; slae is dead. Q. Was your motlier iu the house ? A. Yes, sir ; she was iu her own room, I thiuk, though I did not see her at that time. Her room was a back room on the same floor. It was on the same side of the house with my father's room. Q. Was Mrs. Seward, your wife, in the house 1 A. She was, and was iu my room. Q. State whether your mother died afterwards? A. She died on the 21st of June following. Mr. Bradlky. I would like to know where all this is to lead, and what is the object of it. Mr. PiERREPO.NT. My object is to show the reason wh}-^ these parties are not called here — to show that they are dead. Q. Will you state who else was in the house ? Mr. Bradlky. I presume it is understood that all this examination as to the acts of any of the other of the parties named in the indictment, except the pris- oner, is subject to our exceptions? • Mr. PiERREPONT. Certainly; that is understood. Q. Will you state who else were in the house ? A. My brother, Augustus H. Seward. I do not know that there were any . other persons at that time, except the nurses, servants, and visitors, who were coming and going during the evening. Q. Will you slate all that occurred on the evening in q^uestion, as f;ir as your memory will serve you? A. About ten, or a little after ten, o'clock that evening, I heard the sound of some persons coming up stairs. 1 stepped into the hall to see who it was. At the head of the stairs I met a man wearing a hat with a light overcoat, well dressed and tall, who said that he was a messenger from Dr. Verdi. He either said so or William Bell did. I cannot now recall which. William Bell, I will state here, came up with him. The man said that he was instructed by the doctor to deliver some medicine to my father, and to deliver it personally. I cannot recall the words or expressions that either of us used, but the sub- stance of the conversation was that I told him that we were endeavoring to compose my father to sh.-ep, and did not, therefore, want him disturbed, and that I would take the medicine and give it to him. To that he replied that the doctor's orders were that he should see him personally. I made objections and he insisted. I went over the ground, I think, several times with him, the con- versation lasting, perhaps, three or four minutes. He made the impression upon me of being a man rather dull of comprehension, and as having no desire other than to obey his orders literally. Finally I said, " It is not worth while to talk any longer about it ; you cannot see Mr. Seward. I will take the responsibility of refusing to let you see him. Go back and tell the doctor that I refused to let you see him, if you thiuk you cannot intrust me with the medi- cine I am Mr. Seward, and in charge here. He will not blame you if you tell him I refused to let you see him." He hesitated a moment, and then said, " Very well, sir, I will go," or words to that effect. He turned about, and as I supposed proceeded to go down stairs. He stepped down, I think, one or two steps, and I had turned, or was about turning, to go to my room, when a noise behind me occa.-^ioned me to turn and look back. I found that he had turned back and was springing up the steps with a pistol^ in his hands. The next moment he was at my side, with the pistol at my head. There was no time for thought or reflection. I remember only thinking at the moment that i/iere was an additional reason why he should not go in. I did not go so far as to logically make out what his object was. I remember noticing the shape vl' tiie pLstol, which was that of a navy revolver. The next instant I heard the click of the lock, and then remember to have thought, " Well, the pistol has missed 252 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. fire." Then instinctively I raised my Lands to take hold of him. A struggle ensued, and after that my recollections became indistinct and blurred, but as near as I recall I felt my right-hand pressing against the "wall — I presnme, to save myself from falling ; and that putting my left-hand to my head found a hole in my scull. Then, I suppose, from Ashat I have learned since — though I did not know it at that time — that he got into my father's room by his pushing against me and I against him, both stumbling' and falling into the room together. In the room the gas was turned low, but the gas in the hall was bright. Having been partially stunned by the blow that he had given me, 1 have only an indis- tinct remembrance of what took place there, except that there was noise and confusion, voices and struggling. The only distinct remembrance that I have about it is, of seeing two men lift my father from the floor. I noticed that his face was bloody, and that the blood Avas streaming from his throat; and I heard one of the men say to the other, " He is not dead." This was said in a low tone of voice. Then I turned and walked, or staggered, to my own room, and met on the way my brother having two cuts in his forehead, from wliich I saw the blood streaming. I went back to my own room and laid on the lounge to wait for medical assistance. After that I gradually fell into a coma ; a state of stupor came over me by degrees, like as if I were falling to sleep. I remember seeing the doctors and members of the family come in, but I found myself unable to communicate with them distinctly, as I could not articulate. I saw nothing further of the man who made the attack, and have no distinct recollec- tion of what happened after that until I began to recover. Q. You were not present at the trial of the conspirators ? A. No, sir. Q. When did you begin to recover? A. I think it was in June when I was first able to ride out ; possibly July. I think it was in October that 1 was first able to resume my duties and go to the State Department. No cross-examination. William Bell recalled. By the District Attorxey : Q. Will you state if you saw the horse of which you have spoken as having been mounted by the assassin as he left the house ? A. I saw the hoi'se, but have a very poor recollection of him. So far as I could judge of him that night, he was a dark bay horse, and very stout. He seemed to start off in a pace in the first place, and did not seem to go very fast until he got to I street. Q. Did you ever see him afterwards ? A. No, sir; not to my knowledge. Mrs. Frederick W. Seward — residence, Washington — sworn and exam- ined. By Mr. Pierrepoxt : i Q. You are the wife of Mr. Frederick W. Seward 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. With a view of letting you go as soon as possible, I will direct your at tention at once to the scene in the house of your father-in-laM% on the 14th of April, 1865. Do you remember it ? A. Yes, sir ; very well. Q. Will you give a description of what you saw 1 A. When I went from my room into the hall I found a man Q. Can you tell what time in the evening it was ? A. Between 10 and a quarter past. When, as I say, I went from my room into the hall, I found a man and Mr. Seward in the entry. Mr. Seward was holding the door of his father's room. This man had hold of Mr. Seward with TRIAL OF JOnX H. SUKRATT. 253 one arm, puglung him, and with the other pusliing the door. Just as I looked at them the doDi" burst open, and they both went into the room. I followed them in. The room was quite dark. The next thing I saw was a man jump- ing on the bed where the Secretary of l^tate was lying. Q. When you say the room was quite dark, do you mean to say that there was no light ? A. There was one burner lit, but the gas was turned down very low, and there was a shade in front of it. The next thing I saw was men fighting at the foot of the bed, as if they were preventing some one from going round to the other side of it. The head of the bed stood against the wall. Then there was a rush out of the room. My sister, Miss Seward, said to me, " Don't let them carry father off!" Q. That was your husband's sister ? A. Yes, sir. I went to find where Mr. Seward was. Around on the other side of the bed I found him lying on the floor, covered up Avith the bed-clothes. Soon after some one came to pick him up, and I went to look for Mr. Frederick Sewai'd. I found him leaning against the door that goes into the hall, bleeding profusely. As he was very badly hurt, I took him into the hall, and from there into his room. He then walked across the room and threw himself upon the lounge, and there he remained most of the night. Q. "Will you state what physicians came 1 A. Dr. Norris, Surgeon General Barnes, Dr. Verdi, and Di*. Wilson. Q. Do yon remember which doctor came first ? A. I think it was Dr. Verdi ; he and Dr. Norris came about the same time. Q. What became of your husband after that 1 A. He never spoke ; never articulated distinctly for a long time after that. Q. How long before he was able to speak ? A. *About three weeks, I should say ; except, perhaps, to say " yes " or " no." Q. What physician attended your father and your husband 1 A. Dr. Norris was attending Mr. Seward, my father, and Dr. Wilson had special cliarge of my husband. Q. Was Dr. Verdi likewise the attendant physician of your father at that time I A. He had nothing to do with his wounds. Q. But I mean before the assassination was attempted? A. He was the family physician. Q. Did Surgeon General Barnes continue to attend ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who else was in the room besides your sister-in-law when you got there ? A. A nurse by the name of Rubiuson. Q. What is his iirst name ? A. I think, George. Q. Did you see Colonel Seward there ? A. I did not see him in the room. I saw him up stairs after Payne had left. ^ . ^ ^ Q. What was his condition ? A. He had a cut across his forehead. Q. Any other cut ? A. A slight one on his hand. Q. Did you ever see the assassin afterwards I A. No, sir. Q. And you did not go down stairs, I suppose ? A. No, sir. Q. And know nothing about his riding away ? A. No, sir. No cross-examination. 254 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. Augustus H. Seward, colonel United States army — residence, Washington — sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepo.\t : Q. Yoii are the son of the Secretary of State 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you state where you were on the night of the 14tb of April, 1865, when the attempt was made on your father's life ? A. I Avas at my father's house, in this city, on that night. Q. Will you state what you saw 1 A. I retired to bed that evening about half past reven, with the understand- ing that I would be called about 11 o'clock to sit up with my father. I very shortly fell asleep, and so remained imtil awakened by the screams of my sister. Then I jumped out of bed. Q. That sister has since died 1 A Yes, sir. I then jumped out of bed, and went into my father's room, in my shirt and drawers. Q, What did you see ? A. The gas was turned down rather low in the room, and I saw at the foot of father's bed what appeared to be two men, the one trying to hold the other. Q. Was this sister there still ? A. I did not see her then. I understand from other persons who saw hei', that she was there. I seized the person who was held, by the clothes on his breast, supposing it was my father delirious; but on taking hold of him, I knew from his size and strength it was not him. The thought then struck me that perhaps it was the nurse who had become delirious, sitting up in the room, and was striking about at random. Knowing the delicate state of my father, I shoved him towards the door, with the intention of getting him out of the room. While shoving him, he struck me five or six times on the forehead and the top of my head, with what I supposed to be a bottle or decanter that he had seized from the table, and during this time he said, in an intense but not a loud voice, " I am mad ; I am mad." On reaching the door that went into the hall, he gave a sudden turn, sprung away fiom me, and disappeared down stairs. When he came within range of the light in the liall, Avhich was bright, I saw that he was a large man, with dark straight hair, smooth face, and no beard ; I had at the same time a view of the expression of his countenance. Q,. Did you see him afterwards 1 A. I saw him the day after he was taken on board the Monitor. Q. And who was it ? A. He answered in description the same person in every way that I had seen on that night. Q. What was his name 1 . A. Lewis Payne, he was called. Q. These blows of which you have spoken — what effect had they on you ? A. They were not serious; only flesh wounds. Q. Were you cut ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where? A. I had some three cuts on my forehead ; some three more on the top of my head, and one on my left hand. Q. Do you knoAv what the cixts were made with ? A. I did not know at the time. I supposed then it was done with a bottle. Q. Do you suppose so now 1 A. No, sir ; I do not, since I have learned what happened. Q. What further ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 255 A. After he went down t^tairs I went in my room and got a pistol, which I had, and ran down to the front door. While I was standing there the servant boy came back and said the person^ Ml-. Merrick. Never mind what he said. Q. Was it or not William Bell 1 A. Yes, sir, Q. What further did you see ? A. I did not see anything further of the man down there, who made the attack, because he was gone. The first thing I saw was the servant boy, Q. Did you see Doctors Verdi and Barnes there ? A. Not at that time. Q. How soon afterwards 1 A. AVhile I was down there, I 'sent some persons after the doctors. Q. How soon did they come 1 A. Well, Dr. Verdi was the first one who came. Q. State as to the promptness with which he came. A. I think they were all there within three-qxtarters of an hour, Q. How soon after the occurrence before Dr. Verdi came ? A. I should say twenty minutes after. No cross-examination. James L. Maddox, property man, Holiday Street theatre — residence, Balti- more — sworn and examined. By the District Attorney : Q. Where do you reside 1 A. At present in Baltimore, Q. How long have you been living in Baltimore ? A. Two years this Aixgust. Q. ^^'hat is your business ? A. Property man, Holiday Street theatre. Q. Did you ever live in this city ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you lived here ? A. It has been two years since I moved from here to Baltimore, Q. How long have you resided in Washington city? A. About sixteen years. Q, State what your business was in this city. A. Property man. Q. Where? A. At Ford's theatre, in Washington, on Tenth street, in this city and Dis- trict. Q. Were you employed as the property man at Ford's theatre on the 14th of April, 1865 1 A. I was, Q. State whether you were at the theatre that night ? A. I was. Q. What part of the theatre were you in at about 10, or between the hours of 10 and 11 ? A, I was on the stage. Q. Engaged in your duties there ? A, Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember hearing the report of a pistol ? A. I do. Q. State about what time that was ? A, About ten or fifteen minutes past ten, I think. I would not say positively. 256 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. Q. Had you seen or heard anything, before hearing the report of the pistol, that attracted your attention 1 A. No, sir. Q. Where were you at the time you heard this report 1 A. I was on the left-hand side of the stage, and first entrance ; the same side the President was sitting on. Q, Who was standing near at that time 1 A. That I could not tell. Q. You do not recollect ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you recollect about what part of the play you heard this report ? A. It was in the third act. Q. Do you remember who were on the stage at the time ? A. Harry Hawk, the comedian. Q. What character did he take in the play ? A. Asa Trenchard. Q. Was he the only one on the stage at that time ? A. He was. Q. At that time did you observe any of the other actors or actresses ? A. I could have seen them if I had taken notice. I did not take notice of them at all. Q. Could you state their relative positions ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know Mr. Withers, the leader of the orchestra 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see him about that time ? A. No, sir ; I did not see him on the stage that night at all. Q. Will you state what you did after you heard the report of a pistol ? A. Yes, sir. As soon as I heard the report of the pistol, I stepped back from where I was, and saw a person run out of the first entrance on the right-hand side, opposite where I was, and then heard some person halloo for water. I then run to my property room just off the stage, and got a pitcher, and carried it and gave it to an ofiicer. There was a police officer trying to get up into the box, and he handed the water up. I did not know then what had happened, Q, After you gave him the water, state what you next did ? A. I cannot recollect. I have often tried to recollect what I did do then, but I was so excited, as was everybody, that I cannot recall. Q. Do you recollect of seeing the President after that ? A. No, sir ; not after that. Q. Do you remember what time it was that the President entered the theatre that night ? A. 1 do not. Q. Do you recollect hearing loud applause ? A. No, sir, Q. Was your attention attracted by that at any time ? A. I saw him after the curtain was up. I went into the first entrance for the purpose of taking a look at the President, as we always did. Q. How long was that before you heard the report of the pistol? A. About an hour and three-quarters, or two hours ; I could not say for cer- tain. Q. Where were you standing at that time? A. (No response.) Q. From what point in the theatre did you get an observation ? A. The first entrance on the right-hand side — right opposite from where the President was sitting. Q. Will you describe the box that he occupied ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 257 A. It was on the left-liand side of tlie stage. On the right-hand side going in from the front of the theatre. Q. AVas it the next one to the stage ? A. It was a double box. It was turned into a single box that night, how- ever. The partition was taken out of it. It was the next one to the stage by being made a single box. Q. Did you know the President was coming there that night ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How did you know it ? A. I heard the treasurer of the theatre say so. Q. Do you recollect of seeing the box prepared for him ? A. Yes, sir. Q. By whom ? A. I saw H. Clay Ford dressing the box. Q. Who was Mr. Ford ? A. Treasurer of the theatre. Q. Do you recollect anything being brought to the theatre for the purpose of decorating the box ? O A. I brought two American flags, with which to help decorate it. Q. Do you recollect of a chair being brought there ? A. I recollect seeing the chair brought down to go into the box. Q. Was it generally known that this theatre had been decorated and pre- pared 1 ]\[r. Bradley. How can he answer that. The District Attorney. You knew the fact 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you know John Wilkes Booth ? A. I did. Q. How long had you known him 1 A. I had known him for about three years before the assassination. Q. Was he connected with the corps of actors at Ford's theatre at that time ? A. No, sir, Q. Had you seen John Wilkes Booth on the 14th of April 1 A. I had. Q. Where had you seen him ? A. In front of the theatre, and in the restaurant next to the theatre. Q. At what time did you first see him in front of the theatre ? A. I think it was somewhere about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Q. On foot or horseback ? A. On horseback. Q. What restaurant do you allude to 1 A. Ur. Taltavul's. Q. Do you recollect seeing him in company with Mr. James Ferguson ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you sec him in front of Mr. Ferguson's — Booth 1 A. No, sir. I saw him in front of the theatre. Q. That was the first time you had seen him ? A. I think so. Q. Where did you next see him ? A. In the restaurant. Q. Whose restaurant ? A. Messrs. Tallavul & Grillo's. Q. What time was that ? A. I could not say. Q. Was it after dark ? A. No, sir ; it was before dark ? 258 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. Q. Did you see him in front of the theatre, or at either one of these restau rants afterwards ? A. No, sir ; I never saw him again. Q. Do you know where Booth kept his horse 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Where? A. Down the alley back of the theatre. Q. State how far from the theatre it is. A. I cannot tell the distance. Q. Point out some object in this room. A. Longer than the length of this court-room. Q. Whose property was this ? • . A. It was a Mrs. Davis's ; I had the renting of it. Q. Who rented or leased this stable to Booth? A. I did. Q. Did you collect the rent for it? A. Yes, sir ; §5 a month. Q. How many stalls were there in this stable ? A. Two, if I am not mistaken. Q. How long before the assassination was it that he engaged this stable of you ? A. I think it was in December. Q. Was he in the habit of keeping his horse there? A. He had a horse and buggy there. Q. Only one horse? A. That is all. Q. Did you keep him there regularly 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know who attended to his horse there ? A. I know him by his nick-name, "Peanut John." Q. You know him by sight ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see " Peanut John" that night ? A, Yes, sir. Q. At what hour in the night ? A. I saw him nearly all the time. He attended at the stage door, to keep strangers off" the stage. Q. Do you recollect of seeing him in company with Booth that night? A. No, sir. (The witness pointed out, on a diagram handed to him, the exact position of the stable. He designated the locality of the same with a red pencil mark.) Cross-examination by Mr. Merrick : Q. What were your duties in the theatre that night ? A. I was property man. Q. Did your duties require you to be on the stage ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What were Spangler's duties in the theatre that night ? A. He was a carpenter. He ran the flaps. Q. Shifting the scenes you mean ? A. Yes, sir ; he had one side of the stage to attend to. Q. Did you see Spangler on the stage that night? A. I did. Q. Was he on the stage all the time during the play ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you positive he was there all the time during the play ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 259 A. I am ; I spoke to him about three miuutes before I heard this pistol-shot fired. Q. What would have been the effect of bis absence from the stage during the progress of the play ? A. He would have been very apt to have been missed, because there was no . person there to have changed the scenes for him. Q. Are there many scenes in the "American Cousin" in the way Miss Keene plays it ? A. About seven, I think, in the last act. Q. How many acts were there? A. Three. Q, How many scenes in the other acts? A. Two in the second, and four or five, I cannot say which, in the first, Q. How long does the third act last? A. That I could U'tt say. Q. What part of the third act did you hear the pistol-shot? A. I think it was the second scene. Q. Can you give an approximate idea of how long it lasts — the third act? A. A half an hour, I think. Q. If, in the course of that half hour, Spangler had been absent from the stage, it would have produced confusion, as I understand you ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you ever seen Spangler wearing a moustache? A. No, sir. Q. AVhat time in the day did you hear the President was coming to the theatre? A. Between 12 and 1. Q. Do you know at what time he determined to come, or it was understood he was to come. I mean at what time in the morning ? A. Between 12 and 1 o'clock I heard it. Q. You were about the theatre all the time ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Your duties required you there morning and night ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see Spangler in front of the theatre that night ? A. I did not. Q. What was your position just before, or at the moment of hearing the pistol- shot ? A. I did not have any particular position. Q. Do you recollect whereabouts you were ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where? A. The first entrance, on the left hand. The same side the President's box was on. Q. Do you recollect crossing the theatre and stage shortly before you heard the shot ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long before ? A. About three miuutes, I think. Q. Who did you observe in crossing the stage on that occasion, about three minutes before you heard the pistol-shot ? Witness. Behind the scenes ? Mr. Merrick. Yes, sir. A. I recollect of Spangler being there, because I spoke to him as I crossed. * Q. And was he in his place ? A. Yes, sir. 260 TRIAL OF JOHN H, SUEKATT. Q. Do you mean to say that you were on the stage all the time that the play was progressing, or oflF of it at any time 1 A. I was in front of the house during the second act. Q. You were on the stage during the third ? A. Yes, sir. Q. At what time in the progress of the third act did you resume your place, on the stage ? A. I was on the stage when the curtain went up. Q. During the second act where were you ? A. During the second act I went in front of the house. Q. That is, the last part of the second act ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You were in front of the house ? A, Yes, sir. Q. Did you see Spangler in front of the house 1 A. I did not. Q. Do you know the prisoner at the bar ? A. No, sir. From my recollection, I never saw him before. Q. Did you see any one there that looked like the prisoner at the bar '? A. I might have seen folks there, but I did not take notice of them so well as to recognize them. Q. If you had ever seen Spangler there in front of the house, you would have noticed it, would you not ? A. I would. Q. You knew what Spauglei's particular duties were, of course 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Had you seen Spangler in front of the house during the second act, would not your knowledge of his duties on the stage have attracted your particular attention to him in that place 1 A. Yes, sir ; it would. Q. And you did not see him ? A. No, sir. George T. Robinson, private eighth Maine volunteers — residence, Isle Au Haut, Aroostook county, Maine — sworn and examined. By the District Attorney: Q. State to the jury, if you please Mr, Merrick. Does this examination relate to the attempted assassination of Mr. Seward ? The District Attorney. It does. Mr. Merrick. I wish to call your honor's attention to an objection which we have before suggested, and I do so merely for the purpose of having it distinctly placed ujjon the records. I deem it necessary to do so, because I cannot see how far this is going, and where it is to end. I must say, sir, that as far as I am able to judge of the case of my learned brothers on the other side, this examination seems to me to be but a useless consumption of time Sergeant Robinson's testimony relates to the attempt upon the life of the J^eeretary of State, made by Lewis Payne. This indictment is for the murder of Lincoln, and the charge of a conspiracy is a c(mspiracy to kill Mr. Lincoln. Now what the attempted killing of the Secretary of State may have to do either with the substance of the charge in the indictment, or with the conspiracy that is spoken of in the indictment as the inducement, I cannot perceive. I do not propose to argue the question, your honor, but simply to submit it to the court in a more specific shape than has yet been done this morning. I repeat, the indictment is for the murder of Mr. Lincoln ; the conspiracy charged in the indictment is a conspiracy to murder Mr. Lincoln, and nothing else. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. 2G1 There is not a word iu it with regard to j\Ir. Seward or anybody else but Mr. Lincohi, and what the killing of other parties, or the attempted killing of other parties, not named in the indictment, has to do with the charge named therein I cannot perceive. The District Attorney. If your honor desires to hear argument I will proceed ; but I deem it hardly necessary to say anything in view of the evidence before the court, and what we have repeatedly said we expect to show. The CoLRT. I suppose it is understood that the prosecution expect to show that the attempted assassination of the Secretary of State is a part and parcel of the same plot and conspiracy which resulted in the taking of the life of Mr. Lincoln. If they do not show this, then, of course, the evidence cannot be con- sidered as relevant, and will have to be ruled out. I thought such was the understanding on all sides. Mr. PiKRRKPONT. Certainly it was. The Court. You may go on with the examination of the witness. Mr. jVIerrick. Of course, sir, as we have before stated, we i-eserve an excep- tion. My only purpose was to have our objection clearly appear on the record. Examination of witness by District Attornev : Q. State where you live. A. I.-^le Au Haut, Aroostook county, Maine. Q. How long have you been living there ? A. About fourteen years. Q. Which is your native State ? A. Maine. Q. You are a married man ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State if you were in the city of Washington in the year 1865. A. I was. Q. State how you happened to come here. A. I was a soldier in the eighth Maine volunteers, and being wounded was sent to Douglas Ilospital fir treatment. 1 was wounded in May, 1864, and sent to Point Lookout, and from thence to Douglas Hospital for treatment. Q. You were a private ? A. Yes, sir, private in company B, eighth Maine volunteers. Q. How long had you been in the army before you were wounded 1 A. About nine month-^. Q. State if you were at the house of the Secretary of State on the 14th of April, 186.5 ; and if so, in what capacity you were there. A. I was there as a nurse to ]Mr. Seward. Q. Wliatwas the matter with Mv. Seward at that time? A. He had been injured by being thrown from a cai-riage. Q. And you were there as nurse '^ A. Yes, sir. Q. State what occurred in that house on the night of the 14th of April. A. Somewhere about 10 o'clock — a little before or after — a man came to the house. Q. Will you state if you afterwards saw that man ? and if so, where you saw him ? A. I saw him the next time at the trial of the conspirators at the arsenal. Q. State who he was. A. Lewis Payne. Q. Now commence and state distinctly all that happened from the time that man came to the house till he left. A. It was somewhere about 10 o'clock when the affair happened. The com 2f)2 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. pany and all the members of the family, except Miss Fannie, had retired. She and I alone remained in the room. I had been detailed there in connection with a fellow-soldier as night nurse, and by request I sat up the fore part of the night. About half an hour after the family had retired, my attention was attracted by some one coming up the stairs rapidly, and stepping very hea^nly, so much so that Miss Fannie made the remark, " I wonder who is coming now. I should think some one who was not very careful for one approaching a sick- room." In the hall, near the door of the Secretary's room, he met Mr. Freder- ick W. Seward. Whether Mr. Seward was called out of his room or came out on hearing the man come up I cannot say. At any rate he met him. They had some conversation in the hall, which lasted several minutes. After they had been talking a minute or so Mr. Frederick Seward opened the door of the Secretary's room, came in, looked at Mr. Seward, who was asleep, and made the remark, " Father appears to be asleep ; I guess I won't have him disturbed at present." He then turned round and went out. He left the door open sev- eral inches when he came in. When he went out he shut it entirely to. After he went out Miss Fannie went and looked out of the door, a minute, perliaps, then turned round, leaving the door partially open, came back, and then again went and looked out. She then closed the door, and went and sat down. Just as she was in the act of sitting down I heard a disturbance in the hall, sounding like one person striking another with a ratan cane, which I supposed was the case. 1 sprung up and went and opened the door to see what the difficulty was. I saw a man, whom I afterwards recognized as Lewis Payne, right close up to the door, and right behind him Mr. Frederick Seward, bleeding very pro- fusely from the head. At the same instant I discovered the flash of a knife aimed at me, which I warded off to some extent, it striking me on the forehead and partially prostrating me on the floor. Q. Is there a scar on your forehead ] A. Yes, sir ; right on the edge of my hair, here. He pushed the door wide open, and then entered the room, making a bound for Mr. Seward's bed. Mr. Seward lay on the opposite side of the bed from the side which was next to tlie door where Payne entered. He got to the edge of the bed, and placing his hand on Mr. ScAvavd's breast, struck at his neck with the knife which he had. Before this, however, as he passed me, near where I had partially fallen, he met Miss Fannie. She had sprung iip about the same time, I presume, and met him about there. When he came in he had his hand behind him. As soon as he met her he brought his arm round and punched her out of the way, nearly punching her over me. She stopped where he had shoved her to, and turned round and looked at him till she saw him go to the bed, and make a blow at her father. She then hallooed " murder," and ran out into the hall, and cried out that there was some one trying to kill her father. She came back into the. room, and went to the window next to the avenue — next to where the provost marshal's ofiice then was — which I had shoved up some eight or ten inches, and which she shoved clear up, and then hallooed the same out there. After that I do not know what she did, or where she went. After I was knocked partially down, I jumped to my feet as quickly as possible, and while I was doing that Payne had struck two or. three times at Mr. Seward, without hitting him. Be- fore I got to him, however, he had cut the right side of his face. I looked for something with which to strike Payne, but saw nothing in the room that I could handle that was large enough to be of any service. I then jumped on the bed with the intention of striking him ; but wiien I got there his arm was ready raised for another blow. I caught him round the arms from behind, and v.diile I was doing this he cut him on tlie (left) side of his neck. As he was coming off the bed he reached the knife over his shoulder, I being behind him, and struck it into my shoulder to the bone, twice. We came off on the floor. He got his arm around my neck, and struck me two or three times under the TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. 263 ear with the butt of his revolver, but he was in such a position that he couhl no hurt me. He then dropped that, and took hohl of me, and then took liis knife to strike into my breast or bowels. "While he was doing this, we became clenched together, face to face. I then tried to throw him over my hip on his back, but my leg being wounded, it Avas not strong enough to stand under tlie heft of both of us. I succeeded, however, in getting the knife where he couldn't use it. He then tried to get me by the throat, and I tried the same by him, and succeeded so far as to get my hand under his jaw. My object was to get such a hold on him that I could in some way get him out into the hall, and pitch him over the banistei's. I thought that would be the best way to get rid of him. Before I got to the door another person clenched him from behind. The room was rather dark, and I could not see who it was, and so I kept quiet. I thought if he was a confederate he might be as likely to cut the wrong person as the right one. As soon as we got out into the hall, where was a bright jet of gas burning, I recognized the person who had just come up as Major Seward. I spoke then for the first time, and said, " Major, for God's sake let go of me, and take the knife out of his hand, and cut his throat." He did not seem to understand me, or feel disposed to do it, and so I spoke the second time to the same effect, making the additional remark that I had his right arm, and he could not hurt him. Payne, unclinching his hands from around my neck, stntck me again, this time with his fist, knocking me down, and then broke away from Major Seward, and ran down stairs. Mr. Seward not having hold of him, consequently did not detain him. On his way down, on the first flight, he overtook Mr. Hansell, a messenger at the State Department, who had been roused by the noise that had been made, and had apparently turned to go down stairs for for help. He came within reach of him and struck him in the back. Q. What did Hansell say ? A. He started to say "0!" I presume, but he did not say it exactly. He hallooed out pretty loud. He did not utter any particular Avord that I heard.' Some time during the fuss the major got cut. I do not know when it was done ; certainly not after I got hold of Payne, because he had no way to do it. I did not see him after he got down stairs. I turned back after I saw him go down, and went in to attend to the Secretary, who I found had rolled off the bed on to the floor. Q. Will you state how many blows you received during this struggle ] A. Four. Q. State in what part of your body. A. One on my forehead, two on my right shoulder, and one under my left shoulder blade ? Q. Very severe wounds ? A. Two of them were. Q. Were you disabled in consequence of them; and if so, how long? A. I was confined to my bed for three weeks. It was some six weeks before they were healed. Q. Did you have an opportunity to see how this man was armed ? A. I did not. I only saw that he had a knife and revolver, which he dropped on the floor, or at least portions of it. It seemed to be a Whitney naval revolver. Q. Did you have an opportunity to see what kind of a knife it was that he used? A. It was in motion when I saw it, and so I could not tell exactly what kind of a knife it was ; but it was a long, heavy one. It had a straight, stiff handle on it, with a cross-piece. Q. Do you recollect his dress ? * A. He was dressed in a light-colored, not exactly a drab overcoat. He had dark pants, and a sort of a slouch hat. Q. What did he have on his feet that attracted your attention ? 264 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. I tliiiik he had on cavalry boots. They were very heavy ones, but I did not notice them particularly. . Q. Was there anything on the boots ? A. I do not know whether he had spurs on or not. Q. After he was gone, did you see any of these arms that you have described ; and if so, what ? A. I found portions of the revolver — the barrel and stock, and cylinder, detached. The spindle was out of it, but was afterwards found in the room. Q. Were you able to identify these things at the trial of the conspirators 1 ■ A. Yes, sir, Q. You would be able to identify them now, if they were shown you 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ever see this knife afterwards? A. I have. I have it in my possession. Q. Where is it 1 A. It is up at my boarding place. Q. Where did you get that knife 1 A. It was presented to me by the Secretary of War, through Judge Holt. Q. And you are able to identify it as the knife you saw on that occasion ] A. I could not, positively. It resembles it. Q. Duriug your scuffle, or after it, was your attention particularly directed to Mr. Frederick Seward, the Assistant Secretary of State A. It was. Q. What was his condition ? A. The first I saw of him was in the room, moving round like one in a sleep. Q. Did you observe the Avounds on his person ? A. Yes, sir. His head was cut in various places. There seemed to be a very severe one, I think, as far as my recollection serves me now, on the left side of the head. He seemed to be very seriously injured. When you would speak to him, he would look at you, without making any reply. You could do any- thing with him you wanted to by taking hold of him. He seemed to have no will whatever ^ his own; more like a man in liis sleep than anything else. Q. Did you see Colonel Seward afterwards 1 A. I did. Q. What marks of violence did you observe on his person 1 A. Various cuts on his head and forehead. They did not seem to be so serious. Q. Did you return to the room of the Secretary of State ? A. I did. I found him lying on the floor. Q. After you had gained your self-possesion, state what you did. A. I do not think I lost that at all. I went directly to his assistance and found him lying on the floor on the opposite side of the bed, with a lot of bedding around him. 1 undertook immediately to discover if life was extinct. Feeling his wrist, I could not discover any pulsation at all. Miss Fannie came and wanted to know if her father was dead. I replied that I did not know, but was trying to find out. I pulled his clothes oS and felt his heart ; I found that it beat, and replied that he was not dead. The Secretary then opened his eyes, looked up and said, " I am not dead ; send for a surgeon, send for the police, close the house." He spoke in those exact words, as near as I can recollect. I told him I had done all that, and requested him not to talk, as it made him bleed worse. I found where the wound was, and lield my hand over it. Q. Was he lying on the floor] A. Yes, sir; and was*bleeding profusely. As soon as assistance came we put him in bed. TRIAL OF JOHN H SURRATT. 265 Q. How long after that before the physician came ? A. I could not tell ; but I should judge about fifteen or twenty minutes. Q. Who was the physician who first made his appearance ? A I could not tell, positively, because they were strangers to me. I should think, however, it was the Surgeon General. I could not tell, however, posi- tively. There were three or four in attendance in a very short time. Q. Did Payne strike at the Secretary of State after he had rolled out of bed ? A. No, sir. He did not roll out of bed until 1 pulled Payne away from him. Payne had his hand on his breast, and he could not, if he had desired to. Q. State how many blows you saw Payne strike at the Secretary of State. A. I should think as many as four or five, perhaps six. Q. Describe the character of the blows ; whether they were given with much force or not. A. He seemed to strike with all the energy that he had. The first two or three times he struck at him, he struck beyond him — the first time in particular. The Secretary at the time was lying in a half-recumbent position. As Payne appeared and struck at him he exclaimed, "0 !" and then seemed to gooff into an insensible condition. He did not say anything more at any rate. Q. How many blows did he actually strike him ? A. I think he only cut him with two blows — one on each side of his face. Q. Were you present at the time the doctor examined the wounds ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did they appear to be severe wounds ? A. They did. 1 think his right cheek was cut clear through, so that you could see into his mouth ; I am not positive about it, however, for it bled so bard I could not tell. Q. Did he seem to suffer much pain ? A. He seemed to be insensible most of the time I was there. Q. Did his cheek lie down on his neck ? A. Kind of slid down — hung only on the back part. Q. You continued to act as his nurse from that time until the time of his recovery ? A. No, sir; I went away the next morning. Q. When did you next see the Secretary afterwards? A. 1 think the Wednesday or Thursday, three weeks from that time. Q. You had hold of this man Payne, and therefore had an opportunity to form some estimate of his strength. Was he a very stout man ? A. He was a very large man. Q. Was he a strong, muscular man ? A, I hadn't a fair opportunity to judge of that. I was under some excite- ment at the time. John V. Piles — residence, Prince George's county, Maryland — sworn and examined. By the District Attorney: Q. Where do you reside 1 A. Prince George's county, Maryland. Q. How long have you resided there? A. Nearly forty years. Q. Do you exercise any office there, or did you in 1S65 ? A, I was a justice of the peace about ten years — until within two yea.s past. I am at present a commissioner of tax for the county. Q. You were justice of the peace in 1865 ? A. Yes, sir; in 1864-65. Q. Do you know John H. Surratt ? 18 266 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. I did know him. I knew him years ago. Q. Do yon know him now] (Tlie prisoner was here requested to stand up.) A. Yes, sir; I know him well enough. Q. How long have you known him ] A. 1 have known him ever since he was a boy. His residence is not more than two or three miles from mine. Q. State whether you had an interview with him in the early part of 1865, and whether or not you had any conversation with him in regard to his leaving the coxmtry and going to Canada. A. In 1864 or 1865—1 don't know which. Q. State bow long prior to April, 1865. A I did not commit that to memory. I think about three months, as near as I can recollect, before the assassination of Mr. Lincoln. About that time I had left home ; I was working at my father's, or lower place, some mile or so frcm there. Mr. Surratt came down there for the purpose of getting me to sign some papers. I really cannot tell anything regarding the import of those papers. Q. To get you to sign some papers? A. Yes, sir ; as a justice of the peace, in order to make them legal. Q. State what he said to you in regard to the object of his visit. A. Well, he seemed to be urgent to have me sign the papers, and having no pen. ink, or anything of the kind at the place, we proposed to go over to my brother's, about a quarter or a half mile off", and get pen and ink there. We started, and going along I asked him about his business and so on. The draft was on hand at that time, and I asked him about it. He said either that he wanted to get some money, or fix some papers to leave for his mother, or something of that kind. He told me he wanted to go away. I asked him where, or some- thing of that sort, for I did not want him to go away, he had been in the neigh- borhood so long ; and he said he wanted to go away to avoid the draft. Q. Where did he say he was going? A. I think he told me that he intended to go to Canada. It was rumored at that time that there were a great many going there in order to avoid the draft. Q. State what he said in regard to the object of the cmiveyance to his mother ; what he wanted to have done in case he did not return. A. He said something about wanting to make his mother safe, or leaving her some money. It was something like that — what, <'xactly, I cannot now tell. It was probably a mortgage or deed to get money on to pay the expenses of his voyage — something like that. It was something about getting money. Q. State what he said, as nearly as you can, in regard to making his mother safe in case he did not return. A. I think I have told you about all that he said. I won't be positive as lo whether he said to make his mother safe. It was something in that way. Q. What did he say about coming back ] A. I think he said, if he did not return he wanted to make his mother safe, or something like that. I am disposed to think that he was going to make some arrangement to get money, and, perhaps, she was going to be responsible, or something like that. I do not remember exactly. 1 have never seen him since till now that I know of No cross-examination. The court here took a recess for half an hour. AFTERNOON SESSION. Mr. Bradley asked that John X.ee — being present in court — be recalled for further cross-examination. TEIAL OF JOHN II SURRATT. 267 Mr. Pierropoiit objected. The same question had. been rai.sed and decided but the court iu relation to other witnesses. Mr. Bradh^y did not understand that the question had been definitely decided. They desired now to present it agnin, and to produce authorities to show why it would be the exercise of a proper discretion of the court to direct the recall of these witnesses for cross-examination. After discussion upon the point presented, the court reserved his decision until Monday, and thereupon the court took a recess until Monday next, at 10 o'clocl\ a. m. The Court met at 10 a. m. Mo\DAY, June 24, 1867. As soon as the court had been called to order Judge Fisher read the follow- ing opinion upon the motion submitted on Saturday by the defence, asking the recall of witnesses for the purpose of further cross-examination : I have been called upon again by the counsel for the prisoner at the bar to order the recall of witnesses summoned by the prosecution after the cross-ex- amination has been ended and the witnesses dismissed, in order that the pris- oner may recross-cxamine, with the view of inquiring of the witness so to be recalled as to whether some moral stigma is not resting upon his character, or whether he has not made statements out of doors, prior to the trial or since, in conflict with the testimony delivered at the bar, and thus to lay the foundation to impeach his credit. It is claimed as the prisoner's right. I have heretofore refused to order witnesses to be recalled, and yet the coun- sel for the defence have again presented the question for a rehearing, and wirh so much apparent confidence of the rightfulness of the demand that, in a spirit of accommodation, I ventured to listen to their appeal, with the sincere desire to correct any error which I may have committed, if satisfied of its commission. It could afford me no gratification. Heaven knows, to contribute by any error* of my judgment to the rendition of a verdict of conviction in any case where the life of a fellow-being is involved, which but for such' error might hav-e been a verdict of acquittal. Such a reflection would be a lasting canker in my con- science, even in a case where I knew the conviction fell upon the guilty felon. In such a spirit I have heard the counsel for the defence in this case through arguments which it seemed to me Avould have been better addressed to the jury than to the court, and have endeavored to discover whether I liad not possibly erred. So far from being convinced that I was wrong in my decision, the more I have reflected upon the ruling I have made in the matter the more I am con- vinced that I was in the right. In this case tlicre have thus far been examined witnesses brought here from Canada, from Maine, from Vermont, from New York, from Virginia, and from Mississippi. The trial, it is conceded, will not close with the present month. The witnesses are engaged in the various pursuits of lif -. Sout! ai'o farmers, some merchants, some lawyers, bank ofiicers, railroad conductors, and others, all of whom, or most of whom, have necessarily to be away from their homes and business to attend this trial. They are, of course, subject to some, and most of them, to great inconvenience, not to say sacrifice, in attending Cinirtat all. It is now demanded by the proposition of the counsel for the prisoner that each of these witnesses shall, after going through the examination and cross- examination, be either ordered by the court to rem lin till tht; trial shall be ended or the case argued to the jury, or else shall be comptdled to return here after having gone home, to place himself in a position to have his character for veracity attacked by other witnesses, to be procured fir that pm-pose by tlio defence, or to tell the pul)lic him-elf that he is a criminal without character and not worthy of belief. This is simply what the proposition of the counsel in substance amounts to ; and a new statement of it in its simple nakedness is sufficient to show the impropi-iety of granting it. L't us take the case of the witness from Maine, examined on Saturday, for the purpose of illustration. 268 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. We will suppose that he has now gone home, and the prisoner's friends have telegraphed to his neighborhood and have been informed by somebody there that lie has said something to somebody, no matter to whom or how carelessly, which they suppose may in some degree conflict with what he testified to when before the court. The counsel for the defence present their request to have him re- called from a distance of some 700 or 800 or 1,000 miles. He is sent for and asked whether he has not said thus and so to John Jones or John Smith or John Brown. He denies it Jones, Brown, and Smith are immediately sub- poenaed, and come on from Maine, and when here they all swear that the wit- ness for the prosecution did say something which was inconsistent with the testimony he gave. These three persons return to their homes, and afterwards the counsel for the prosecution discover that they have said, after going home, that they all had falsified in their testimony. They must all then be recalled to be questioned on the subject before they can be thus discredited, and they are brought back to be recross-examined by the prosecution, and with them the prosecution summon at least two more witnesses to discredit each one of them; and so the matter should go, each recall necessarily involving a multiplication of witnesses, going forward in geometrical progression. Can any human being tell when the case would end 1 The only solution of the question — the only termination of the case — would be the death of the pi'isoncr or the jurors trying him. But for the intervention of death, it would be difficult to say which of two events would first happen, the end of this trial or the return of the chil- dren of Abraham to the holy city — their ancient Jerusalem. It is just because all trials must have an end in some reasonable time, and be- cause witnesses must have some protection from unending annoyance and inconve- nience and sacrifice, and because jurors' and judges are not expected to spend a generation in tr} ing any cause, no matter how important ; and because facilities *e not to be aff<)rded to have witnesses hunted down and wrongfully robbed of their fair standing in the community — their reputations attacked without a chance for defending them — that the rule of law, as I have heretofore ruled it, was established in England many genei-ations since, and accepted as the law every- where in this country where the law is rightly understood. Lord Cranworlh, (then Baron Rolfe,) in the case of the Attorney General ?'*. Hitchcock, 1 Ex., 99, very properly remarked in reference to the law of evi- dence on this subject, that it " must be considered as founded on a sort of com- parative consideration of the time to be occupied in examinations of this nature, and the time which it is practicable to bestow upon them. If we lived for a thousand years instead of about sixty or seventy, and every case were of suffi- cient importance, it might be desirable to throw a light on matters in which every possible question might be suggested, for the purpose of seeing by such means whether the whole was unfounded or what portion of it was not, and to raise every possible inquiry as to the truth of the statements made. But I do not see how that could be ; in fact, mankind find it impossible.'' I am, how- ever, very doubtful if his lordship's limitation of a thousand years as a human lifetime would be a sufiicient period in which to conclude a case of great magni- tude and extensive ramifications, if we once throw aside the rules of evidence and embark on a wild ocean of inquiry, and raise every possible question as to the truth of statements made by witnesses. The rule for conducting the examination of witnesses is as I have before stated it to be. 1. The party desiring the testimony of the witness calls him, and, after he is sworn, examines him in chief, putting no leading questions to him except it shall be manifest to the court that he is an unwilling witness, or unless it be apparent that the memory of the witness is at fault and may be set right by a suggestive question ; or when the mind of the witness cannot be directed to the subject-matter of inquiry without having it particularly pointed out to him. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 269 2. After the direct examination is concluded, the witness is handed over for cross-examination, during which he may be asked whether he has not made a statement contradictory of something — anything — said by him in the direct ex- amination. But such questions must be put during the cross-examination, or at all events before the party producing the witness has dismissed him and he has gone away. 3. If a witness for one party be thus once examined and cross-examined and discharged, the party who calls him a second time makes him his own witness ; just as he makes him his own witness whenever he proceeds to cross-examine him in relation to facts or circumstances not detailed in the direct examination. But it is said that the rule is laid down differently by the judges of England in the case of Queen Caroline, in 1820, in resolving the following questions pro- pounded to the learned judges by the House of Lords : 1. Whether, when a witness in support of a prosecution has been examined in chief, and has not been asked in cross-examination as to any declarations made by him, or acts done by him, to procure persons corruptly to give evi- dence in support of the prosecution, it would be competent for the accused to examine witnesses to prove such declarations or acts, without first calling back such witness examined in chief, to be examined or cross-examined as to the fact whether he ever made such declarations or did such acts ? And, 2. Whether, if a witness is called on the part of the prosecutor, and gives evidence against the defendant, and if after the cross-examination it is discov- ered that the witness so examined has corrupted or endeavored to corrupt an- other person to give false testimony in the cause, the counsel for the defendant may not be permitted to give evidence of such corrupt act without calling back such witness ? Both these questions were answered in the negative unanimously, so that the decision was that even when it should be discovered, after his cross-exam- ination, that a witness for the prosecution had been guilty of supposed declara- tions or acts in endeavoring to suborn other witnesses, his conduct in that respect could not be inquired into from other witnesses until he had first been allowed the opportunity of explaining such supposed acts or declarations ; and the reason given was, if such a coursH could be pursued without previous intimation to the witness, great injustice might be done both to the witness and the party calling him. It will be observed that the question only had reference to declarations or acts made or done to corrupt the fountains of justice — to pro- cure persons to commit perjury. This was all that was decided, and nothing more. It is true that, in delivering the opinion of the learned judges, Chief Justice Abbott said, "We think the only effect of a subsequent discovery " (of the effort at subornation of perjury) "would be to allow the witness to be called back for further cross-examination, if still within reach." But this was not even a decision of the question as to whether in such case the witness could be of right called back for the purpose of further cross-examinaMon. The question as to the existence of such right of recall and further cross-examina- tion was not one of the questions propounded to the judges, and of course was not a matter decided by them. But even supposing their decision went to that length, still that is not this case. It might very well be that if the judge try- ing a cause should be satisfied by affidavits or otherwise that there was proba- ble cause to believe that a witness who had been examined and cross-examined had been guilty of attempts at subornation, poisoning the very fouu'ains of justice, he should order the recall of such witness for the purposes of giving him the opportunity to explain or to deny, and then in case of denial to allow his denial to be attacked. But tiiat would be a very different thing from ordi- nary witnesses to remain for weeks, or it may be for mouths, hundreds of miles away from home, or to order them back after their return home, that they may be recalled for the mere purpose of laying the groundwork of their coutradic- tion by other witnesses who might be hunted up. 270 TRIAL OF JOHN 11. SURRATT.' We tliiiik the case of Queen Caroline is good law, so far as it decided the questions )»rop')unded by the House of Lords, and no further. It is not decisive of this j)resent application. No person can read the opinion delivered by Ohief Justice Abbott without discovering that it is very wide of the present case. If the law were so well settled as the counsel for defendant in this case claim it to be, it is not a little surprising that the text-books are altogether silent on the subject, and that no adjudicated case has been produced in support of the proposition. The rules upon this subject to which I have alluded, and such as I have always seen observed in any practice with which I am familiar, and in tlie ab- sence of controlling authority or reason requiring they should be set aside, I prefer to adhere to them in this case, as I have iu all other cases which have preceded it. If counsel for the defence still believe they are right in the views which they have presented they are entitled to note an exception. The defence noted an exception, and Mr. Merrick desired to file an affidavit bearing upon the same matter, but counsel for the prosecution objected, and the court said the affidavit should have been filed before the opinion was delivered. J. T. May, physician — residence, Washington — sworn and examined. By Assistant District Attorney Wilson : Q. You are a practising physician and surgeon in Washington, and have been for many years past ? A. Yes, sir ; for over thirty yeai's. Q. Were you acquainted with John Wilkes Booth 1 A. I was. Q. Were you his jjliysician ? A. I cannot say that I was his physician. I was acquainted with him pro- fessionally, in this way : he came to my office, and desired to have an opinion about a tumor on his neck, which I advised him to have removed. Q. State whether it was done. A. 1 did remove it from his neck while he was filling an engagement here at one of the theatres. Q. How was it done ? A. With a knife. I took it out. Q. Will you describe the wound it left, and the appearance of the wound aftt r it healed 1 A. The tumor Avas on the back of his neck, a little to one side. I do not recollect whether if, was on his right or his left side. j\Ir. Bkadlev. I presume, your honor, it is understood that we except to the adii ission of any of this proof. JNlr. Wilson. We are examining Dr. May out of the regular order, simply as a matter of convenience. Mr. Braulkv. The question we raise is as to the admissibility of the evi- dence, not to the order in which it is given. i\lr. Wilson. Of course, it does not appear relevant now, but we will make it a])pear so before we close the case. Q. Describe the ajtpearance of the wound. A. 1 was a little i-cluctant about removing this tumor, because he was play- ing an engagement here in the city, and I told him so ; I told him that he was liable to have the wound torn open. He was very urgent to have it taken out, and promised to moderate himself in his playing if I would remove it. Finally I consented to take it out, on condition tliat he would be careful. The wound united very closely by what we called adhesion, or union by the first intention. He came to my office every day to have it dressed. Some days after the wound had united — perhaps four or five days — he called with the wound torn widely TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURKATT. 271 open. He stated that in some part of the phiy of the evening; before, ^liss Cn~h- nian had struck him on the neck, and liad torn the wound open. I will state that when a wound of that kind is once torn open, it lias to unite by a ditierent process than adhesion. It has to unite by a scranulatinp; process, which gen- erally leaves considerable of a scar. It had left in hi^ case a scar, such as I would have expected from a gap that had been made to fill up by granulation ; •whereas, if it had united by first intention, it would have left only a slight seam. Q. Describe the appearance of the scar. A. It was a scar of some width — such a scar as would not have been mado by a surgical operation if the wound had united by adhesion, -but it had beea torn open by this blow. After being torn a])art it left, when healed, a broad, ugly-luokiug scar, produced by the granulating process of which I have spoken, which is usually the case with wounds which unite the second time after being torn open. Q. Was there any discoloration 1 A. Yes, sir. At first it is of a red color, but in ourse of time the cicatrix becomes rather whiter and more dense. Q. When was it, doctor, that yon performed this operation ? A. I cannot tell exactly. It was some timebefoie Mr. Lincoln was killed ; I should say at least a year ; perhaps longer than that. I cannot tell exactly, as I make no reference to it on my books. Q. State when and where you last saw the body of Booth. A. The last time I saw the body was on board the monitor, at the navy yard. I cannot specify the day. It was some days after he was reported to have been killed ; a day or two, perhaps, after that. Q. Yon identified the body ? A. I did. Q. Did you observe this scar ? A. I observed a scar on the neck. In fact, I told the Surgeon General where the scar was. and what its appearance was, before I examined it. Q. State how long before the assassination it was that you performed this operation. A. I cannot. It was certainly a year ; it may have been a year and a half. I cannot give the precise time, because I made no entry. He was playing an engagement with Charlotte (Jushman at the time. She was a strong, powerful woman, and either in embracing him, in some part of the play, or in repulsing him, I do not knovv which, she tore this wound open, which caused this bad- hjoking scar to be left. Q. You do not remember which side of the neck it was 1 A. 1 do not. I never made any note of it. JoH\ Greknawalt — residence, Philadelphia, Pa. — sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepo.\t : Q. Where do you now live 1 A. In Philadelphia, 200 Church street. Q. What is your occupation 1 A. I am in the hotel business. Q. Did you keep hotel in the city of Washington at any time ? A. I did. Q. Please state from what time to what time. A. It was from '61 to '66. Q. What was th(^ name of the house ? A. Tlie Pennsylvania House. Q. Where was it situated 1 A. On C street, between Four-and-a-half and Sixth. (^. Did you see during that time John Wilkes Booth at your house ? 272 TRIAL OF JOHN H SUKRATT. A. I did. Q. How often 1 A. I could not state the number of times, but it was frequently. Q Did you see any other person there that he came to see? and if so, state who he was. A. He came to see Atzerodt. Q. Did he live there ? A. He stopped with me during that time. Q. Boarded with you 1 A. Yes, sir, Q. Do you know the number of the room he occupied 1 A. Number 51. Mr. Bradley. Who occupied that roomi Witness. Atzerodt. Q. Did you see Herold there ? A. I did. Q. Will you state who was your clerk, or bookkeeper, at that time ? A. Samuel McAllister. (The prisoner was here directed to stand up, in order that he might be seen by the witness. He did so.) Q. Have you ever seen the prisoner before 1 A. I have. Q. Where? A. In my house, the Pennsylvania House. Q. Ijtate who was boarding with you then. A I could not state the time that I saw him there. Q. Who did you see him there with? A. I could not say that. Q. Can you state about when you saw him there? A. I remember his face, and that is all. Q. What did Booth do there ? Mr. Bradley. I object to any further examination on that branch. I sup- pose it comes within the ruling of your honor, but I desire to have an exception noted. I submit that the witness, having stated he had seen Surratt, but is unable to state when, with whom, or how, any further examination as to the parties at that time is not proper. Mr. PiERREPO.NT. It will be when we get McAllister here. Mr. Bradley. That may be; but he is not upon the stand at present. I do not want this testimony to go in subsUetUio, under the impression that it may be made evidence hereafter. Q. Will you state what occurred at your house ? I mean between these parties. A. AVell. Booth called frrquently on Atzerodt, and always held his conversa- tions with him privately. He generally called him out of the house or into the hall. Atzerodt generally followed him out. They sometimes held conversation in front of my house On several occasions on which I have walked to the door with them, they have left the front of my house and walked down towards the National Hotel, and stood there. Q. As you walked to the door ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember on one particular occasion of a meeting there ? Mr. Bradley. AVhat sort of a meeting? Mr. Pierrepont. A meeting of persons from any place. Witness. I remember of a number of gentlemen meeting Atzerodt in the house. Q. Where from ? TRIAL OF JHON 11. SURRATT. 273 A. I could not state where they were from. They were strangers to me. They were drinking frequently there, and asked me to take a drink. Q. Who asked you to take a drink 1 A. Atzerodt. Q. What did he say 1 A. After we had taken a drink he said he hadn't much money ,'hut he always had friends enough to give him as much as would see him through. He ex- pected to leave some of these days, remain away some time, and then return with as much gold as would keep him all his life. • Q. About what time was that said ? A. That must have been about two or three weeks before the assassination. I could not state the date. Mr. PiERREPONT. We know when the assassination was, and you say it was about two or three weeks before that. Q. Do you remember any occurrence on the 18th of March, at your house, prior to the assassination ? A. I think he came to my house about that time. Q. State whether his stoppings there were long or short. A. He then stopped until about the first of April, I think. Q. On the Wednesday prior to the assassination, what occurred, if anything ] A. He left my house on Wednesday morning. He said to me : " Mr. Greena- walt, I am going away to stay a few days. I owe you a small bill. Does it make any difference whether I pay you now, or when I return ?" I told him it did not make any difference. Q. Do you know anything about a one-eyed horse of his ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Slate about it. A. 1 bought a horse of him, and came very near buying that one. It was a one-eyed horse. Q. Did you see this one-eyed horse of Atzerodt's after the murder 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. How long after ? A. It was on the morning of the 15th. Q. Where did you see the horse ? A. At the Provost Marshal General's office on Fourteenth street. Q. On the night of the murder, did you see Atzerodt ] A. I did. Q. State about that. A. I saw him about fifteen or twenty minutes past two o'clock on the 15th. Q. On the night of the Uth and morning of the 15th ? A. Yes, sir. Q. About what hour ? A. About fifteen or twenty minutes past two o'clock. Q Tell where you saw him, and what occurred. A. I had just returned to my house and gone to my room wlien the servant man came up and stated that Atzerodt and some gentleman had comi; in, and that the stranger wished lodgings and wished to pay for it. He thereupon handed me a So bill to take pay for the lodgings out of I had not retired, and so I went down to the ofiice myself. The stranger was standing at the register, and Atzerodt was lying on the settee, in the front room. I asked the gentleman what he wished. He said he wished lodgings, so I gave him the change, and had him shown to his room. He gave his name as Samuel Thomas. Atzerolt then asked for his old room. I told him it was occupied ; that he would have to go in the room with this stranger. It was a large room, with six beds in it. There were other parties in it before these parties went there. He then followed to go to the room. I said to him : {• You have not registered." He said : "No; 274 TRIAL OF JOHN H SURRATT. do you wish me to ?" I said : " Certainly." He turned round, hesitated some, but finally walked forward and registered, and then walked to his room. That is the last I saw of him. Q. Describe the man who was with him. A. He was a man of from five feet six to six and one half inches in height, and weighed from 140 to 150 pounds. Q. Describe his face, as nearly as you can, and his dress and beard. A. His face was rather slender. He had dark hair, and a dark beard. He had on a broadcloth suit. The back portion of his pants were all worn through, I discovered that as he passed the door. Q. After Atzerodt went to the room that night, did you ever see him again ? A. Yes, sir ; I saw him at his trial. Q. Do you know whether anybody left your house that morning for the train 1 and if so, what train ? A. There was a lady who wished to leave in the six o'clock train, and I gave orders to have a carriage there to take her away. A servant had gone and got it, and met Atzerodt on his return ; that was five o'clock, or a little before. He was walking towards Sixth street, on C. Q. Do you know what the condition of the night was at five o'clock, as to whether it was dark or not 1 A. I do not. Q. Did this lady return to your house after she went to this train, at this hour 1 A. No, sir. Q. Had Atzerodt any baggage there ? A. He had not. Q. Did the other man bring any baggage ? A. No, sir. Q. Did he pay his bill ? A. No, sir. Q. Has he ever paid it ? A. No, sir. Q. Did he show you any arms at any time 1 and if so, what, and when ? A. He had left a revolver in the office in charge of the clerk. Q. Did you have any conversation with him about it 1 A. I did. Q. What was it ? A. He had shown it to me and told me he had just bought it. I then asked him what he paid for it? I told him that 1 did not know he wanted one ; and Avished I had, as I had one that I had no use foi". Q. Was this a new one 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. State what peculiar money, if any, Atzerodt brought you. A. Not any that I know of. Q. I do not mean peculiar always, but at that time. Did he bring you gold ? A.. No, sir. Mr. PiERREPONT. 0, yes, I remember ; it was another man who brought you gold. Q. Do you know whether the man who called his name Thomas had ever been there before ? A. No, sir ; not that I know of. Q. Did he say anything to you 1 Mr. Bradley. Who? Mr. PiERREPONT. I mean the man who called himself Thomas. Mr. Bradley. Is that admissible ? The Court. I cannot see the applicability of that testimony. Trial of joiin h. surratt. 275 (Question willidrawn.) Q. Have you seen this man Thomas since ? A . I have not. CroPS-examination : By Mr. Bradley: Mr. Bradley: ]\Iay it please your honor, in entering upon a cross-examina- tion of this witness, we do not wish to be understood as waiving the benefit of any exception that we have taken. Q. Did not the Prince George's county and the Charles county stage start from your house ? A. Yes, sir. Q. During all that time ? A. Yes, sir. Q. A great many passengers going to and from there came to your house 1 A Yes, sir. Q. Y''ou saw Mr. Surratt meeting and talking with people who came and went away ] A. AVell, I cannot say anything in regard to that. I remember his face — that is all. Q The stage that I refer to is the one that goes down to Surrattsville, " T B," and Leonardtown and Port Tobacco ? A. Y'^es, sir ; 1 understand. By Mr. Merrick : Q. The stage office is at your house isn't it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. For tiiose places on the road 1 A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Pierrepont: Q. Did the stage that went to Surratt's tavern start at the same tune with the stage that wont to Port Tobacco ? A. Yes, sir. Q And at what time? J\[r. 3IERKICK. It was the same stage wasn't it? A. No, sir. Q. At what time did it start ? A. It started at 8 o'clock. Q. In giing that way? ' A. Yes, sir. Q. And at what* lime did it return. A. It returned between 5 and 6 generally. Q. The Port Tobacco stage and the Surrattsville stage were, I understand you to say, different stages ? A. Yes, sir. It was the same line, although there were two stages. They run to "T B," on the same road, and there they took different roads. Mr. liRADLKV. That is, "T B" is beyond Surrattsville; and they run by Surrattsville on the same route ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Passengers came and went by both stages as far as Surrattsville ? A. Y''es, sir. Mr. Bradlkv. I forgot to ask one question. You said that you saw Atze- rodt on the loth, after o o'clock in the morning. Can you state whether it was near about tlie time of the departure of the morning train — G.15 ? A. No, sir. I wish to correct that. I did not see him after 2 o'clock. It was my servant who saw him at that time. You will find it so ill print. 276 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. After you last saw him, what did you do 1 A. I retired after that — went to bed. Q. When did you get up ] A. About 6 o'clock. Q. You were asked about this man Thomas. Did you see him after you went to bed ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you see him on the trial of the conspirators, or a person who, you thought, resembles him very strongly? A. I did not. Q. Do you recollect saying on the occasion of the conspiracy trial that "he (pointing to Spangler) resembles him somewhat, but he is not so dark, and has not the beard that Thomas had "? A. No, sir. He did not have a beard. John M. Llovd — residence, Washington — sworn and examined. By the District Attorney : Q. "Where do you live ? A. On the Island, Washington city. Q. How long have you been residing in the city ? A. I think I moved up from the country in October, 1865. Q. Where had you been living previous to that 1 A. I had been living at Surrattsville for a short time. Q. You are a native of this city 1 A. With the exception of an intermission of three years, I have been re- siding here for the past fifteen or twenty years. Q. I believe you were a witness before the conspiracy trial, were you not ? A. Yes, sir; unfortunately. Q. Will you state where you lived in the year 1865 ? A. I moved to Surrattsville about the last of December, 1864. I resided at Surrattsville up to October, 1865, Q. How far is that from this city ? A. 1 have always been told that it was about ten miles from the bridge. Q. It is in Prince George's county, Maryland ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Whose house did you occupy ? A. That of Mrs. Surratt. Q. Mary E. Surratt ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You saw her before the conspiracy trial? • A. Yes, sir. Q. What was your business there ? A. That of hotel-keeping and farming. Q. You kept the hotel at Surrattsville in Mrs. Surratt's house, and engaged in farming at the same time ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State if you know the prisoner at the bar, John H. Surratt. A. I do not see him. (Turning his eyes in the direction of the prisoner.) I believe that is Mr. Surratt. (The prisoner was here requested to stand up. The witne.'JS then said :) A. That is him ; I know him ; I had a short acquaintance with him. Q. And you now recognize him ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You knew Mrs. Mary E. Surratt ? TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 277 A. Yes, sir ; my acquaintance with them was very short the whole time. Q. Did you rent this house of her 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you know one David E. Herold ? A. I knew David E. Herold ; he was at my house on several occasions ; I first saw him, I think, at Mr. Birch's sale. Q. You saw him several times afterwards 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see him at the conspiracy trial ? A. I did. Q. Did you know one George A. Atzerodt ? A. I never knew him by that name imtil two weeks before the assassination ; I used to call him by the name of Israel. Q. By what name did the prisoner call him ? A. Well, he came in there one morning with him, and laughingly stated something about somebody calling him "Port" Tobacco ; that is the only time I ever heard the name made use of. Q. Did you see him at the conspiracy trial ? A. Yes, sir. Q. 1 will ask you if you ever saw David E. Herold, George A. Atzerodt, and the prisoner at the bar in company together ? A. One morning, probably about five or six weeks before the assassination, Surratt and Atzerodt came to my house ; Herold had been there the night be- iore, and said that he was obliged to go to "T B" that night; he stopped iu there, and was playing cards ; he played several games ; the next morning Surratt and Atzerodt drove up. Q. You saw the three then at your house at that time ? A. Not until after that. Q. When? A. About half an hour after that ; Surratt and Atzerodt left and went down the road, and I supposed in the direction of"TB;" they all three returned together, Atzerodt, Herold, and Surratt. Q. Now we have them all three at your house ; state what they did. A. There were several other persons besides them there at the time. I there- fore paid no particular attention to them. They came in and took a drink, probably, and were playing cards, as well as I remember. After awhile Surratt called me into the front parlor, and said hq wanted to speak to me. There I saw lying on the sofa what I supposed to be guns. They had covers on them. Besides these there were two or three other articles. Q. State what the other articles were. A. One was a rope — a bundle of rope as big around, I suppose, as my hat, (a black felt hat of ordinary size.) It was coiled rope. I should think from the size of the bundle that there was not more than 18 or 20 feet in it. I took it to be an inch and a quarter rope. Q. What other articles do you think of? A. There was a monkey-wrench. Q. If you saw those things again would you be^able to identify them ? A. I cannot say that I could. Q. State what the prisoner said to you about those things after he had shown them to you. A. He wished me to receive those things and to conceal the guns. I objected to it, and told him I did not wish to have such things iu the iiousc at all. lie assured me po.-'itively that there should be no danger from them. I still per- sisted in refusing to receive them, but finally, by assuring me most positively that there would be no danger in taking theio, he induced me to receive them. Ho did not say what sort of guns they were, as well as I remember. 278 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. State what you did after you consented to receive and conceal them. A. I told him there was no place about the premises to conceal such things at all, and that I did not wish to have them there. He told me then of a place where he knew it could be done. He then carried me up into a back i"oom from the storeroom. Q. Had you ever been in that room before ? A. Never. I supposed the place was finally closed up. I did not know that there was anything kept there at all. I tried on several occasions to get iu there to have it occupied fur a servant's room, for persons passing backwards and forwards very frequently stopped there in the winter with servants, and I had no jdace to put them, but had to let them lie down stairs on my lounge. Q. After you and the prisoner went into this room wiih these articles, state what you did. A. I put them in an opening between the joists of the second story of the ma'n building. Q. Do you recollect of any other articles that you have omitted that he brought to you at that time? A. Nothing more was brought at that time. Q. State whether or not there was any ammunition brought there. A. There was a cartridge-box brought there. Whether it was full of ammu- nition or not, I am not able to say. Q. Did you examine it to see whether or not there was any in it? A. No, sir. I did not examine anything at all. Q. Did you conceal that with the guns ? A. Yes, sir; that was put with the guns. Q. What did you do with the rope and the monkey-wrench 1 A. I left the monkey-MM-ench and rope at Surrattsville when I moved away. What has become of them I cannot say. Q. What part of that building did you deposit these articles iu ? A. I deposited them iu the storeroom. Q. Explain that. A. The storeroom is a plnce where we kept barrels of liquor and such like. Q. It was not the same place where the guns were put ? A. No, sir. Q. State how long Surratt wanted you to keep these articles. A. He told me that he only wanted me to keep them two or three days, and that he would take them away at the end of that time. On that condition I consented, and that alone. Q. Did anything else pass between you and the prisoner at that time 1 A. Nothing more, as far as I remember. Q. What afterwards happened between these parties ? A, I do not know of anything particular happening after that, except that they engaged in playing card?. Q. How long did they stay at your house playing cards after those things had been concealed ? A. I do not remember distinctly, but probably half an hour. Q. What did they then do ? A. They left. Q. Did they leave in company with each other ? A. That I cannot say ; I did not see them when they left. They all went out on the porch together, as well as I remember. Q. When was the next time you saw the prisoner ? A. I think 1 met him two or three days after that, going down to Surratts- A'ille, and I supposed at the time that he was going to take those things away ; and I said nothing to him about them. Q. Did you have any conversation with him at all ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. 279 A. Nothing more tlian that he asked me if he could get his breakfast down there. I tokl him I thought so — some ham and eggs. I was ou my way to Washington when I met him. He got his breakfast there, I think. Q. Did you see him any more after that 1 A. I saw Surratt again after that, as well as I remember, on the 25th of March. Q. Did you see him again before the assassination ? A. I met him about a week after that on the stage about four or five miles thi^ide of Surrattsville, returning to Washington, while I was returuiughome. He was on the stage and I was in my buggy. Q. Did you ever see him any more ] A. No, sir ; not until now. Q. Did you see Atzerodt after this interview that you have described ? A. I saw Atzerodt, I think, once after that. Q. Where was that 1 A, I met him about at the Selbyville post office. That is, T met hirn twice that day. I met him once ou the Navy Yard, and in the evening while he was coming on. Q. Did you ever see them all in company together after that 1 A. No, sir. 1 think that was the only time I ever saw them all in com- pany, that I remember of. Q. You have stated that you knew Mrs. Surratt and rented this house from her. I will ask if you saw her shortly before the assassination of the Presi- dent ; and if so, when and where you saw her ? Witness. I do not wish to go into the examination of Mrs. Sunatt, as she is not here to answer before this tribunal. The DisTUicT Attok.xey. The court will tell you whether the question is a proper one or not. You will answer the question if you please. Witness. I cannot, Mr. Carrington, unless the court compels me. The District Attorney. Very well ; the court will say whether it is a proper question. The Court. What is the question ? The District Attorney. I asked him if he saw Mrs. Surratt, the person of whom he rented this house, shortly before the assassination of the President. If so, when and where it was that he saw her. The Court. (To the witness,) You will have to auswer the question. The District Attorney. I will repeat it. Did you see Mrs. Surratt, tlie lady of whom you rented this house at Surrattsville, shortly before the assassi- nation of the President 1 A. I met her on two occasions. Q. State where it was the first time ? A. The first time I saw her was in Uniontown. I think it was the Tuesday previous. Q. Previous to the assassination ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State in whose company she was ? A. She was in company with a young man whose name I did not know. Since that time, however, I have discovered his name to be Weichmann. Q. Where was she standing or sitting ? A. She was sitting in the buggy alongside of Mr. Weichmann, in one of these high narrow buggies. Q. State if you had any conversation with her; and if so, state what was said by you both at that time '? Mr. Bradley. Tuesday or Friday 1 The District Attorney. I am referring to Tuesday. The Court. What day uf the month? 280 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. The District Attorney. The Tuesday before the asscassination, is the way the witness fixes it in his mind. Witness. She made use of a remark to me — called my attention to some- thing that I couldn't understand. Mr. Merrick. "Who did 1 Witness. Mrs. Surratt. Mr. Merrick. Just state what was said, or the substance of it, not your understanding of what was said, or your failure to understand what was saiTl, Witness. I do not wish to state one solitary word more than I am compelled to. Mr. Merrick. That does not make any difference. The District Attorney. I suppose you do not, but it is your duty to state what you know about this matter. The Court. State what was said, as far as you recollect, whether you under- stood it or not. Witness. She tried to draw my attention to something. Mr. Merrick. No matter what she tried to do. State what she did say and did do. Witness. She finally came out and asked me about some shooting irons that were there. Q. Where? A. At Surrattsville, as I supposed. Mr. Merrick. She did not say that ? Witness. No, sir. The District Attorney. You have been cautioned several times not to state any inference that you drew from the conversations. You are not expected to give the precise words, but the substance of the conversation as near as you can recollect it. Witness. Well, really The District Attorney. You have already testified about this matter ? Witness. I have. The District Attorney. Well, now state what was said. Witness I cannot do it unless I do it in my own way. It is out of the question. Mr. jMerrick. In your own way, of course, but only state what you recollect she said, not your impressions. The Court. Give the substance of what you recollect she said. We do not expect you to be able to recollect the exact words. Witness. As well as I recollect, in speaking of the shooting irons, she told me to have them ready ; that they would be called for, or wanted, soon, I forgot now which. Either expression sounded to me as if it amounted to the same thing, for I was satisfied. Mr. Merrick. No matter what you were satisfied about. Witness. I desire to state my reasons. The District Attorney. We do not care about your reasods. Q. Now state what you said to her 1 A. When she made this remark, I told her that I was very uneasy about those things being there ; that I had understood the house was going to be searched, and I did not want to have those things there ; that I had a great notion to have them taken out and buried, or done something with. Q. What did she say then? A. The conversation then di'opped on that, and turned on John Surratt. I told her I had understood that tlie soldiers were after John to arrest him for going to Ilichmond. 1 had understood that he had gone there. She laughed very heartily at the idea of anybody going to Richmond and back again in six days, and remarked that he must be a very smart man indeed to do it. Q. Anything more ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 281 A. Tli.it was about the substance of the conversation that passed between Mrs. Sv.rratt and myself at that interview. It did not last longer than between five and ten minutes. Q. Did you see her any more from that time until the 14th of April, the day of the assassination ? A. She was there on the evening of the Friday of the assassination, I think. Q. Not before ? A. I do not know how long before that, but not any day before it. Q. Not between Tuesday and Friday? A. No, sir. Q. I will ask you where you were on the 14th of April, 1S65 'I A. I was in Marlboro', attending the trial of a man who had stabbed me. Q. You were a witness ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What time did you return home ? A. I staid in Marlboro' for some time after the trial was over, drinking and playing cards. I didn't leave there until pretty late ; I suppose it was five or six o'clock, may-be later, when I got home. I do not remember distinctly, but it appears to me in the confuted memory I have of it, that the sun was not more than half an hour high when I got home. It did not appear to me so. Q. What persons did you find at home when you got there ? A. I found a good many gentlemen there — I suppose some ten or twelve. I saw there, among others. Mrs. Surralt and this man Weichman. Q. State if you then had any conversation with Mrs. Surratt; and if so, on what part of your premises, and what that conversation was. A. When I drove up in my buggy to thi- back yard, Mrs. Surratt came out to meet me. She handed me a package, and told nie, as well as I remember, to get the guns, or those things — I really forget now which, though my impression is that "guns" was the expression she made u.^e (.f — and a couple of bottles of whiskey, and give them to whoever should call for them that night. Q. What did you say to her ? A. I do not know that I made any reply to her at all. I was in liquor at the time, and being so, I did not want to have any conversation with her. Q. How long did she stay there after tliis ? A. I do not remember. I went into my back room and threw myself on the lounge, when 1 immediately turned sick from the eftect of the liquor. As I was raising up she came in and told me that her buggy spring was broken, and that I must do something to mend it. I told her, as well as I remember, that I bad nothing to do it with, only to tie it with some rope yarn that I had. Q. Do you recollect what time that was ? A. That was late in the evening after I got home. Q. Before dark ? A. Yes, sir. Q. After you fixed up her buggy for lin-, how long did she stay ? A. She and Weichman got in then and drove off. Q. You speak of a package which she siiowed you at that time. What was it? A. I did not notice the package until probalily an hour later or more. Q. When did you notice it ? A. I thought of it and carried it up stairs, and it feeling rather light, my cu- riosity led me to open it to see what it c )ur>iiaeJ. I read in printed letters on the front-piece of it, "field glass.'' Tliese tt-t.rers were on a small part of it. Q. Do you think 3'ou would know it if vou were to see it? A. I do not know that I should. Q. Y'^ou discovered that about an lumv ;ift rwards ; what disposition did you make of it at that time ? 19 282 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SITRRATT. A. I put it with the other things. Q. You mean with the gun and cartridge-box 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recollect of any of these parties to wjjom I have called your at- tention — Surratt, Atzerodt, or Herold — coming to your house that night, after this interview ? A. Herold was there about 12 o'clock that night. Q. The same person who was at your house on Tuesday ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who was in company with him at that time ? A. I do not know. Q. Describe the man as well as you can, and whether there was anything the matter with him that attracted your attention ? A. The man — he was on horseback — looked to me to be about the size of Mr. Wilson, the assistant district attorney, with a big, heavy moustache. His moustache was the only thing noticeable about him, as far as I remember. He Avas on a large horse. Q. Did he dismount ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know whether anything was the matter with him — Avhether he complained of anything ? Mr. Bradley. That is asking the witness to state what the man said, is it not? Mr. PiERREPONT. Yes, sir. Whatever he said and did we offer in evidence. The District Attorney. We consider all the declarations of these parties evidence, and if that is so, certainly what a man says in reference to a com- plaint is. The Court. All declarations of the conspirators are evidence. Trie first inquiry, however, to be instituted is as to whether he was one of the conspira- tors. The District Attorney. We expect to show he was. Mr. PiERREPONT. We expect, your honor, in a few minutes, to show that it was Booth. The Court. If you do not do that the evidence will be ruled out. Mr. PiERREPONT. Of course, your honor. Mr. Bradley. The effect will have gone to the jury. The Court. In order to avoid any effect of that sort, suppose you stop the examination on this point, just here, and proceed to introduce your proof as to its being Booth. Mr. PiERREPONT. Very well, sir ; we will accept of the suggestion of your honor, and stop the examination on this point here, and after we have made the j)roof to which we have referred call him back. The Court. That will be the better way. Q. State what Herold said about that time. A. Herold said when he came into the house — when I opened the door — "Mr Lloyd, for God's sake make haste and get those things." He did not name what things they were. Q. When he said that what did you do ? A I went up stairs and got them. <^. What things ? A. I got one of the guns, the field-glass, and the cartridge-box, which was all 1 could bring down at that time, and I did not go back any more. Q. To whom did you give those things ? A. To Herold. Q. Did you offer anything to the other person ? A. I do not think I did. I do not know whether the other person took any- thing or not. If he took anything at all, it was nothing more than a field-glass TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 283 Q. State what occurred after that ; what further Herold ?aid to you. A. I do not remember of Herold saying anything particularly. He took the things and rode towards the stable. On his return he got between the other man and myself, and then they both rode off down the road. Herold did not stop at all when he returned, I think. Q. Did Herold say anything to you in addition to what you Jiave already stated ? A. I do not think he did. Q. Did he say anything as to what he or anyone else had done that night ? A. I do not think he did. I do not remember of having any conversation v/itli Herold at all. Mr. Bradley. I thinkthat is going about far enough on a direct examination. Q. How about the v/hiskey ? Did you give them anything to drink ? A. I think Herold called for something to drink. I said two bottles, as well as I remember, but in reality I do not know exactly which bottle he drank out of. I was under the impression that it was the bottle I had filled for him. Q. Did he drink ? A. I suppose he did. The man talked as if he was drunk ; he was drunk, in fact. Q. What became of this bottle of whiskey 1 A. There was no whiskey taken away in a bottle. The bottle of Avhiskey he took out was returned. Q. Will you describe the kind of horses these persons were riding ? A. I only had a casual view of the horses. One of them I took to be a gray horse, and the other a bay. The largest horse was a light-colored horse. I cannot say for a certainty Avhether it was gray, or what color. It looked more like a -yhite horse than a gray. Q. Did you know at that time of the assassination of the President, or had you heard anything of it ? Mr. Bradley. Never mind what he heard at all. ' The District Attorney. When did you first hear of it? That would be evidence. Mr. Bradley. If the court please, I see the drift of the question. He wants to get at what the other man Avho was with Herold said. The Court. He will do that by-and-by, when he gets it in the proper shape for that purpose. Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir; it is very nicely shaped now, but not quite sharp enough. The Court. I have told the district attorney he could not do it in this shape. The District Attorney. I asked the witness if he heard of the assassina- tion of the President at that time, or if he heard it at all. The Court. You can ask the witness if he had up to that time heard of the assassination of the President. The District Attorney. Or heard of it afterwards ; and if so, when ? The Court. No. I do not see how what he learned afterwards could have any bearing upon this examination. If Herold said anything at that time, of course it would be evidence. Mr. PlERRErOiNT. I suppose there cannot be any doubt as to the rule of law that whatever was said to the witness at this time in Herold's presence can be given in evidence, as also the description of the man that he there saw on the horse, as well as his condition ; and that we can prove his name by another witness. The Court. Herold being one of the conspirators, whatever was said in bis presence and his hearing is evidence. If the witness can state that this con- versation took place within ear-shot of Herold, it will be evidence. 284 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURKATT. Mr. Bradley'. Let them first lay the foundation as to whether he was within car-shot. "Witness. I Avill state that at the time this man was speaking to me as to Avhat had been done Herold was across the road. That is, as far as my memory serves me, I think he was. The District Attorney. At the time he was speaking of himself — com- plaining of having something the matter with him — was Herold present, or in such a position that he could hear what he said ? Witness. I believe Herold was present when he told me his leg was broken. Mr. Bradley. Has that anything to do with Herold ? Mr. PlERREPONT. Yes, sir; it has. The Court. The whole conversation, I presume, is evidence. Mr. PlERREPONT. In the presence of Herold he said his leg was broken. What further did he say after saying that 1 The Court. In Herold's presence and hearing. Mr. Bradley. The court will rule whether he can go on and state what passed. The Court. I have ruled that whatever Herold said is evidence, and that whatever the other person said, when Herold was near euougl^ to hear it, is also evidence. By Mr. PlERREPONT: Q. What did he say about his leg being broken, or anything else ? The Court. In Herold's presence and hearing. Witness. He asked me if there were any doctors in that neighborhood. I told him only one that I knevy of, Dr. Hoxton, about a half mile from there, but that he did not practice. He told me so himself. He said he must try and find one somewhere. * Q. Did he say anything about taking any gun ? A. He was opposed to taking any gun; and opposed to Herold taking one. Q. Why ? A. Because his leg was broken. Q. Did he, or Herold, mention his name at that time ? A. No, sir ; there was no name given at all. Q. Did you have a good look at the man 1 A. I Avas Close to him, but did not pay particular attention to hira. He ap- peared to me as if he was drunk. Q. You have never seen him since 1 A. No, sir. Q. What did he say ? A. That is about the substance of what he said. The conversation did not last over five minutes. Q. Did he say anything about Secretary Seward ? Mr. Merrick. The witness has been asked a dozen times to state all that was said in Herold's presence and hearing. Mr. PlERREPONT. I know that. He says he doesn't recollect any more than he has stated, but now I am directing his attention to a particular matter. Mr. Bradley. The witness has just said that when the other conversation took place Herold was across the road; am I right, Mr. Lloyd ? Witness. When the conversation passed as to Avhat was done towards the President, Hertpld was across the road. The Court. Was he or was he not within hearing distance? Witness. He was over at the stable, and he could not have heard from there. The distance was as great as from here (witness stand) to the far end of the wall there, (south wall.) Tke Court. So far that he could not have heard ? \ TRIAL OF JOHN tl SURKATT. 28t) Witness. Yes, sir. Q. Have you beeu examined before on tbi^ subject ? A. Mr. Carringtou examined me. Q. Have you beeu examined before any otber tribunal ? A. I was before the military commission. Q. You were examined there, were you not ? A. Yes, sir. Q. When Herold was there talking with you, what did this man who said his leg was broken say, further than what you have already' stated ? A. I do not remember that he said anything else. He may have done so, but if he did it has escaped my memory, except that portion that I was going to tell awhile ago, but was stopped. Q. You were going to tell something else? A. Yes, sir. I suppose it will come out hereafter. Q. You were going to tell something else that the man with the broken leg said, v/ere you ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the condition of the moon at that time ? A. The moon was up, but it appeared to me as if it had not been up very long. Q. When did you first hear of the assassination 1 Mr. Bradley. If it was during this conversation, I object. Mr. PiERREPONT. If your honor please, this is important and legitimate in many respects. It is important and legitimate in relation to this meeting, and the conversation of these persons. It is important in every light that can possi- bly be conceived of, that the witness shall state when he first heard of the assas- sination. It is important as fixing an event which he saw. It is important as fixing an incident which occurred. I submit that if this man at this time heard from anybody, or from any source, of the assassination, it is evidence proper to be given. Mr. Bradley. We have not a v/ord to say in reply. We leave it with the court to decide. The Court. He can state when he first heard of the assassination of President Lincoln, but he cannot say whether or not the person whom he did not know, and who has not yet been identified as one of the conspirators, told him of it. Mr. PiERREPONT. My question is not that. It is, ''When did you first hear of the assassination ?" Witness. I cannot ansAver that question until this other is settled. Mr. Pierrei'ont. Can't you ? Witness. No, sir. Mr. PiERREPONT. You cannot say whether you heard of it a week after- vrards, the day before, or that night ? A. It might be the second time. 'Sh: PiERREPONT. My (question is not as to the second time. I ask you on yoiu" oath to state when you first heard, of this assassination. Witness. If I answer that question, it v/ill come exactly in contact, in my opinion, with what has already been prohibited by the court. The Court. You can answer when you heard it ; but you cannot say who gave it to you, unless it was given to you by somebody who Avas known as one of the conspirators. Mr. PiERREPONT. I now ask you when you heard it ? Witness. On that ground, then, I cannot answer. (Laughter.) Mr. PiERREPONT. I did not ask you who stated it. I ask you when you first heard it 1 Witness That is the question I am to answer. I cannot answer it. The Court. You must answer that question as to when you first heard- the news of the assassination. / 286 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT Witness. I first heard it that uight. Q. Were they then both before your house ? A. One Avas there. I do not know that both were. Herold, I think, was across at the stable. Q. That is the time you heard it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You think the man with a broken leg was too far from Herold to have Herold hear him ? A. I do. Q. Could he see him ? A. Yes, sir. There v/as nothing intervening between. Q. You were close to the man with a broken le'g ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now tell us what he said about the assassination. Mr. Bradley. Is that evidence? Mr. PfERREPOXT. I submit that what was told the witness, whether he knew the name of his informant or not, is proper evidence in the case. My question is as to what the man with the broken leg on the horse told him. If he told him he committed the assassination, it is evidence beyond all question. The Court. Is there any objection to it ? Mr. Bradley. Certainly, if your honor please, unless it is proved that the man in question was connected with this conspiracy. Mr. PlERREPONT. We have proved Herold to be connected v/ith the con- spiracy. The CoLRT. I do not think anything could draw him in any nearer connection with the conspiracy than a declaration that he committed the act, if he did say so. Mr. PiERREPONT. I should think not. Mr. Bradley. We have nothing to say. *Mr. PiERREPONT. Will you please state what he said and what he did ? Witness. He did not tell me directly Avhat he did himself. The expression he made use of, as well as I remember, was that "he" or " they" had killed the President. I did not understand which it Avas, "he" or "they." Q, Did he say anything about any other man 1 A. Not a Avord. Q. I mean as regards any other person being assassinated 1 A. I am not certain; but I think it is possible that he might liaA'e made use of Secretary ScAA'ard's name. Q. What is your best recollection ? A. I think it AA'as him A\dio spoke of it, but I will not be altogether certain about it. Q. By Avhat familiar or nick-name did you hear Atzerodt called ? A. I never heard him called \'ery familiarly by any name, except on one oc- casion, AA'heu Surratt told me that some ladies had dubbed him " Port Tobacco." Q. It Avas Surratt you heard call him that ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was Herold present then ? A. No, sir.' Q. When the carbines Avere brought in AA-ere they covered ? A. Yes, sir. Q. With Avhat kind of covers ? A. As Avell as I remember they had gray cloth covers on, or gray Avoollon stuff. Q. Did you take the cover off from one ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you see it taken off? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURKATT. 287 A. I saw Heroic! take it oft". Q. Were you attracted by anything peculiar about the gun or the breech of it ? A. It appeared to me that it had something like a spring. I never saw a carbine or that kind of a gun before. Q. You looked at that ? A. That just attracted my attention as he uncovered it iu my presence. [Witness was requested to retire from the stand for a few moments, in order that another witness, in whose custody these various articles were, might be called and the articles produced.] Edwaki) D. Towxsend, major general United States army — residence iu Washington — sworn and. examined. By the Assistant District Attorxey : Q. State your official position, if you please. A. I am assistant adjutant general of the army. Q. Will you please produce a field-glass and a pin placed iu your custody ? A. The glass I hold in my hand ; the pin I have in this paper, (unfolding the same as he spoke.) Q. State from whom you received them both, and when. A. I received these articles as the assistant adjutant general, in charge of the Adjutant General's department, from General Eckert, Assistant Secretary of War, as he was about retiring from office. It was on the 6th of August, 1866. Q. They have been in your possession and custody since that time ? A. The glass was given over, at the request of counsel, to Colonel Conger for two or three days. With that exception they have both been in my possession since that time. I gave the glass to Colonel Conger on the 13th of June. By AJr. PlERREPO.XT : Q. Is this the same glass you gave to him ? A. It is. By Mr. Bradley: Q. Who is Colonel Conger ? A. I do not know who he is. Q. Does he not belong to your corps ? A. No, sir. Q. Is he in the military service ? A. No, sir ; he is not in the army. Q. You received both the glass and the pin at the same time ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know Colonel Conger personally ? A. I know him personally — by sight. Q. You do not know him officially at all ? A. Xo, sir. Q. Did he bring an order for these things ? A. Yes, sir. Q. From whom ? A. The glass was put iu my custody by the Secretary of War, and upon the order of the Secretary of War I intrusted this to Colonel Conger. Three days afterwards the same glass precisely was returned to me, as I know from certain marks upon it. Q. How about the pin ? A. The pin has not been out of my possession. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. Will you please state the date when the field-glass was out of your pos- session and in the hands of Colonel Conger ? 288 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Yes, sir. It was given to him on the 13th of June, 1867, and returned to me on the 17th of June, 18G7. John M. Lloyd — examination resumed. By Mr. PlERRBPONT : Q. See if you see any mark on this field-glass that you ever saw before, (handing witness the glass.) A. (After examining the same.) It is my impression that this is not the kind of a one that I saw. That one was made something like this, but just on top in the centre here was printed, in larger letters than these are, " field- glass." Q. Did you take it and examine it at all ? A. I did take it, and attempt to look through it, but I could not see anything. Q. You could not see through it ? A. No, sir. I do not know what anybody wants such a thing as this for. Q. Was it such a thing as this 1 A. This resembles it very much. It was such a make as th's. It was a double glass. Q. Was it like this ? A. That I cannot say. I did not examine it closely. I can only say that just on top here between these two glasses was printed in yellow letters, " field- glass." Q. Turn that little screw there and tell us what you see then 1 A. (After turning the screw as directed.) I see " marine." Q. Turn it further. A. (Still turning.) I see "theatre," " field," " marine." The other one that I saw had " field-glass" printed just between these two glasses. ,^ Q. Was it printed like that ? A. Ilie letters were larger than these. Q. But the same kind of letters ? A. The letters on the other were yellow. Q. What kind of letters are these ? A. That I can hardly tell. Q. What color I mean ? A. I will leave that to somebody who has a little better eyesight. Q. Was it in a case like that? A. It was in a case something like this, wrapped up in a piece of paper. Q. You state you took the paper off the package, what did you first see? A. My curiosity prompted me to open the cover of it. (The glass was here handed the jury for inspection.) Q. What did you find when you removed the paper covering 1 A. I found an instrument a good deal like this. Q. As to the case 1 A. I found the case I suppose, something similar to this. It was a leather case. Q. You found that first ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then you opened it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Whatever Mrs. Surratt left there of this kind you gave to somebody that night 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you give it to the one with the broken leg, or Herold ? A. I tlnnk Herold took it off. As well as I remember, I did not go outside of the gate until Herold took the things. I think Herold took them out. ' TRIAL OF JOHN H, SURRATT. 289 By Mr. Wilson : Q. Examine those guns that are there, and state if you can identify them. A. This breech is the only thing that attracted my attention. (Witness took the gun in his hand and pointed out to the jury the peculiar feature about it that attracted his attention.) Q. Describe the cartridge-box I A, The cartridge-box, as well as I remember, was a common United States cartridge-box. I think " U. S." was on it. Q. State whether it seemed to have ammunition in it from its weight 1 A. That I did not notice. Q. Who did you give the cartridge-box to ? A. Herold took the things off I think. Q. Have you seen the cartridge-box since you gave it to Herold '? A. No, sir. Mr. Bradley. I do not understand that these things are presented in evi- dence. Mr. PiERREPONT. I do not undei-stand that they are as yet. We shall offer them in evidence shortly. The Court here took a recess for half an hour. AFTERNOON SESSION. Examination of John M. Lloyd continued. By Mr. Pierrecont : Q. When Herold was there getting those guns, did you hear him use the name of Booth ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you hear him use the name of Wilkes ? A. No, sir. Q. Neither one nor the other ? A. No, sir. Cross-examination by Mr. Merrick : Q. Have you ever been examined in relation to this matter befort; ? A. Several times. Q. When were yoa first examined, and by whom ? A. I was first examined at Bryantown, by Colonel Wells. Q. When was that ? A. I disremembcr the date. I think it was on Saturday, a week after the assassination. Q. When were you next examined ? A. I was examined by two different persons at the Carroll prison, or partially examined. Q. Was your first examination before Colonel Wells reduced to writing ? A. I believe it was. Q. Who were the two persons who examined you in prison ? A. 1 did not know either of the names. Judge Olin, 1 have since found out, had an interview with me, and there was a military officer there. Q. Did they come at the same time or at different times ? A. At different times. The military officer was a rather small man. Q. Who was the military officer ? A. I did not know his name, and I do not know whether I found out. I do not know whether his name was given correctl}' to me or not. I think some of the prisoners described him as Colonel Foster. Q. Did you ever see him afterwards ? 290 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. I am not positive about seeing him afterwards. I saw a man at the con- spiracy trial as one of the judges who looked very ranch like him. Q. When were you next examined 1 A. I was next examined before the military commission. Q. Do you know Mr. Bingham ? A. I saw Mr. Bingham there : I am not personally acquainted with him. Q. Have you ever been examined by him except when examined before the military commission 1 A. Not that I know of. Q. Was that examination by Colonel Foster reduced to writing ? A. I think it was taken down. He had a young man there taking it down. Q. Have you testified to-day to the same facts you testified to before the mil- itary commission ? A. I may have been mistaken in some of them. My memory is not sufficient to go back over the whole that has transpired here. Q. At the time of your examination before Colonel Wells, on the Saturday after the assassination, was he accompanied by any number of soldiers ? A. He had soldiers all round there outside, and some inside the place. Q. W^ill you state whether or not, at the time of, or prior to, your examination before Colonel Wells, or at the time of or before your examination before Colonel Foster, any offer of reward was held out to you in regard to your evidence, or any threats used in reference to your testimony ? A. I can only state that Mr. (Nottingham, who had me with him before send- ing me to Bryantown, stated that he wanted me at Bryantown to look after par- ties, and that the government would protect me in my property and support me, and see that I was returned home. Q. W^as that all ? A. That Avas all Avitli him. Q. Was there anything else with any one else ? A. While I was there in Carroll prison, this military officer came there and told me he wanted me to make a statement, as near as I remember. I told him I had made a fuller statement to Colonel Wells than I could possibly do to him under the circumstances, while things were fresh in my memory. His reply was that it was not full enough. Q. What else did he say ? A. He said that it was not full enough, and then commenced questioning me whether I had ever heard any person say that something wonderful or some- thing terrible was going to take place. I told him I had never heard any one say so. Said he, I have seen it in the newspapers. Mr. PlERREPOi\T. I have no objection to this if it is pertinent. Is it perti- nent to examine a witness as to what he said to an officer ? The Court said he thought it was not pertinent; he did not know what the object was, luiless it was to contradict the witness, and if that was the object the proper coiu-se was to ask him if he had not on such an occasion said thus and so. Q. You state that that military officer told you that the statement you had made to Colonel Wells Avas not sufficient ? A. He said, as I remember that it was not full enough. Q. Did he say anything to you in the way of offering a reward, or use any threat towards you, tor the purpose of getting you to make it fuller ? A. When I told him what I had repeated before, that I did not remember any person saying thus and so, he jumps up very quick off his seat, as if very mad, and asked me if I knew what I was guilty of. I told him, under the circum- stances I did not. He said you are guilty as an accessory to a crime the pun- ishment of which is death. With that I went up stairs to ray room. Q. Was anything else said ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURKATT. 291 t A. Nothing more, that I remember, after he made use of that remark. Q. Have you ever said to George AY. Dent, or anybody else, that at the time you were taken, soon after this assassination, they threatened to hang you un- less you would testify in regard to this matter, and that you did testify to save your life ? A. No, sir ; I do not remember. Mr. PiERREPONT. I object to that question, although it has been answered, and ask that the answer may be stricken out. The Court. It may be stricken out. It was not relevant, and the other side is concluded by the answer. Q. "Were there threats used towards you by soldiers at the time of your ex- amination by Colonel Wells ? Mr. PiERREPOXT, I have no doubt as to what the answer will be, but at the same time I object to it. Mr. P. then stated the ground of his objection, that the question was irrelevant to this inquiry, and as other similar questions would be put, he asked for a decision of the court. Mr. Merrick, after argument, suggested that as his colleague (Mr. Brad- ley) was absent for a moment, he desired the decision to be withheld till he, Mr. B.. could be heard, and with the consent of the court proceeded with the ex- amination. Q. I understood you to say you had not examined those carbines until you delivered them that night ? A. No, sir; I do not think I examined them at all, and did not examine them that night. I did not examine them at all, as well as I remember. Q. Did you testify on the occasion of the military commission that you took off the cover from one of them and that the peculiar kind of breech attracted, your attention ? A. No ; I do not think that was ray testimony. I think it was when Her- old took the cover off. Q. You do not think you testified that you took the cover off"? A. I think not ; in fact, I am pretty certain I did not. ilr. Bradley here came into court, and after argument on the objection above made by Mr Pierrepont, the court decided that counsel might cross-examine the witness in reference to whether he had or had not received any promise of reward, or had or had not received any threats, in regard to the testimony to be given by him on this occasion. Mr. Bradley. We do not wish to trespass upon the ruling of the court, but to bring the matter more distinctly for its ruling, we propose to ask the witness this question. Whether he did not state, in substance and effect, that he had been threatened with being hung unless he made oath to a certain written state- ment made out for him to swear to, which written statement contained the sub- stance of the proof given by him in this case. Mr. Pierrepont. I believe he has already answered that question, but we object to it. Mr. Bradley. I will add to the question, and whether he did not also say that he swore to that ftatement to save his life, and whether he has not stated the same in substance and effect within the three months last past ? The Court. Referring back two years ago ? Mr. Bradley. Yes. Mr. l'lERREPO.\T. If the counsel will put the question in reference u» tliis trial, we do not object. Mr. Merrick. Certainly, speaking of this trial. 3Ir. Bradley. I was going to add to the question, whether \u: did not say that he would give very different testimony on this trial. Mr. Pierrepont. That is, you are going to show that he would swear differ- ently from the truth. 292 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUREATT. Mr. Bradley. No, sir ; that he would swear to the truth. I Avish to add to the question whether he did not say that he would have given very different evidence if he had not been put in fear ? The Court. The question is inadmissible in that form. You may put the question as to whether he has had any promise of favor or reward, or any hope of reward held out to him, or any threat made in order to induce him to testify, having reference to this trial. ^Ir. PiERREPONT. That we do not object to. Mr. Bradley. Let me finish my question— and that if it were not for his previous examination he would give different testimony now ? The Court. The question is overruled. The examination must be confined to such threats and promises as were made with reference to testimony to be given upon this occasion. Q. I understood you to say there v/ere certain guns concealed by you> or that you were requested to conceal some guns. Will you state whether it was any uncommon thing to conceal guns in that region of country ? (Question objected to by district attorney. Objection overruled.) A. There was nothing unusual for any one to have shot-guns without conceal- ing them. Q. Were not the military taking possession of fire-arms in that neighbor- hood ■? A. They had been, as I understood. Q. Did I understand you that you expected the house would be searched about that time ? A. I did ; I got information that they were searching houses in that neigh- borhood, and removing all the fire-arms they found. From all I could learn, they had been, previous to that time, searching for fire-arms and taking them. Just at that time I do not know that they did. Q. Do you know what Mrs. Surratt's business down there at that time was ? A. I do not. Q. Did not she go down to see this Mr. Xothe about some money matters 1 A. I do not know, except by hearsay. Q. Who was in the house at the time Mrs. Surratt was there ? A. There were several in the bar-room. Alfred Jarboe stopped there on his return from Atarlboro'. A man by the name of Lusby, Mr. Jenkins, and seve- ral others were there — I do not know who they were. Q. Was there a lady there by the name of Mrs. Offutt ? A. She was there. Q. Who was with Mrs. Surratt when you saw her ? A. Mrs. Surratt was alone when I first saw her ; she met me alone. Q. Whereabouts in the back yard did you meet Mrs. Surratt ? A. Near the wood pile. Q. How far from the door ? A. I suppose fifteen or tv/enty feet, probably. Q. Was it between the quarters and the kitchen ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where was Mrs. Offut at the time ? A. She was in the yard at the time ; she came right out of the door after Mrs. Surratt spoke to me. Q. How far was she from Mrs. Surratt? A. At the time Mrs. Surratt spoke to me I suppose she was fifteen or twenty feet; she was right at the door and Mrs. Surratt v/as out where I was. Q. Was one of Mrs. Offutt's children out there at the time I A. That I do not remember ; I never could remember even who took my horse and buggy. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 293 Q. Did not you see anybody take it? A. I do not remember at all who took it. Q. You say you came up from Marlboro" that day. What had you I)een doing down at Marlboro' ? A. I was summoned there at court to attend a trial. Q, Did I not understand you to state that you had been playing cards and drinking ? A. 1 did, after the court adjourned. Q. When did the court adjourn ? A. I think about three o'clock. Q. Had you not been drinking during the day ; A. I do not think I drank anything of any consequence during the day. Q. Had you drank anything 1 A. I do not think I drank anything until the court adjourned. I knew what effect liquor had on me. Q. What effect ha:^ it ? A. A very singular effect, upon my mind chiefly. It makes me forget a great many things. Q. How much did you drink after the court adjourned ? A. I drank enough to make me drunk. Q. Were you very drunk ? A. I was so drunk ihat when I lay down I felt sick. I could not lie down. Q. Who undressed you that night ? A. I suppose I undressed myself; there was nobody else there to do it. Q. Did not Mrs. Offutt take off your coat 2 A. I believe so ; I do not recollect. Q. At what time did you lie down that night, after Mrs. Offutt took off your coat ? A. That must have been when I first came home; when I threw myself on the lounge. Q. You saw Mrs. Surratt directly when you got home 1 A. Yes ; when I drove up. Q. I understood you to say that she staid there about five minutes ? A. About that long. Q. Can you recollect who took her horse and buggy ? A. I have no recollection. Q. How long after Mrs. Surratt went away did you lie down? A. I lay down before she left. I was lying down on the lounge when Mrs. Surratt came in and asked me to fix the buggy. Q. Did not you take something to drink after she went away that night ? A. I have no doubt I did. Q. Don't you recollect it? A. I am not positive about it. I may have done so. I was drinking very freely. Q. When you get drunk do you jiist lie down and get sober, or do you keep up the spreeing 'i A. I sometimes keep it up several days. Q. Had not you fallen into a bad habit of getting drunk before that 1 A. From the time I took that place, and often previous to that, I was in the habit of taking a good deal of liquor. Q. What kind of a place is it ; a surt of tavern ? A. A hotel or tavern. Q. You had charge of it ; you managed it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you keep liquors in the bar ? A. I did. Q. Then you were a good customer, as well as your friend ? A. Unfortunately for me, I was the best customer. Q. I suppose you had frequently friends coming in from the svrrounding 294 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. « neighborhood to drink, and that you found a plenty of persons to drink with you when you wanted to drink ? A. It was my misfortune, they would always invite me to drink. Q. At what time, the next morning, did you wake up ? * A. I suppose the sun was'up when I got up the next morning. Q. Did you take a drink as soon as you got up ? A. I commenced drinking as soon as I got up. Q. Your mouth felt pretty hot, I reckon ? A. I believe it did. Q. When you first got up did you recollect what passed the night before ? A. I did not charge my mind with what had passed the night before, until the soldiers came. After they came they assured me what had been done. Q. I understood you to state, in reply to questions in chief, something about a conversation, and what had happened; now I want that whole conversation. as well as you can recollect it. Witness. What is that? Mr. Merrick. When these two men came dov/n there that night, Herold and somebody else, what was said ? Witness. You have already got most of that ; about everything, in fact. Q. Did not you testify before the military commission that you were asked by one of them if you did not want to hear the news ? A. Yes. Q. And that you replied you v/ere not particular, or did not v/ant to hear it ? A. I told him he might use his own pleasure about that ; that I did not cart anything about hearing it. Q. And then they told you that the President had been killed, or that - we have killed the President ? " A. "We" or "they," I do not remember which. Q. At vi^hat time did the soldiers get down there ? A. About eight o'clock. I had not been up very long. Q. You say they told you that they had killed the President, but that you never thought much about it until the soldiers came ? A. I thought the man was dri;nk. I paid no attention to it. He talked to me as if he was drunk. Q. Do you recollect when the police officers came oat there? A. I recollect when Clarvoe came. Q. Did you tell Clarvoe that Herold had not been there ? A. I do not recollect distinctly the question Clarvoe put to me. The soldier? had been there before he got there. Q. Why cannot you recollect ; v/ere you drunk I A. I had been drinking that morning, and then I became frightened after the soldiers told me what had been done, I did not know what to do or how to act. Q. Try and recollect what Clarvoe said to you. A. As well as I recollect, he told me there was money enough in this thing to make both of us rich if I would give him any information I possessed. Q. Didn't you tell him then that neither of these men had been there ? A. I may have done so. Q. Don't you recollect that you did do it ? A. I have not the least doubt I did do it. I did not want to be drawn in a.« a witness in the affair at all. 1 knew that Mrs. Surratt's name would be drawn in if anything was said, and I did not v/ant to say anything about it. Q. AVhat did you tell him ? A. I really cannot tell you any more. All these men were coming there that morning, and were applying for information. Q. What did you tell Clarvoe and McDevitt ? A. I think T told them I knew nothing about the circumstances at all. TRIAL OF JOHN li. SURRATT. 295 ♦ Q. What were you doing at the time Mrs. Surratt held this conversation with you in the yard ? A. I had just got out of my buggy, and was bringing in some fish and oysters I hadigot at Marlboro' into the house. Q. She was talking with you as you were Avalking along ? A. Yes ; when she handed me this package. Q. The conversation occurred while you were walking ? A. Pretty much as we were walking. Q. Were you walking towards Mrs. Offutt ] A. I am not certain about that; I was walking to\yards the hoa>e — towards the kitchen door. Q. Was not Mrs. Offutt in that direction ? A. She was when I first saw her. Q. Do you recollect taking up Mrs. OffutL's child '? A. I did not before I got into the house. Q. Do you recollect taking it up in the house ? .A. I do not. Q. You do not recollect ? A. I almost always did when I met it. I do not recollect it that night. Q. Was Mrs. Offutt standing near enough Mrs. Surratt to hear your conver- sation 1 A. I do not know exactly ; she might have been. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt in her conversation say anything about where John was '? A. We had no conversation at all at that time except about the delivery of those things. Q. Had you been drinking when you met Mrs. Suratt at Uuiontown ? A. I had taken, I reckon, probably two or three drinks. Q. Who was with you in your carriage when you met her on Tuesday 1 A. Mrs. Offutt and child, and Walter P. Griffith. Q. I understood you to say that ^Irs. Surratt was in a buggy with Mr. Weichman I A. Yes, sir, I suppose so ; I did not know him at all. Q. You have been asked about that conversation ; were you sitting in your carriage when it took place ? A. No, sir, our carriage had passed. I did not recognize her until she was right opposite. She had passed twenty-five or thirty feet when I saw that she was holding up. I drew up immediately, and got out and went to her, supposing she wanted to see me about business. We had a little unfinished business in regard to the crop on the land. I judged she wanted to see me about that, and I got out to see her. It was then that the conversation occurred. Q. Was the conversation in an ordinary tone ? * A. About as loud as I am talking to you ; not as loud as you are speaking to me. It was in an ordinary tone of voice. Q. Did she say anything in that conversation about John ? A. She did. Q. Did she say where he was ? A. She did not say where he was, but left tlie impression on my mind that he was in Canada. Q. Have not you said that she told you he was in Canada ? A. I think not. Q. You say you delivered these various articles, guns and whiskey, to Herold that night ? A. I did not deliver the whiskey only what he drank out of the bottle ; he returned the bottle. Q. Did he pay you for it ? A. He gave me a dollar, saying at the same time, '•I owe you a couple of 296 TRIAL OF JOHN' H, SURRATT. dollars ; take this." That was all the pay I received on the bill and whiskey together. Q. What time in the night was that ? A. About midnight. Q. Who roused yon up ? A. I think it was probably Herold himself. Q. Hallooing about ? A. Very likely. Q. Did you take a drink before you went down ? A. No ; I do not think I drank anything that night. I was pretty hot and I think I took a drink of water. Q. Didn't you take a drink while they were there 1 A. I think not. Q. I understood you to say that you lay down on the lounge, and that it made you sick. At what time did you go to sleep before you were roused up by these parties coming there ? A. I cannot tell you at Avhat time I retired to bed. Q. At what time do you think it was ? A. That I am luiable to say, because I never charged my memory with it. It was not very late. Q. Were not these men there drinking and playing cards until it was pretty late? A. No, sir. Q. Did nobody play cards that night ? A. No, sir ; it so happened that when I was at Marlboro', that day, playing cards with a young man, I got mad and came pretty near getting into a fuss, and -nhen I saw him there that night I prohibited any card-playing. Q. He was there that night, was he ? A. He was. Q. You were roused at 12 o'clock : you went down outside, and after that the conversation you have stated took place ? A. I went down into the bar-room first, as I remember, after letting Herold into the house. Q. Did he get down from his horse ? A. O, yes ; Herold got down and came into the bar-room. I went behind the bar and set out these bottles of whiskey ; then I went up and brought the carbine down, if it was a cai-bine. Herold in the mean time was out at the front gate, and in going out there I think I met him ; as near as I recollect, I gave him that thing, brought the bottle of whiskey in, and then went out again. Q. Did he ask you for a bottle of whiskey ? A. No ; only for something to drink ; I think that was his remark. Q. Did he ask you for a gun ? A. No ; he mentioned nothing more than to get those things. Q. I understand you that you went to bed tolerably drunk ? A. I do not deny that. Q. And you were i-oused up about 12 o'clock? Do you recollect the exact conversation do you think ? A. That has been my impression all the time. Q. 1 understand you to say, further, that whiskey has a remarkable effect upon your mind, in blurring your recollection 1 A. So it does ; it always did. Q. Is it not your experience that, sometimes, when you have been drinking at night and playing cards, you forget all about the game and how things stood? A. I have no doubt I may have done, if there was nothing specially to attract my attention. There are many instances in which, unless there was TRIAL OF JOHN 11. SURRATT. 297 something positive to attract my attention, I would never remember what oc- curred. Q. How many days before that had you been drunk every day 1 Had you not kept it up for some time before 1 A. Not immediately before ; I was trying to break myself from it. Q. But you could not resist breaking over on this occasion ? A. I do not believe there was anybody else who could resist and keep that place. Q. Did you drink anything on Thursday 1 A. I drank something every day as to that matter. I took a toddy or two every day. Q. Do you remember who was at Surrattsville Thursday night ? A. I do not. Q. Don't you recollect that there was a company of gentlemen in your bar- room that night, drinking ? A. I do not recollect at all. I saAV so many persons coming there so many different days that I could not remember that particular day. Q. Can you recollect where you were on Thursday night ? A. I could not, unless I was at home. Q. Do you recollect whether you went to bed pretty drunk on Thursday night or not ? A. That I cannot tell ; I do not recollect that. Q. I understood you also to say that the moon was shining at 12 o'clock that night ? A. It was. Q. Whereabouts in the heavens was it 1 A. I had not been there long enough to get the location, which was east and which west. Q. You did not know the points of the compass ? A. I did not. Q,. Tell us whereabouts, relative to the location of the house, the moon was shining ? A. As well as I remember, the moon was shining, but I paid very little attention to it at all. Q. I thought you said the moon was not very high above the horizon ? A. That was my impression, from the fact that it was not shining very bright. Q. Was it a clear night 1 A. I do not remember seeing any clouds ; I never took any particular notice of it at all. Q. Do you know whether the moon was shining when you went to bed, or not, in the early part of the night ? A. I do not think it was. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. When you came into court this morning and took an oath upon the book, what was your condition as to being sober or otherwise ? (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley. Tlie witness Avas before the jury, and they could judge as to his condition. Objection sustained by the court, the question not being in reply to anything brought out in cross-examination.) Q. You have been asked in regard to your habit of drunkenness ; about that time, were you drunk every day ? A. I cannot say whether I was drunk every day. I Avas drinking every day. (Question objected to by Mr. Merrick, as relating to a matter brought out by the examination in chief and only replied to in cross-examination. Mr. Pierrepont said that what the witness had stated on that subject was not in response to any question in the examination in chief. 20 298 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT. Objection sustained by the court.) Q. You saj you were drinking every day about this time ? A. I was, and I found the habit was getting too strong for me ? Q. Tou have thought on the subject on which you have testified? (Question objected to by Mr. Merrick, as incompetent. Objection sustained) Q. At the time you came home that day, you say Mrs. Surratt was there? (Question objected to by Mr. Merrick, as rehatiug to a matter already brought out in the examination in chief. Mr. Pierrepont said his object was to find out where Mrs. Oflfutt was, in reference to whom no questions had been asked in the examination in chief. He had never heard about Mrs. Ofiut until her name was mentioned in the cross- examination. The court decided that the examination must be in reply to such distinct matters as had been brought out on cross-examination.) Q. Give us the exact position of Mrs. Surratt when you came home. (Question objected to by Mr. ilerrick, and objection sustained.) Q. Where was Mrs. Offutt when you came home? A. Mrs. OfFutt was in the house when I first drove up, I suppose. She came to the door to come out of the house. Q. Did Mrs. Oifutt speak to you? A. 0, yes ; she always did. Q. "What did she say to you on that occasion ? A. I do not think she spoke to me on that occasion. I do not remembei whether she did or not. Q. At the time you came home, who drove you Lome ? A. 1 think I drove myself. Q. You were nut so drunk you could not drive? A. I could drive if I could sit up at all. Q. Did you get out yourself? A. 0, yes. Q. Did anybody help you out? A. Ko one helped me out. Q, When you went to speak to Mrs. Surratt, did you stagger? A. That I do not recollect. Q. Did you fall down? A. Really, I cannot remember such a thing. Q. Is it your best recollection that you did fall down ? (Question objected to by Mr. Merrick, as not in reply to cross-examination. Objection sustained.) By the Court: Q. You stated that whiskey or liquor would have a very peculiar effect upon you; that when you had been drinking you did not remember things distinctly; do you mean by that that you do not remember, when you are drunk, something that happened before you got drunk, 'or that you cannot recollect what took place while you were drunk after you get sober ? A. I will explain: In case of going before a court to give testimony, or any- thing of that kind, I cannot in justice to myself taste any liquor, without making me possibly say something, or use some expression, that I would not wish to, or oftentimes making me forget things I do not wish to forget. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. And therefore when you go before a court you do not taste liquor ? A. "When I go before a court I do not taste liquor. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURKATT. 299 By Mr. Bradley : Q. Do you mean that you cau recollect distinctly thiugs that pass when you are drunk ? A. There are a great many things 1 could not pretend to recollect when I was drunk ; for instance, you could tell me anything at all when I was drunk, and I would not think of it five minutes afterwards, and would not remember it after- wards at all, unless something occurred at that particular time to draw my atten- tion to it. Q. You have just stated that you could not tell whether you staggered or whether you fell down, Avhile you were going to meet Mrs. Surratt, after you came home ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, in regard to meeting Mrs. Surratt on the next day, what time of the day was it? A. I think, as well as I remember, it was about 11 o'clock in the day ? Q. How far had your carriages passed each other? A. I do not think more than twenty-five or thirty feet. Q. You both pulled up as soon as you could ? A. She pulled up as soon as she recognized me, and I did the same. Q. Was it more than the length of the horse and buggy? A. It may have been twice the length of the horse and buggy ; I do not re- member distinctly. Q. Do you remember which way you passed? A. We passed to the right of each other. Q. Mrs. Offutt and her child were in the carriage with you; what sort of a carriage were you in ? A. In a two-horse caiTiage. Q. With a top to it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who was driving ? A. I was driving myself. Q. Was Mrs. Surratt in a top buggy, with the top down ? A. She was in a top buggy with the top up ; it had been raining. Q. You think the top was up ? A. I am satisfied of that. Q. I want to know whether there was anything different from usual in the tone of her voice on that occasion ; whether there was any secrecy in the manner in which she spoke to you, A. It did not seem so to me ; in fact, the only thing that appeared to me to be out of the way, in connection Avith our conversation, was the manner in which she put the first question. As regards the tone of her voice, it did not seem to me other than ordinary. It may have been a little lower than the ordinary tone. There was nothing like a whisper. Q. Loud enough for Mr. Weichman to hear the conversation ? A. I cannot swear that Mr. Weichman heard her. I told him, when in prison, that he might have been a deaf man for what 1 knew. Q. He was sitting in the buggy, and you were on the outside, standing in front, talking in an ordinary tone of voice ? A. Yes, sir. I was not more than three feet from Mrs. Surratt at any time. Q. Do you recollect having testified anything else that passed between you and Mrs. Surratt ? A. I do not recollect that I did. Q. She said nothing about Mr. Nothe ? A. No, sir; I think not. Q. She said nothing about Captain Gwynn ? A. I do not think she did, or that she made any remark about any business except that and John being away. 300 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUREATT. Q. Do you recollect her saying anything about being near-sigbted, so tbat she did not see you when you were passing? A. No, sir, not at that time. Q. You do not recollect wlien you got into the carriage that you said any- thing about what had passed between you and Mrs. Surratt ? A, I do not. Q. When she was speaking to you in the yard on that Friday was it in an ordinary tone of voice 1 A. It appeared to me so ; it did not appear anything unusual at all. Q You say she gave you that package out in the yard. Where did you take it first? A. I took it first and laid it on the sofa in the back room. Q. Was not that package lying on the sofa in the back room, and did Mrs. Oflfut give it to youl A. I do not know that she did. Q. When you came in was it not wrapped up and lying on the sofa 1 A. I do not remember that it was. Q. You do not remember that Mrs. Ofi'utt gave it to you at all? A. I do not recollect. Q. In your examination in chief I understand you to say tbat Herold went down below your house; that be started alone, and the next morning came back with these carbines? A. The night before Herold started alone ; the next niorning I saw his horse at my front gate. Q. You did not see Herold bring them ? A. I did not. I knew nothing about the carbines or anything of the kind until my attention was called to them in the front room. Q. Herold, if I understand you, went down the night before and the next morning came back, and when you came in you found the carbines in the room, who brought them you do not know ? A. I was invited into the room by John Surratt. Q. You do not know who brought them in ? A. I do not. Q. Do you know where Herold went that night 1 A. He told us in the bar-room thut he was obliged to go to T B that night. It was getting very late when he left. I told him that I had one spare bed which he might occupy if he wished. Q. You did not see him come back with the carbines on his return from T B ? A. I did not. Q. You did not see him with any shot-guns ? A. xSo, sir. Q. What time did he leave your house to go to T B? A. I suppose near 11 o'clock that night. Q. What time did he get back the next day 1 A. The next morning he came back about 8 or 9 o'clock. Q. Do you know where he came from when he came to your house the day before ? A. I do not. Q. You do not know what direction he came from ? A. It was dark when he got there. I do not know from what direction he came. Q. How far is T B from your house ? A. It is called five miles. Q. How far from Port Tobacco? A. I do not know exactly; I am not acquainted with that road. Q. I want, if possible, that you should fix with some degree of certainty the TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 301 date when Hcrold was at your lioixse that night and the next morning brouglit back the guns; fix that as nearly a.s you can. A. If I had my bar-room book I could tell exactly. Q. Where is it ? A. The military authorities took it ; I have never seen it since. Mr. Braolkv (to district attorney.) Have you it in your possession? The Assistant District Attorney. We know nothing about it. Witness. I called on Judge Holt afterward ; he said he knew nothing about it; there were some bills on it I Avanted to make out, but I never got hold of it. Q. Without that bar book cannot you fix by other circumstances within a week of the time? A. I think Mr. Collenbach made out some bills from that book. Q. Who is Mr. Collenbach ? A. A cai-penter, who lived in that neighborhood; he is in the city now. Those bills are now down in that county for collection. If I could get hold of one of those I could ascertain with certainty. Mr. Bradley asked consent to recall the witness to ascertain the date in question if he should obtain one of the bills referred to. The District Attorney assented. Q. Was it as much as two months before the assassination ? A. I do not think it was ; I am satisfied it was not more than six weeks. Q. You say you saw John Surratt again on the 25th of March ? A. That, I think, was the last time 1 saw him. Q. W^as anybody in company with him on the 25tli of March, the last time you saw him ? A. lie came with his mother and another lady in the carriage. Q. Did he stop at your house and return or go on ? A. I think they stopped long enough to get their dinner. Q. Did they separate there or not ? A. His mother remained there, and I think some gentleman came with a buggy and took her back to Washington, or took her away, as well as I remem- ber. Q. Which way did John and the other lady go ? A. I did not see which way they went from the house ; they left there. Q. How Avere they riding? A. They were riding, as well as I remember, in a carriage with two horses. Q. Do you remember the color of the horses ? A. It strikes me they were gray horses. Q. One gray and the other not ? A. It strikes me both were gray. The District Attorney objected to further examination, as the cross- examination had once been finished. The Court said he so understood it, and that counsel for the prosecution had proceeded with their examination in reply. Mr Bradley said he only desired to ascertain, when he stopped at the house of the witness for the last time on the 2oth of March, who was with him. By the District Attorney: Q. Did Mr. Weichman hear this conversation to which you have testified between you and Mrs. Surratt? A. That I am unable to say. As I said befoi-e, Mr. Weichman was an entire stranger to me. As far as I know he may have heard it. Q. She was sitting in a buggy with him ? A. He was sittingalong side of her. Q. Did he take any part in the conversation ? A. Not at all; she was sitting with her head a little forward, towards me. 302 TRIAL OP^ JOHN H. SUERATT. Q. Yoii did not observe that lie took any part ? A. I noticed that his eye was cast towards mine when I looked up after she had made use of the expi-ession. When I looked at him he turned his head. Q. Your recollection of these facts is very distinct ? A. I am satisfied of the facts I state. EvERTOiv J. CoNGKR was swom as a witness for the prosecution, and the court took a recess until to-morrow at 10 o'clock a. m. Tuesday, June 25, 1S67. The court met at 10 o'clock a. m. JoH.x W. Garrett sworn and examined. By the District Attorney : Q. State your residence. A. Caroline county, Virginia. Q. State where you lived in April, 1865. A, I lived at the same place. Q. Did you know John Wilkes Booth ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State when and where you first saw him. A. I saw him at my father's house ; I do not remember the date ; two days, I think, before he was killed there. Q. Was he alone, or was he with some one ? A. He was with some one. Q. Who was he ; do you know ? Witness. Do you wish to know who he was brought there by 1 Mr. Wilson. Yes. A. He was brought there by two men by the name of Jett and Ruggles. Q. State briefly and distinctly when he came there, where he went, and what he did. A. I saw him when he rode up to the house. Q. Do you remember the day of the month ? A. I do not ; I think it was on Wednesday. Q. At what time in the day 1 A. In the afternoon. Q. Was he on horseback ? A. He was. Q. Describe the horse he rode, A. I cannot ; I do not remember the horse ; I was lying down at the time he came ; I heard the dogs barking ; I rose up, looked out, and saw him dis- mounting from the horse ; I do not remember what kind of a horse it was. Q. Who was with him 1 A. Ruggles and Jett. Q. Any one else ? A. No one else. Q. Did you know Herold ? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you see him 1 A. He came the next day. Q. State what Booth did after he came there ? A. I don't know anything in particular that he did. He remained there the first night; he was not there the second night. Q. Did you observe his condition physically, his limbs, &c. ? A. He was very lame. Q. What was the matter ; do you know ? TRIAL OF JOHN IT. SURRATT. 303 A. He said his leg was broken. I did not examine it. Q. He remained at your bouse tbat uiglit ; wbat did be do tbe next day ? A. He remained about the house ; I do not tbiuk be went away at all. Q. How long did be remain in tbe bouse ? A. I don't know ; I was not at home during tbe day. Q. You came borne at night ? A. I saw him at dinner. Q. "Was be there then ? A. He was. Q. How long did he stay there 1 A. He remained until after dinner ; then some cavalry came along, and he left tbe bouse for a short while, and 1 tbiuk returned again. Q. Where did be go ? A. I do not know where ; he could not have gone far, because he came back very shortly. Q. Did you see him leave the bouse ? A. I did not. Q. Did you see him return ? A. I did. Q. Which way did he return ? A. From tbe direction of the woods. Q. Was Ilerold there at tbe time ? A. He was. Q. When did he come ? A. He came in tbe afternoon. Q. Did be go out with Booth 1 A. He did. Q. And came back with him ? A. I don't know whether be did or not. Q. How long did Booth remain the second time he came ? A. I do not know whether he entered the bouse the second time or not ; yes, lie did, and took supper there. Q. What did be do after supper? A. After supper he went to the barn and staid there until the cavalry came. Q. At wbat time was tbat ? A. I do not remember at what time he went ; the usual bod-time I suppose. Q. Who went with him ? A. Herold. Q. State, if you please, what articles Booth brought, and wbat Herold had with him. A. Tbat I do not know. I remember Booth had a pistol or pair ot pistols, a bowie-knife and a field-glass. Q. What did Herold have ? A. I tbiuk he bad a carbine ; I am not certain about that. Q,. How did Herold come ; on horseback or on foot ? A. He came on foot. Q. Examine that glass, (field-glass exhibited,) and see if you ever saw it before. A. I cannot testify that I ever saw this glass ; I have seen one similar to it. Q. Whore? A. At my father's house. Q. State whether the one you saw Booth have was similar to this. A. Similar to this ; yes, sir. Q. Did it have a case? A. Yes, sii". Q. Where did you see it last ? A. I saw it at my father's house, in Booth's possession. 304 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Did he take it witli him to the barn ? A. I don't knoAv ; I suppose not. Q. How long did you have it in the house ? A. I don't know. Q. Did you see it there after Booth was captured ? A. I did not. Q. Describe the carbine Herokl had. A. I could not ; I did not examine it, Q. Did they have any other articles ? A. I think they had -a large shawl. I do not know which had it ; it was in their possession. Q. What became of the horse Booth rode 1 A. The men carried it back. Q. Describe it. A. I do not remember ; I think it was a sorrel. Q. Describe the place where Booth was captured ; how near the house. A. I suppose 150 or 200 yards. It was a large tobacco house. It was as far from the house, perhaps, as from here across the street. Q. Describe the manner in which that house was built. A. It was a laige house, I think about sixty feet square, built with sheds on each end. It was intended for tobacco ; we used to have a good deal of tobacco before the war. Q. Was it close? A. Pretty close. There were spaces left between the boards to air the tobacco. Q. How wide were the spaces ? A. I suppose about four inches apart. Q. State whether the barn was full or empty ; what was in it ? A. There M'^ere a good many farming implements, some hay, and fodder. Q. Examine these carbines, (two carbines exhibited,) and state whether Herold had a weapon like that. A. I did not examine the carbine at all. I only know it had a string on, (selecting one;) I suppose this must have been the one he had. Q. It had a string on like that ? A. I think it had a string on, but do not know. I never examined the car- bine at all. Q. State, if you please, Avhat occurred when the officers came to the house. A. The first intimation I had of them was hearing them at the house. I went directly to the house. Three of them were standing around my father. As soon as I walked up, one of the officers. Colonel Conger, I think they repre- sented him to be, turned to me and asked where I came from. I told him who I was, and asked him who he was in pursuit of. I told him there were two men at the house, and that they were now in the barn ; that if he would go with me I would show him where it was. The three officers left my father directly and went with me to the barn. When we reached the barn one of tliem, I think Colonel Conger, said to me, " There are three rooms here, the tobacco-house and two corn-houses ; if you do not tell me the exact house he is in. your life will pay the forfeit." I told him that, to the best of my knowledge, he was in the tobacco- house ; that he Avent there the night before, and I supposed he was there at that time. Then, after stationing his guard round the house, I think Baker came to me and says, " I want you to go into that barn and demand the surren- der of the arms that man has and bring them out to me. Unless you do it, I will burn your property." I went to the door and Baker unlocked it. I went into the barn ; went up where Booth was lying. I think he was lying when I went in. As soon as I got up to where he was, he raised up. I told him what I was sent in there for. He asked me who the men were. I told him I did not TRIAL OF JOHN 11. SURRATT. 305 know ; I only knew tliey were armed soldiers. He said, " If you don't get out of here I will shoot you; you have betrayed me. Get out of the baru at once." He raised to get his pistol and I went out at once. Q. Where was the carbine l A. I do not know ; I suppose it was in the barn. It was very dark in there ; I could not see anything. Q. At what time was that ? A. I suppose two houi s to day ; I do not know; it was a very dark night. I went out and told one of the officers, Baker I believe, Avhat he had said, and that if he thought proper to burn the barn he could do so, but I would not risk my life farther; that I saw no necessity for burning the barn, if he would wait until daylight he could get him without destroying the property. I was then ordered by him to place some brush against the barn to fire it. Previous to this I had told him what the man inside said: "Young man, I advise you for your own good ; if you do not leave at once I will shoot you." I tlrink then there Avas a conversation between one of the officers outside and Booth inside ; the exact words I do not remember. The officer outside demanded of him to come out. He said, "Who are you? Who am I to surrender to ? Probably I might be taken by my friends." The officer, whoever he was — I think he was Baker — said, " We did not come here to hold any parley with you ; we came to capture you ; and unless you are out of the barn in five minutes, we will fire it." Q. Did he come out 1 A. Not until after the barn was fired. Q. The barn was then fired. What then happened ? A. When the barn was fired the door was unlocked. Baker and mystdf were the first to enter the barn. He went directly to Booth, who was then falling or had fallen. I ran to extinguish the flames. Q. Where Avas he, or had he been standing, before he fell ? A. I do not know ; he was about in the centre of the barn then. Q. Did you see him standing after the baru had been fired ? A. I did not ; I did not look. Q. Did you see who fired the shot that caused him to fall ? A. 1 did not ; he had fallen or was falling when I entered the baru. I was the second to enter. Q. Did you know Booth before be came there ? A. No, sir. Mr. Br.\dlry stated that he had no cross-examination, but desired to have his exception to this testimony noted. EvERTON J. Conger, farmer — resident of Richland county, Ohio — called and examined. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. What was your occupation in 1865, in the month of April ? A. Soldier. Q. Of what regiment and what office did you hold ? A. Lieutenant coloncd first District Columbia cavalry. Q. Will you give to this jury an account of the capture of Booth ; describe your coming to Garrett's house, what time in the day or night it was, and who was with you ? A. We got to Garrett's house about 12 or 1 o'clock of the night of the .25th and 26th of April; Byron Baker, First Lieutenant Dougherty, and twenty-five or twenty-six cavalrymen, belonging, I believe, to the sixteenth New York cavalry were with us ; also a man by the name of Rollins, who lived at Port Conway, and a young man by the name of Jett, who when I found him was at Bowling Green. Q. What was he with you for ? 306 TRIAL OF JOHN IT. SURRATT. A. To sLow us where Garrett lived. Q. Who else was with you ? A. I think that was all. Q. "Was there not a sergeant with j'ou ? A. When I say soldiers I mean sergeants, corporals, and men sufficient to make up the number. Q. Was there not a man by the name of Corbett ? A. Boston Corbett ; yes, sir. ^ Q. What •was his office ? A. He Avas a sergeant, I believe. Q. Who commanded those soldiers ? A. I did. Q. What did you do when Jett conducted you to the house 1 A. Wt nt to the house and put soldiers around it, and about the barn. Then went inside the house to see where Booth and Herold were. Q. Did you learn ? A Yes, sir. Q. Who told you ? A. I think his name was John H. Garrett , this young man who has just been sworn. Q. Then you went to the barn, or tobacco house ; what then did you. do ? A. I took soldiers from the house and stationed them around this place and set fire to it. Q. That was not the first thing you did ; describe all you did in the order in which it was done. After you stationed soldiers around it, what was the first thing you did 1 Did you look in and make any demand ] and if so, what ? A. No, sir ; Baker, who was with me, did the talkin^-, Q. Tell us what was done by you and your men. 1 want to get before the jury the occurrences in their order, exactly as they occurred. A. In coming to the house the men were on horseback ; when we got to the barn, in order to make it more secure, they were dismounted, a few at a time, and the horses sent away to the rear. The men were stationed around the barn, about thirty feet from it, on three sides. On the front side no men were sta- tioned — the side the door was. The conversation which was held with those in the barn was done by Baker. It was in the first place commenced by him while I was putting the men on guard around the barn, and afterwards con- ducted by him. I did not think it necessary to change it. Q. Did you hear it ? A. I heard it and directed it principally. Q. Relate it. A. He said to these men in the barn : " AVe are going to send this young man, on whose place you are found, to take your arms and ask you to surrender." Garrett went into the barn to ask them to come out in order to save the barn from being burnt. They refused to do it, and I believe told him to go out. Q. Did you hear what he said ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you hear them threaten to shoot him ? A. No, sir; I did not hear any conversation that occurred between Garrett and Booth. Q. Tell what you did hear, and what you then did. A. I heard Baker say to him, " If you don't come out we will set the barn on fire and burn you out." He asked for a few minutes to consider the matter. Q. Did you give him a few minutes ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you look in yourself ? A. No, sir ; it was dark. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 307 Q. "What did you do after waiting a few minutes ? A. I told Garrett to pile come brush against the corner of the barn, to make an impression that it was to be set on fire. Q. Did he pile up the brush ? A. He did ; yes, sir. Q. What did Booth say to that ? A. Garrett told me that Booth came to the corner of the barn and told him if he valued his life to go away from there; that if he did not he would shoot him, or something of that kind. Q. Did he go away ? A. Yes, sir ; I told him he need not put any more stuff there. Q. That did not have the effect to bring him out? A. No, sir. Q. What next in order did you do ? A. Booth said he was a lame man, a cripple ; that if we would take fifty men and draw them back one hundred yards, he would come out and fight us all. He wanted that we should give him fair play. Baker said we did not come there to have a fight ; we simply came there to make them prisoners, and as such we expected to take them, dead or alive. Booth said, " There is one man in here who wants to surrender pretty bad." Baker told him to hand out his arms and come out. He came to the door and I think said, "Let me out." Baker told him to hand out his arms. He said he did not have any. Baker said, " You carried the carbine ; pass it to us." Booth said, " This man has no arms ; this carbine is mine ; I have got it." I said to Baker not to make any more talk about the arms, but to get one man out. He opened the door ; Herold put his bauds out, and Baker took him outside the door. I went around the back side of the barn, made a little rope of straw, set it on fire, and thrust it inside ou top of of a little pile of straw lying in the corner, Avhich set it on fire. Q. After it was lighted, could you see Booth very plainly? A. Yes, sir ; when it first lighted up Booth stood about the centre of the barn. As soon as the light attracted his attention he turned round, and came up to the corner where the light was. Q. What had he in his hand ? A. A carbine. Q. This carbine here in court ? A. I think that is it. Q. Do you know whether it is or not ? A. Yes, sii', (after examination;) that is it. Q. In what position did he hold it ? A. In the position a man would naturally hold it if he was looking for any- thing to shoot. Q. Describe the position to the jury. A. Something like this, (exhibiting position to jury.) Q. What did he do ? A. He went across the barn, pretty close to the corner, and ran his eye up and down the cracks of the barn to see who made the fire. The light being between him and the outside of the barn, he could not see outside. Q. You could see him plainly. A. Very plainly. He then turned his eye on the fire, to see, as I thought, whether he could put it out. He satisfied himself by a glance at it that he could not. It had burned very rapidly, so that the blaze then extended two-thirds to the top of the barn, on the inside. He dropped his carbine and his arms, his countenance changed, and he turned and walked away. As soon as he left the corner of the barn which had been set on fire, he came towards the front door. The front door was nearer to the position where I stood by one side than the other, but the ground about the other was smoother ; and, in order to go quick 308 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. in the dark, I went around that way. When about opposite the middle of the barn I heard the report of a pistol or of fire-arms — something I judged to be a pistol. I supposed he had shot himself. I went around to the front door, and found it open. Baker had gone in, and when I went to him stood partly bent down, looking at Booth, who lay on the floor, to all appearance dead. I stooped over, looked down at him, and said he had shot himself. Baker said, " No, he did not." Said I, "Where is he shot?" He said he thought in the neck. I reached down and raised up his head, and saw a wound in the neck bleeding. He had the appearance of a man who had put a pistol to his head and shot himself, shooting a little too low; and I said again, " He shot himself" Baker said, " No, he did not." He spoke very positive about it. I thought it a little strange, rather, as if he doiibted my word when he said so. However, we carried him out on the grass. When he got out on the grass he began to show signs of coming to life. We had water put in his face and mouth. He made an effort to speak, but was only partially intelligible. I put my head down to his mouth, and understood him to say, " Tell my mother I died for my country." I repeated it over again, and asked him if that is what he said. He replied, or rather indicated, " Yes." From there he was carried to the front porch of Gar- rett's house, and laid there on a straw tick or bed, I think. I think he said, while he was there, tell his mother he did what he thought was for the best. He wanted to be turned over on his face once, and had a sensation, as I sup- posed, of choking. He appeared to gasp, and want to get something out of his throat. He saw Jett standing a little way off, on the ground, and said to me, "Did that man betray me?" I said, "We have taken him prisoner." Q. What is Jetl's first name ? A. Willie. I think he was shot very nearly at three o'clock, and died a quarter past seven. He was only rational about forty minutes, or three-quarters of an hour, or such a matter, though he lived some time afterwards. Q. Will you state what articles you took from him ? A. This is the carbine he had. He had two pistols ; I think they were Wheeler & Wilson's ; two revolvers ; my impression is they were seven-shoot- ing pistols, of some kind, of about six-inch barrel. He had a large bowie- knife, or hunting-knife, and sheath. Q. Do you kn(ny whose make that was ? A. No, sir ; the knife has a name on it, but I do not know what it is. He had a diary, some bills of exchange on some bank in Canada, and a compass. Q. What sort of a compass ? A. A little box compass, like a miniature case, covered with leather, shutting with a hinge. Q. What kind of a diary ? A. An ordinary pocket-diary, six inches long, perhaps, and two or three inches wide, with a memorandum inside of it. Q. Do you know for what year the diary was ? A. 1864. Q. Can you describe whether there were any leaves cut out or whether they were all in 1 A. There were some out. Q. Describe, if you can, how they were cut out. A. They were cut out with a knife, and cut at different times, I should say. Q. Were they cut straight or crooked ? A. They were cut very nearly straight down, but one cut was across another, so that the stubs didn't match. Q. In cutting were they cut straight by a rule or jaggedly and slantingly cut 1 A. Some straight and some slanting — not by a rule, but as straight as a man would ordinarily cut with a knife. TRIAL OF JOHN If. SURRATT. 309 Q. Cut at different times 1 A, There were only three or four stubs, perhaps, left, that had been cut at the same time. They may have been cut all at onc((, but by different cuts. Q. State whether there was in this diary of 1864 any writing at the time ? A. Yes, sir, Q. Have you seen the diary lately ? A. I have. Q. Can you state when you last saw it, or about when ? A. I cannot say exactly ; it was when I was before the Judiciary Committee, about five or six weeks ago. Q. State whether when you saw the diary it was in the same condition it was when Booth had it. A. It was. Q. Would you know the diary if you were to see it ? A. I should. Q. Describe the carbine. A. It was an ordinary Spencer carbine — a seven-shooter. Q. What other articles ? A. He had some pine shavings, some daguerreotypes, some tobacco, a little Catholic medal, and a pin. Q. What sort of a pin ? A. A stone set in jet and gold. Q. Any name on it ? A. Dan Bryant to J. W. Booth. It was a small-sized brilliant. Q. Was it a diamond or a crystal ? A. I should say it was a crystal. Q. Was it single or more than one stone ? A. I should say it was only one stone. Q. Do you know what the lone-star badge is 1 A. No, sir ; 1 do not. Q. Would you know the pin if you were to see it ? A. I would, I think ; yes, sir. Q. Did anything occur to the pin while in your possession ? A. Yes, sir ; it was bent in the shank. I sat on it. Q. How did you sit on it 1 A. Just simply sat on it. Q. You did not sit straight on the pin, did you 1 Please describe to the jury how you sat upon it. A. It was loose in my pocket, or with some other articles there. It was a scarf pin, and I suppose three inches long. It was straight when I got it, but Avhen I looked at it, it was bent, and I suppose I did it by sitting on the pack- age. Q. Please examine the field-glass shown you and see if it is the same field- glass 1 A. I do not know ; I never saw it \intil I went to the War Department to get it. Q. You did not take the field-glass from the house ? A. No. Q. Do you know who did ] A. Byron Baker, as he is called. L. B. Baker is his name. (The pin referred to was exhibited and identified by witness. The diary was also exhibited and identified.) Q. Just examine it now and say for what year it is, and whether lca^e3 bare been cut from it. A. It is for 1SG4, and leaves have been cut out. 310 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. State whether the diary is in the same condition now it was when you first saw it ? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Pierrepont read from a copy oiP entries in the diary ; Mr. Merrick having the original and comparing as he read. The entries read are as follows : " Te amor April 13, 14, Friday, the Ides. Until to-day nothing was ever thought of sacrificing to our country's wrongs. For six months we had worked to captui'e. But our cause being almost lost, something decisive and great must be done. But its failure was owing to others who did not strike for their country with a heart. I struck boldly, and not as the papers say. I walked with a firm step through a thou- sand of his friends ; was stopped, but pushed on. A colonel was at his side. I shouted Sic semper before I tired. In jumping broke my leg. I passed all his pickets. Rode sixty miles that night, with the bone of my leg tearing the flesh at every jump. I can never repent it, though we hated to kill. Our country owed all our troubles to him, and God simply made me the instrument of his punishment. The country is not April, 1865, what it was. This forced union is not what I have loved. I care not what becomes of me. I have no desire to out-live my country. This night (before the deed) I wrote a long article and left it for one of the editors of the National Intelligencer, in which I fully set forth our reasons for our proceedings. He or the gov'r Friday, 21. After being hunted like a dog through swamps, woods, and last night being chased by gunboats till I was forced to return wet, cold, and starving, with every man's hand against me, I am here in despair. And why? I'or doing what Brutus was honored for — what made Tell a hero. And yet I, for strik- ing down a greater tyrant than they ever knew, am looked upon as a common cut-throat. My action was purer than either of theirs. One hoped to be great. The other had not only his country's, but his own wrongs to avenge. I hoped for no gain. I knew no private wrong. I struck for my country and that alone. A conntry that groaned beneatJi this tyranny, and prayed for this end, and yet now behold the cold hand they extend to me. God cannot pardon me if I have done wrong. Yet I cannot see my wrong, except in serving a degenerate people. The little, the very little, I left behind to clear my name, the government Avill not allow to be printed. So ends all. For my country I have given up all that makes life sweet and holy, brought misery upon my family, and am sure there is no pardon in the Heaven for me, since man condemns me so. I have only heard of what has been done, (except what I did myself,) and it tills me with horror. God, try and forgive me, and bless my mother. To-night I will once more try the river with the intent to cross. Though I have a greater desire and almost a mind to return to Washington, and in a measure clear my name — which I feel I can do. I do not repeut the blow I struck. I may before my God, but not to man. I think I have done well. Though I am abandoned, with the curse of Cain upon me, when, if the world knew my heart, that one blow would have made me great, though I did desire no greatness. To-night I try to escape these blood-hounds once more. Who, who can read his fate '{ God's will be done. I have too great a soul to die like a criminal. 0, may He, may He spare me that, and let me die bravely. TRIAL OF JOHN 11. SURRATT. 311 I bless the entire ■world. Have never hated or wronged any one. This last was not a wrong, unless God deems it so, and it's with Him to damn or bless me. And for this brave boy with me, who often prays (yes, before and since) with a true and sincere heart — was it crime in him ? If so, why can he pray tlie same? I do not wish to shed a drop of blood, but " I must fight the course." 'Tis all that's left me. (A sheet, seeming to have been cut from the diary and writttn over with pencil, handed to witness.) Q. Do you remember whether this letter was in the book ? A. I do not know about that. Q. Do you know auythiug about these letters written on the leaves of the diary 1 A. No, sir. (A bowie-knife and sheath and a compass were shown to witness, and identi fied by him as having been taken from the body of Booth. A piece of map was also identified by witness as having been taken from Horold. The diary and piu were submitted to the jury and examined by the jurors respectively.) Cross-examination by Mr. Bradlrv: Q. On the trial before the military commission, to which you have referred once or twice, were you interrogated as to all the articles taken from Booth 1 A. No, sir. Q. Were you not then asked Avhat things were found upon him 1 A. I think I was shown things, and asked to say whether they were found there, but I am not certain about it. Q. You were not asked, then, upon that trial, whether these things shown to you were all the articles found upon his body ? A. I think not. Q. Can you tell whether you spoke of the diary found upon him at that time, or not ? A. I have no recollection of it. Q. Do you mean that you have no recollection of having spoken of it, or of whether you did or not 1 A. I do not know whether I did or not. Q. To whom did you give that diary with the other articles 1 A. To the Secretary of "War, Mr. Stanton. Q. Is your recollection distinct upon that point? A. I gave him all the things I brought up. Q. And among them that diary ? A. And among them that diaiy. Q. And on trial before the military commission nothing was said of that diary i A. Nothing that I recollect. I am unable to state certainly upon that point. Q. Do you recollect whether you examined the diary carefully before you gave it to Mr. Stanton ? A. Yes, sir; I examined it carefully on the steamer coming up the Potomac river. Q. And you are now under the impression it is in the same condition it was then ? A. I am. Q. I wish you to look at the margins of the cut leaves of the diary, and say whether or not there are several leaves cut out at a later period than others ; whether the last cutting does not appear much more recent than the other ] A. I cannot say that it does. Q. Did you count the leaves that had been cut out ? A. No, sir. 312 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Did you make any memoranda at the time as to the condition of the diary when 30U received it ? A. No, sir, Q. How long did you have it in your possession 1 A. From about G o'clock in the morning till about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Q. Did you then deliver it to the Secretary of War? A. Yes, sir, Q. When did you see it again ? A, I think I never saw it again until I was subpoenaed here before the Judi- ciary Committee. Q. Will you turn to your memorandum, and see when you were before the Judiciary Committee ? A. I do not know certainly that I can tell. Q. Did you go back home 1 A. No, sir. Q. Have you been here ever since ? A. I have been here ever since. I got into the city on Sunday morning, and was examined on Tuesday morning. I think it is six weeks yesterday since I came to the city ; I am not certain ; I have no data that show when I left home, or the date I arrived here. Q. Has there been any other examination in reference to this diary since you came here 1 A. Yes, sir, I have seen it at Judge Holt's office. Q. When was that ? A. About the 16th of this month. Q. Who were present at that time 1 A. An officer who belongs to the Judge Advocate General's office; I think Colonel Barr is his name. Q. Any one else 1 A. I think not. Q. The diary was produced 1 A, Yes, sir. Q. Did you examine it carefully ? A. Not very; I had examined it very carefully before the Judiciary Com- mittee, both in Judge Holt's possession, and before the committee. I was asked there to read it over and examine it carefully. I did so twice, Q. Did you examine it prior to going before the Judiciary Committee ? A. Yes, sir, Q. Did you take that diary from Booth, or did somebody else take it and hand it to you ? A. I think I took it. Q. Was that at the house or barn 1 A. It was at the house. Q. Have you stated, as well as you can recollect, all that Booth said on that occasion ? A. I think he asked for water, and that he wanted to be turned over on his face. I think he said something about his throat being stopped up. I asked him to put out his tongue, I did not know but he might be bleeding inside He did so, and I told him there was no blood there. Q. Do you recollect Booth's saying Herold had nothing to do with it ? A. No, sir. Q On your examination before the military commission, when you stated that Booth said "here's a man Avho wants to come out," did you state "I think he added : ' and who had nothing to do with it ' " ? A. I think I said on the trial before the military commission that such a thing might have been said. I recollect hearing afterwards that it was said. TRIAL OF JOHN IL SURRATT. 313 Q. You do not remember, then, Avheu Booth Baid Herold wanted to get out, that he added, "and who had nothing to do with it] " A. I do not remember what I said, Q. How do you identify the various articles in reference to which you have testified — for instance, that carbine? Are there not thousands like it in use in the army 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you not have very much the same carbines in tlie hands of the men of your command ? A. No, sir ; we had the Heniy rifle in our regiment. Q. They were repeating shooters, were they not ? A. Yes, sir. Q. But carbines like these were in common use in the army ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What would you call this carbine ? A. A Spencer. Q, I think you said there was a mark on it that you put on ? A. There is a saddle mark on the breech. Q. Did you put that there ? A. No, sir. Q. I ask you if it is not a very common thing for a carbine carried in the sad- dle to receive the marks of the saddle ? A. They are very often rubbed — yes, sir; but I took this mark to identify it by instead of putting another on. Q. That mark attracted your attention, and you identify it by that ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you recollect whether the mark was apparently made artificially, or whether it was apparently made by the saddle ? A. I should say it was an accidental mark made in ordinary wear; but I do not know. Q. Can you describe it ? A. It is a mark that looks as if it might have been made by rubbing down against a hard portion of the saddle in one place, then rubbed in another, until the two, three, or four places are united together. Q. These carbines are carried suspended from the shoulder, are they not ? A; They are usually carried suspended by shoulder straps, or a sling. Q. Did I understand you to say this carbine had this strap on when you took it? A. I do not know whether I said so. It had some kind of a strap. Q. Had it this strap on it 1 A. I do not know whether it is the same one or not. Q Now what is there by which you identify this compass 1 A. The tallow or candle grease inside it, and the shape of the box. Q. How do you identify the knife? A. The knife has a spoi of rust on it, about two-thirds the way from the hilt to the point, right where the bevel of the knife commences at the end. It was said to be blood, but I never thought it was myself. It is the same shape and style of knife. Q. Have you not seen other knives like it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you not seen a great many like it ? A. No, sir; only a few. Q. You put no mark on it ? A. No. I have no means of identifying it except by the description I have given. Q. You did not look at the name of the maker ? A. I do not know that the name of the maker is on it. I have looked 21 314 TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. at it since and noticed the words "Rio Grande camp-knife" on it. I have no means of identifying it except what I have stated, and my general recollection of the style of the knife. Q. Wbat became of the horse Booth rode ? A. I do not know anything about it. Q, You did not see his horse at all 1 A. He had no horse that I know of when I found him. I ueard of none. Q. You did not hear him say anything about it 1 A. No, sir. Q. Yoii did not hear him speak of having killed his horse 1 A. Nothing. Q. You say you had certain articles placed before you on the trial before the military commission for identification — you had the knife, pair of pistols, belt, holster, file, pocket compass, spur, carbine, cartridges, and bills of exchange shown you ? A. I think so. Q. But not the diary ? A. I have no recollection of seeing it, or of having anything said to me about it. Q. Before your examination, when you were called on to ascertain what you knew, was anything said about it ? A. Nobody ever said anything to me about it. Q. Nobody ever said anything to you about the diary after you gave it to Mr. Stanton 1 A. Not a word. By Mr, Pierrepont: Q. What do you know about that carbine being loaded 1 A. It had seven cartridges in the chambers, and one in the barrel. I took them out in the presence of Mr. Stanton. By Mr. Merrick: Q. Did you deliver all these articles over to the Secretary of War ? A. No, sir. I only delivered such as were shown with the diary. The others came up on the boat with the soldiers, and in their charge. Q. What did you deliver personally? A. The diary and those things that were shown with it. Q. The papers that were in the diary ? A. Yes, sir ; with this little piece of a map, shavings, compass, and pin. The carbine, pistols, and knife came with the soldiers. Q. I understood you to say that this diary came into your possession about six o'clock in the morning; at what time was Booth shot ? A. I think it Avas a quarter past three, or a quarter of four. I don't know precisely. Q. When were these articles taken from his person ? A. About seven, or a few minutes before. Q. Who took them from his person ? A. I took most of them, I think. I am not certain about that. Q. Do you knoAV who took the diary from his person ? A. I think I did. Q. Who came up on the boat with you ? A. Not any one. The court here took a recess for half an hour. AFTERNOON SESSION. William E. Wheeler — residence, Chicopee, Massachusetts — sworn and ex- amined. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 315 By the District Attorney : Q. What is your occupation 1 A. I am in the livery bu^^iiiess at present. Q. State if yon knew J. Wilkes Booth, the actor. A. I was not personally acquainted with him. Q. Did you know him by sight ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State when yon saw him. A. I saw him on the stage in Springfield, Massachusetts, ])laying. That was the first time 1 ever saw him. Afterwards I saw him in Montreal, Q. When was that? A. That was sometime in October or November, 1864. Q. Did you see him after that, and previous to the assassination of the Pres- ident ? A. No, sir, Q. That is the last time you saw him 1 A, I never saw him but once in Montreal. Q. Will you state when, as near as you can recollect, in what part of the city, and in what company you saw him ? A. I cannot tell the date. 1 saw him come across the street from a broker's office, or near a broker's office, to the St. Lawrence Hotel, in company with another man; who the man was, at that time I did not know. Q. Did you ever speak to that other man afterwards ? A. No, sir. Q. He was not pointed out to you at that time Mr. Braulkv. Never mind ; that would not be evidence. Q. Did you ever learn the name of this person ? Mr. Merrick. Stop; that is nor a proper question. The Court. The witness must only state what he knows of his own know!-- edge. Q. Was that the only time you ever saw Booth ? A. That is all I can say about him, unless I can speak of the man being pointed out to me. Q. Will you describe the person in whose compmy you saw him at that time T A. He was a large man, thick-set, with a flushed, red face. Q. What was the color of his hair ] A. I cannot remember as to that. It was rather dark, I think. Q. Did you ever see that man afterwards ? A, I did, or one that I took to be the same man. Q. Where did you see him ? A. Walking on the street one evening; he was pointed out to me, and his name Mr. jMerriciv. No matter what his name was. Q. You never spoke to him i' A. No, sir. By Mr. Bradley: Q. You can say whether it was or not this gentleman (the prisoner) sitting by me ? A. I never saw him, until yesterday, in my life. Luther Byron Baker — residence, Lansingr, Michi":an — sworn ■and examined : By the District Attorney: Q. What is your present occupation 1 A. Farming. Q. State how you were employed in the year 1865, and previous thereto ? A. 1 was employed by General Baker, provost marshalof the War Department. 316 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. In what capacity ? A. As a detective. Q. Had you been in the army 1 and if so, in what capacity ? A. I had been quartermaster of the first District of Columbia cavahy. Q. Will you state if you were one of the parties who went in pursuit of Booth, after the assassination of the President ? A. I was. Q. Wdl you be kind enough to state to the jury, in your own way, all that occurred from the time you left the city in pursuit of Booth until his capture. Eirst state under whose command you were. A. I was under the command of General Baker. The District Attorney. Go on and state now the whole history. WiTNKSS. Will it be necessary to commence from my first search? I went on three distinct trips. Mr. Pierrepont. No, sir; commence and state the particulars connected with the trip which resulted in the capture of Booth. The District Attorney. That will be sufficient — to state all that occurred during that trip. Colonel Conger, I believe, had command of the party. Mr. Bradley. Never mind about that, Mr. Carrington. Witness. The date that I left Washington has now escaped my mind ; but I will state that I left Washington under the orders of General Baker, in com- pany with Colonel Conger, Lieutenant Doherty, and twenty or twenty-five soldiers detailed for the purpose. I received my orders from General Baker. We were to go to Belle Plain with this command and search for Booth and Herold, as he was satisfied they had crossed the Potomac at or near Mathias Point. I obtained transportation for our command to Belle Plain. We arrived there about 10 o'clock the same evening, disembarked, and went upon the bluff. From that time Colonel Conger took the lead, as he stated he was acquainted with the country, and knew the direction that we wished to take. Colonel Conger and myself, under assiamed names, went in advance of the command, per- haps, from a half mile to a mile in advance — making calls, inquiring the way, and assuming that we had been separated from a party with which we had crossed the Potomac and were pursued by the Yankees, and wished to find the i-emainder of our party. We retained these characters until daylight, and made, perhaps, fifteen or twenty calls during the night, the command following at a convenient distance, and we communicating with them through some orderlies, who wei-e with us, or kept within reach. At daylight we threw off these chaiacters and partook of some refreshments at Dr. Ash ton's, I think, who lived near the Bappahannock river. Our party then separated, Colonel Conger and myself taking six or eight soldiers with us. Lieutenant Doherty taking the remainder with him. He, I think, went to the right, down the Potomac, and we went down the Rappahannock river. The party with which I was, reached Port Conway before Lieutenant Doherty's party, but they soon came up. This was about 3 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon. We went into the yard of a gentle- man by the name of Turner, and took some refreshments, while the soldiers and horses were resting. Leaving Colonel Conger in the hall, I went to the ferry, at Port Conway, telling Colonel Conger that I would go and ascertain if 1 could get any information there, and Avould cross the river if necessary. I went im- mediately to the ferry. The first man that I came across was a colored man. I did not succeed in getting any information from him, and turned to the right and saw a man and his wife sitting by their door. Their house was perhaps four or five rods from the ferry. 1 went with them and asked them if they had seen within a day or two any citizens passing that way ; finally I asked them if they had seen a lame man. They said they had ; and from their description, I concluded it must have beeji Bootli and Herold. I then took a likeness of Booth from my pocket, and asked this fisherman (Rollins Avas hia name) if that TRIAL OF JOHN IT. SURRATT. 317 picture rosoinWod tlip lame man? He said it did, oxcopt the mnu?tache, which the lame man did not have. I th?n took llerold's picture from my pocket, showed it to him, and he said he thoiiad, which seemed to have been melted, and a little wad. While I was there I ascertained from a small boy, who belonged to the place o 22 TRIAL OF JOHN H. 8URRATT. Mr. Bradley. Stop. The District Attorney. Don't state what tlie boy said. Just state what you did after having this conversation with the boy. Witness. I then asked Mr. Garrett if he had iu his possession a field-glass which Booth brought there. Mr. Bradley. Don't state what he answered. Mr. PiERRtPONT. Just state what you did after the conversation with Mr. Garrett. Witness. During a conversation with him I ascertained The Court. Don't state what you ascertained from this conversation. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. You asceitained something that led you to do what? A. To go iu search of the glass. Q. Did you find it 1 A. Mr. Garrett and myself found it about nine miles from Garrett's place. Q. Was it the same Mr. Garrett who was on the stand here 1 A. Yes, sir. It was secreted in a chamber, in a clothes cliest. I took it and brought it to Washington. General Baker and I took it to the War Department, and there it was left. Q. And this is the same glass ? A. This is the glass, as far as my judgment goes. Cross-examination : By Mr. Bradley : Q. Is there any mark on that glass by which you identify it ? A. Yes, sir. Q, What is it? A. This thumb-screw and the label on it, I noticed as being peculiar. Q. You never saw one before ? A. No, sir ; I never saw one like it before. JMr. Pierrepont. Just show that to the jury ; I want them to see it. Mr. Bradley. Never mind. You will have to bring it nearer to the party than that to make it evidence. There is nothing whatever to connect it with these parties. The Assistant District Attorney. We think there is. Mr. Pierrepont. In our view it is evidence enough to go to the jury. Mr. Bradley. The witness is now under my cross-examination; when I am through you can take him. Q. You never saw one before like it ? . A. No, sir. Q. Nor since ? A. No, sir. Q. At whose house did you find it ? A. I do not remember the name of the farmer, but about nine miles from the Gan-ett place. I think they were relatives of the Garretts. Q. Was it in the river or not ? A. It was not. Q. In what direction ? A. In the direction of Fredericksburg, rather up the river. Q. On the main road from Port Royal to Fredericksburg ? A. No, sir; no main travel on that road. Q. Are y(;u quite sure Colonel Conger did not take that glass from Booth ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you enumerate what articles Conger did take from him 1 A. He took the diary, his compass, I think, a pocket knife, so m e matcbe TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 323 and shavings. I took some of these articles from him. Wc were both at work over him getting the things out of his pockets, as he was not dead. One hehl him up, and the other took the things from his back coat-pocket. Q. Is what jou have stated all that you recollect having taken from his per- son ? A. All except his arms. Q. I mean that Colonel Conger took from him ? A. That is all 1 recollect. Q. What became of the pocket knife ? A. I have no means of knowing. The things were taken by Colonel Conger immediately to the War Department. I am not positive in regard to the pocket knife. It is an impression I have. Q. Do you recollect whether Booth said more than what you have stated to us 1 A. I think he did, in the barn before he was shot. Q. After he was shot ? A. I do not recollect anything more than what I have stated. Q. Where were you during the " conspiracy trials," as they are called 1 A. I was in this city. Q. Were you called as a witness ] A. I was not. Q. Were you examined beforehand by any person connected with it ? A. I was not. Q. Were you inquired of as to what you knew about it ? A. I had given my testimony to Judge llolt on board of the gun-boat on which Booth's body was placed when it reached the city. Q. Do you recollect stating in substance at that time, or at any other time, in addition to what you have stated here, that Booth said that the plan had been conceived by him ; that no other person was in it but himself and one more, or words to that eff( ct ? A. No, sir; I am positive I never made that statement to anybody. Q. Do you know a lady in this city by the name of Mrs. llolahan ? A. I do not personally ; I remember of having such a lady in charge as a witness, and I think accompanied her to the penitentiary during the conspiracy trial. Q. Do you recollect of saying in her presence, that when Booth was dying he said, in substance, that the plan was conceived by himself, and that there were only two persons in it 1 A. No, sir. Lyman S. Sprague — residence, Washington — sworn and examined. By Assistant District Attorney WiLSO.x : Q. Where, and in what capacity, were you engaged in the year 1SG5 ? A. I was at the Kirkwood House ; employed in the office. Q. Examine this (handing witness a leaf of a large book with various names written on it) and state what it is. A. It is a leaf cut out of the register of the Kirkwood House, April 1-1, 1865. Q. Let me call your attention to a name that was entered there on the 14th. A. George A. Atzerodt, Charles county. Q. Do you know the person who entered that name ? A. I do not. Q. Did you ever see him ? A. No, sir. Q. AYliat room did he have ? 324 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Xo. 126. Q. Describe, if you please, the relative position of that room with the one occupied by the Vice-President, Johnson. A. Room 126 is on the third floor, in the new part, over the dining room ; next to the last room of this new addition. President Johnson's room was No. 68, on the second floor, facing on Twelfth street. It is the first room as you go up stairs fi'om the oifice. Q. Was this room No. 126 nearly over it 1 A. No, sir ; very far from it ; it is nearly 125 feet from where President Johnson's room was at the time. Q. What means of communication were there? A. Not any, without going up stairs or coming down, as the case may be. Q. Did vou visit that room on the 15th of April 1 A. I did. Q. State what you found. A. I went there with detective John Lee, and he found a revolverunder a pil- low of the bed. Q. Were you there when any other things were found ? A. No, sir ; I was not. I came down stairs before they were found ; I was called down at the office. By Mr. Bkadlev : Q. The room that Atzerodt occupied was not directly over Vice-President Johnson's room ? A. No, sir. Q. But at the other end of the long back building? A. Yes, sir. Samuel K. Chester — residence, New York city — sworn and examined. By Assistant District Attorney Wilson : Q. State where you resided in April, 1865, and what was your occupation. A. I resided in New York city, and was an actor at that time. Q. State whether or not you were at that time acquainted with J. Wilkes Booth. A. I was. Q. When and where did you last see him? A. The last time I saw him was on Friday, one week previous to the assas- sination. I was with him nearly the entire afternoon. We separated at the corner of Fourteenth and Broadway, in New York city. Q. Had you seen Booth a day or two prior to that f A. No, sir ; I do not think I had. I may have seen him, but I do not recol- lect. Q. Did you know where he stopped ? and if so, state. A. No, sir; I do not know where he stopped. Q. Have you any means of knowing how long Booth remained in New York at that time 1 A. He must have gone away that night. Q. Do you know when he arrived there ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know how many days he was there ? A. I do not. Cross-examination by Mr. Bradley: Q. Had you any conversation with him that day, or any day previous ? A. I had on that day. Q. How long before this last time had you seen him ? A. I cannot now remember. Q. Did you see him in the month of January or February? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 325 A. Yes, sir. I think I saw liiin iu those two months. Q. Did yon have any conversation with him at this time, the 7th of April ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You saw him in January, February, and April, and held conversation with him on each of those three occasions ] A. Yes, sir. Mr. Bkadlkv. I now propose, jonv honor, to ask Mr. Chester whether Mr. Booth said anything to him on those several occasions about a plot in regard to the President. The DiSTUicT Attorney. I object, sir, of course. Mr. I*iERKKi'Oi\T. Does the counsel think it is a proper question ? Mr. Bradley. I propose to ask it upon this ground. They have proved very clearly the death of Mr. Booth, who they have undertaken to show was engao:ed in a certain conspiracy. I now propose to show wliat the witness testified to on the trial before the military corainission as to what Booth said in regard to that conspiracy against the President, what the nature of the conspiracy was, and when it was abandoned. Mr. Wilson. Upon cross-examination ? Mr. Pierrepont. If the counsel proposes to show that the witness testi- fied before the military commission, or anywhere else, to anything different from what he has now testified to, we do not object. We only called this witness at present in regard to a specific point, and that was to prove Booth in New York city on a particular day. We propose to connect that with other things. Mr. Bradley. The question is, whether, after they have proved the death of Booth, and seek to connect this defendant with him in some conspiracy, it is proper for us to give evidence of what Booth said in regard to that conspiracy ; what propositions he made to this witness in regard to that conspiracy; what he said as to the nature of it; and further, what he said as to its having been terminated ; all of which has been drawn out on a previous examination of the witness before the military commission, and is in possession of the government, and therefore no surprise to them. Mr. PiERREi'ONT. When we offer any such proof, it will be proper for you to show what you propose. The Court. The question is not a proper one on cross-examination, nothing having been said by the witness on the subject in his examination in chief. JNIr. Bradlev. 1 am satisfied. The Court. It is not responsive at all to anything elicitedin the directexamina- tion. Mr. Bradley The court will notice that the gentlemen have confined their examination to a single fact, or rather they have brought out but one fact, to wit, Mr. Chester's having been in company with Booth on the 7th of April, and there stop. ^Ir. I'lERKEi'ONT. And propose to for the present. Mr. Bradley. We propese to ask the witness one or two other questions. Q. You were examined on the trial before the military commission] A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recollect what you testified to there ? A. I think T do. Q. I will ask you to state whether you testified to anything about the alleged conspiracy, and what Booth said to you. 31i-. I'lERREPONT. Don't make any answer to that question. The CcJi'RT. Is it in contradiction of anything he said here to-day? Mr. Bradley. No, sir; I wish to test his memory as to whether he recollects it or not. The Court. That won't do. 326 TKIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. Mr. Merrick dosired to have an exception reserved to this; as also to the pre- vious rulinj;; of the court in regard to this witness. The court at this point took a recess until Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock Wednesday, June 26, 1S67. The court met at 10 a. m. The District Attorney called attention to the following, which appeared in the public prints as having taken place before the court took its recess yes- terday afternoon : "The court asked if there were any other witnesses to put on the stand. "Mr. Bradley. There are half a dozen out there (pointing to the witnesses' room) in the penitentiary, and have been all the morning. "Mr. Merrick. Not in the penitentiary now, but they will be." The District Attorney said he heard the remark of Mr. Bradley, but con- sidered it a merel}' playful one, and not of sufficient importance to reply to. He did not hear the remark of Mr, Merrick. He admitted that the utmost license in reflecting upon the character of witnesses was proper in the summing up ar- guments, but such remarks should not be tolerated in the court, from counsel on either side, during the examination. The Court said he did not hear the remark of Mr. ]V|errick, if it was made. Mr. Merrick said he made the remark, and made it in the same playful man- ner in which Mr. Bradley made his ; but since it had assumed a serious aspect he would take it in a serious aspect, and hoped in the course of Immau events to make the remark good. ' The Court said it was not proper for counsel to reflect upon the character of witnesses by any side bar remarks. Their character would be open for discus- sion at a proper time, and in a proper way. James Johnson Gifford, carpenter — residence, Baltimore — sworn and ex- amined. By the District Attorney: Q. Did you formerly reside in this city ? A. I did. Q. Were you here in 1865 ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you engaged about Ford's theatre about that time ? A. I was in Mr. Ford's employ about that time. Q. In what capacity Avere you there employed 1 A. I was a builder and carpenter at that place at that time. Q. Do you know what box the President occupied on the night of the 14th of April ? A. The left-hand side of the stage, second tier — right-hand side from the audience. Q. State if your attention had been directed to that 1)ox during the day; and if so, what you saw that particularly attracted your attention. A. Between eleven and twelve o'clock I was notified that the President would be there, and to take the partition out of the box. There were two boxes, but when the President came it was always made into one box. There was a small inch partition that went up between the two boxes, about seven feet high. That was ordered to be taken out when large parties came, and was ordered to be taken out when the President was to be there. By Mr. Bradley: Q. Did it go up to the ceiling of the gallery over it ? A. It was a second tier box, in the line of what was called the dress circle. TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 327 By the District Attorney: Q. How was it furni(>hed — do you recollect ? A. I do not know how it was furnished on that occasion; T did not go into it. Q. Do you recollect chairs and sofa being brought there 1 A. I recollect that chairs were always in it. Q. How was it on that occasion ? A. On great occasions they decorated it off. Q. How was it on that occasion 1 A. It was decorated on that occas-ion. Q. Had you ever seen the chair in the President's box on that occasion, be- fore 1 If so, when was the last time you saw it 1 A. The last time I saw the chair in which the President sat on that occasion, it was in James 11. Ford's and Harry Ford's room. Q. Were they the proprietors 1 A. No, sir; brothers of the propi'ietor. Q. I call your attention to the Monday morning after the assassination ; state if you went to the theatre and made an examination of the box ; and if so, state in whose company you went, and the result of your examination. A. I did not leave the theatre from the time of the assassination. On Sunday Mr. Maddox and Mr. Spangler came there, and I asked them to stay there. During my absence Judge Olin and Miss Harris called there. Mr. Bradlky. You need not slate what took place then. Q. State whether you examined the box yourself. A. I did not on Sunday afternoon. Q. Did you make an examination at any time to ascertain how the door was fastened 't A. Yes, sir ; while the Secretary of War was there I explained it to him. There was a hole cut in the plastering of the wall ; from that they had a bar that slipped against the door, and the door being at an angle, was secure from any rusliing in or attempt to force it in; but if they shook the door the bar would at once fall out. There was a hole in the door close to the President's box, that I thought at first was where a pistol was fired, but on close examination I found it was cut with a left-hand auger bit. Q. Describe where that cut was. A. It was right in the corner of the panel, by the moulding. I thought, at first, it was shot through by a pistol. Q. How did you examine it ? A. By looking at it; the only way I know. Q. Go on with your statement. A. That is all 1 have to say. Q. Do you think it would have been observed easily by persons whose atten- tion had not been called to it] A. No, sir; you might have passed it a dozen times, you might have passed it a year and not have taken notice of it. Q. How large was the hole 1 A. It was about a quarter of an inch in diameter. Q. When did it appear that this hole had been made] Did it seem to be fresh cut? A. It appeare] to be tolerably fresh. Q. You had never observed it before? A. Never. Q. Could you tell what it had been made by? A. Yes, sir; 1 could tell by the way it was cut; it was cut by a bit that turned left-handed. Q. AVhat sort of an instrument? A. It was cut by a gimlet. 1 understood the government had the gimlet that 328 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. cut it. The hole liad been tampered with by cutting it, so as to make it appear larger on the outside of the box. Q. How long would it require to make it? A. A man could put it there in half a minute. All he had to do was to turn the bit a few times round. The stuff was not more than three-eighths thick. Two or three turns would take the gimlet through it. It was at the rising of the panel, right in the corner where the moulding of the panel mitres. Mr. PiERREPONT. Step to that do(jr and explain to the jury whei'e, corres- ponding in the door, it was. (Witness explained.) Q. How high was it from the floor? A. 1 judge about 4 feet five or six inches, so that a man could look through. By Mr. Wilson: Q. Was it so that any person looking through it could easily see the whole interior of the box? A. No, sir; he could see the left-hand side of the box; he could not see over the box. It was in a direct line from where the President sat. Mr. Bradley. You mean by that that the President would be in full view from that hole? A. He could see the back part of the President's head from where that hole was bored. By Ml-. Wilson : Q. I wish you would describe a little more particularly that bar. State whether it was on the inside? A. It was on the inside. It was a piece of about an inch or f stuff. I saw it down there at the arsenal. One end had been cut or bevelled, with two or three sprigs in it. The other end to butt against the wall, Q. Was there a place in the wall which it fit ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How was it made ? A. Cut with a knife and scraped out. Q. How long had it been made apparently? and how long would it take to make such a place? A. A person very anxious abont it would make it in three, four, or five minutes, and perhaps could fit the bar and all in ten minutes' time. Q. W^as the dust from the hole on the floor? A. That 1 could not say. The box had been swept out; it was cleaned out every day, and of course I did not notice. There was no dust at the time I made the examination. Q. How was the bar fitted at the other end? A. One end was square. The other end was cut and bevelled, and there were two or three sprigs in it, about two inch sprigs. Q. Do you mean nails ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What were these sprigs for; to rest against the door? A. I suppose the man intended them to rest against the door to keep the bar from slipping down; there was nothing else to keep it; the least shake would have thrown it out, but a hard push would make it tighter. Q. When did you see thai bar hist ^ A. I saw it down at the arsenal at the trial before the military commission ; the first and only time that I saw it, that I know of. Q. Examine that (exhibiting a wooden bar) and see if that is the bar ? A. To the best of my knowledge that is the bar. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 329 'S\v. WiLSox. Stop to the door and explain to the jury how the bar fitted. (Witness exphiined.) Q. Are the nails still in the bar? A. Yes, sir; there are a couple of sprigs. Q. What is the small piece of wood tied to the bar ? A. 1 do not know what it is ; the information I had was that it had been cut oflF. Cross-examination by Mr. Bradley: Q. Do you know Edward Spangler? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was he employed about the theatre? (Question objected to by assistant district attorney as not in response to anything brought out in direct examination. Mr. Bradley. It is connected with the matter in issue and Spangler's name was mentioned on the direct examination. The Cdl'RT ruled that the question might be answered.) A. Yes, sir ; he was there. Q. What was his duty about the theatre ? A. He was a scene shifter. His place was on one side of the stage. Q. State whether he was out in front of the theatre during the third act that night. A. Xo, sir; I did not see him in front of the theatre, Q. Could he have been absent from the stage for any time without deranging the play 1 A. No, sir, he could not, without deranging the stage machinery. George W. Bunker sworn and examined. By the District Attorney : Q. Where are you residing at this time? A. I am at this time residing at the Clarendon Hotel, opposite the National, in this city. Q. Were you employed at the National Hotel in 1865 ; and if so, in what capacity ? A. 1 was employed in the capacity of clerk, generally known as room clerk. Q. Did you know John Wilkes Booth ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you state from memory, or by referring to the register, when you saw him at the National Hotel last .' A. T last saw him about seven o'clock of the evening of the assassination, when, he passed out of the hotel for the last time. He spoke ro me as he went otf. Mr. Bradley desired it to be noted that this testimony was objected to. Q. Examine the register now shown you, and state what it is. A. This is the hotel register of the National Hotel of this city, for 1864 and' 1865. Mr. Bradley stated that if the witness had a memorandxim made by him of the different entries of Booth's name, he was willing, to save time, that he should take that and swear to it. Witness. There would be one great difficulty in referring to this book. I observe that the name of Booth has been cut from the book in nearly every instance where it occurred — I presume for the autograph. By the Assistant District Attorney : Q. Look at this memorandum and state whether it is one made by you at Ihe time of the trial by the military commission 1 A. It is a memorandum we made on that trial. 22 330 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. By Mr. Bradley : Q. Is it in your handwriting ? A. No, sir. I think it is in the handwriting of Colonel Wells, of the War Department. This is my handwriting across the top. This is correct. By Mr. PiEKREPONT : Q. I wish you to refer to the memorandum merely to refresh your memory, and state when Booth was at your hotel during the latter part of 1864, up to the time of his death. A. November 9, 1864, J. Wilkes Booth arrived at the National Hotel, and occupied room 20. He left by the early train on the morning of November 11. Q. You know, in some way, that fact ? A. Yes, sir ; by a book we kept at the hotel, called the departure book. He returned again November 15, and left on the 16th. Q. At what time in the day ? A. He arrived in the evening, perhaps at 6 or 7 o'clock, and left on the 16th. It is impossible to tell from this book what hour in the day he left. I do not know that there is any way of ascertaining. His next arrival was December 12, and he next left December 17, on the morning train. His next arrival was December 22, in the early part of the evening, and he left again on the 24th. His next arrival was December 31, and he left again January 10, 1865. He next arrived on the 12th of January, and left January 28. He next arrived February 22. There is a memorandum, which is correct, that Mr. Merrick, clerk at the hotel, informs me that during his stay on this occasion Booth made several trips into Maryland. Mr. Bradley. No matter about that ; you need not read from that paper. It is not in your handwriting. WiTiXESS. All right. He did, however, leave several times, and return again. By Mr. Merrick : Q. What room did he occupy when he was at the hotel on the 22d of Feb- ruary 1 A. I find in this instance that his name has not been cut from the register, and that he came in the early part of the evening, with P. H. Went worth and John McCullough, and occupied room No. 231. Q. Did they arrive together and register at the same time 1 A. Yes, sir, and occupied this large room together. Q. When did he next leave ? A. February 28, and returned jMarch 1. Q. Can you state whether his account commenced from March 1 ? A. I do not find his name from March 1 to March 4. Q. Did he not have an account from March 1 ? A. I cannot tell from this book. Q. From what book did you get it on the other trial ? A. From the departure book and the cash book. Q. State when you next find his name. A. I find that his name has been cut from the register of March 25. Q. Do you find that he was called at 8 o'clock on the 1st, 2d, or 3d of March; and if not, what book would show that 1 A. The call book would show that. Q. On the 21st of March what do you find ? A. Nothing. Q. If he paid 850 on that day, and left at 7.30, where would it appear 1 A. It would be on the cash book and transferred to the ledger. Q. On the 25th of March what do you find? A. That his name has been cut from the register. Q. What room had he ? TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 33 i A. No. 231, the same one lie had been occupyiug. Q. When (lid lie leave 1 A. April 1, the memorandum says. Q. Now turn to April 8 and see what you find for the afternoon train. A. April S I find his name has been cut again from the register; that he occupied room 22S. Q. From April 8 what happened until the assassination 1 A. From April 8 to April 14, I do not think he was absent from the house; I have no recollection that he was. Henry Warren Smith, captain, assistant adjutant general, and brevet lieutenant colonel, sworn and examined. By Mr. PiERREPOMT: Q. Where are you stationed ? A. At Vick^bnrg, Mississippi. Q. To what army corps or command do you belong? A. 1 am on duty in the Freedmen's Bureau, assistant adjutant general. Q. Were you in the city of Washington at the time of the assassination ? A. I was. Q. How long after the assassination did you remain here ? A. Eighteen months nearly. Q. Will you state whether you were one of the officers who went to Mrs. Surratt's after the assassination 1 A. I had command of the party. Q. Tell us what day of the week and on what day of the month you made the arrest. A. It was on Monday, the 17th day of April. Q. Then it was the next Monday after the assassination ? A. Three days after the assassination. Q. Did you arrest Payne at the same time and in the same house ? A. At the same time and in the same house. Q. Describe to the jury your approach to the house, what occurred, who you saw, and give a description of the arrest of Payne and Mrs. Surratt. A. I received orders from General Augur to go to Mrs. Surratt's house and arrest her and any suspicious personages I might find there. I had a party of three men detailed to go with me. Q. Who went with you ? A. A man by the name of Wermerskirch, a man by the name of Rosch, and Eli Dcvoe. We went down H street till we got between Fifth and Sixth, or Sixth and Seventh, I forget which, to .'^41 H street. On approaching the house I posted the men ; I sent one man into the back yard, directing him not to allow any one to pass out; placed one at the basement door, and took one up the steps. Q. How did you get your man into the back yard ] A. There was a gate entrance on the side of the house, on the right-hand side going down. Q. Describe the front entrance to the house. A. It was by high door steps from the sti*eet. Q. AVas the outside entrance into the basement or the second story ? A. There Mas an entrance both to the basement and the second story. Q. Into which did the steps lead ? A. The steps led into the second story. Q. Which did you enter 1 A. I entered by the steps, the second story, leaving a man outside to prevent any escape that way. Q. Describe what you saw after you got up the steps. 332 TRIAL OF JOTIX H SURRATT. A. Before ringing the bell, I leaned over and looked through the Llinds into the parlor and discovered four females sitting close together, evidently in close conversation. From what occurred, I should judge they were anxiously ex- pecting some one. They were turning and listening, from time to time, as if waiting for somebody to come. I then rang the bell ; somebody carae to the window and whispered, " Is that you Kirby ]" Q. Tell how ? A. They whispered in a low voice, " Is that you, Kirby ?" I said, " No, it is not Kirby, but it is all right ; let me in." She said, " All right," and opened the door. I stepped in and said, " Is this Mrs. Surratt's house ?" She said, " Yes." I said, " Are you Mrs. Surratt ?" She said, " I am the widow of John H. Sur- ratt." I said, " And the mother of John H. Surratt, jr. V She said, " Yes." I then said, " ]\[adam, I have come to arrest you and all in your house, and take you down to General Augur's headquarters for examination. Be kind enough to step in." She stepped into the parlor. There were three parties there ; one was lying on the sofa. Said I, " Who are these ladies ?" She said, " That is Anna Surratt, that is Olivia Jenkins, and that Honora Fitzpatrick." I said, " Ladies, you will have to get ready as soon as possible and go with me down to General Augur's for examination. AVhereupon Miss Surratt com- menced wringing her hands, and said, " Oh, mother, to think of being taken down there for such a crime." Mrs. Surratt stepped to her, put her arms around her neck and whispered something in her ear and she became quiet. 1 said to her that I had sent for a carriage, and to please get ready as soon as possible, that I would send somebody with them down to headqi;arters. By the Court : Q. What time was that ? A. As nearly as I can state, a quarter after 10. Mrs. Surratt said, " I will go up stairs and get the ladies' things." I said, " I advise you to get warm wrappings, as it is a damp, drizzly night." She said, " I will go right up stairs." I said, " Excuse me, madam this house is suspected ; I will accompany you up stairs." I told Devoe to remain in the room and see that no papers were de- stroyed, and that no communication passed between the ladies. 1 went up stairs with Mrs. Surratt. She obtained clothing for the ladies to go to headquarters. In the mean time two other detectives had reported — one by the name of Morgan, and another by the name of Samson. I sent Samson down stairs to take charge of the servants, and waited for the carriage. Mrs. Surratt said to me, " By your leave, sir, I would like to kneel down and say my prayers, to ask the blessing of God upon me, as I do upon all my actions." I told her, certainly ; I never interfered with any such purpose. She knelt down in the parlor and prayed. In the mean time I heard steps coming up the front steps. Wermerskirch and Morgan were in the upper part of the house with me. I told them to go be- hind the door, and that when they rung or knocked to open the door and let them step in, whoever it was, and I would meet them in the hall, I thinking at the time it was Kirby that I Avas going to trap. I stepped into the parlor, and the door-bell rung. The door opened. I stepped out into the hall, and found myself face to face with Payne. Payne was standing on the threshold of the door with a pickaxe over his shoulder. I stepped out and met him. He said, " I guess I have mistaken the house." I said, " You have not." He said, " Is this Mrs. Surratt's house?" I said, " Yea." He seemed to hesitate. I drew my revolver and cocked it, and said, •• Step in." He stepped in immediately. I said, lay down that pickaxe. Ho laid it down, or put it in the corner. I took him to the back part of the hall, and set two men to stand guard over him. We then commenced questioning him and examining him. I asked him where he had been. He said he had been working on the railroad and canal ; that he had been working in different parts of the city. I ask°d him how long he had TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUREATT. 333 been here. He said a week or ten clays. I asked him if he had any papers ■with him. lie said he had a pass, which he took out and handed to one of the officers, who passed it to me. I hioked at it, and found ir to be an oath of am- nesty, or an oath in which he bound himself not to go south of the Potomac, I think. j\Ir. BnADLBV. Whove is that paper? WiT\Ks<. I do not know. My. Bradlev. You need not say anythiuLT more about the paper. "\Vn\\F>s. I then told him he was so suspicious a personage that I felt bound to arrest him, and send liim down to General Augur's headquarters. I sent for a carriage immediately. I left him in charge of two men, and went down stairs to search the premises. I saAV the servants there, and from them I learned Mr. Bradley. You need not state what you learned from the servants. jNIr. PiERKEPONT. What was said by the servants or anybody else in presence of Payne or Mrs. Surratt is evidence. Witness. There was nothing said by the servants in presence of any one, except the detective and myself. I asked Payne what he had been doing. He said he was a laboring man. I asked him where he lived. He said he could not tell. I asked him whether it was east, west, north, or south. He said he could not tell me where he lived. 1 asked him what he came to Mrs. Surratt's for that hour of the night. It was then verging towards 11 o'clock. He said he came to get instructions about digging a ditch in the back yard. I asked him what he came at that hour for to get instructions about digging a ditch. He said he didn't know; he was passing along. I asked him when he met Mrs. f^unatt. He said he met her this morning, and agreed to dig a ditch for her, and that he wanted instructions to go to work the next morning. I tlien stepped to the parlor door, and said, " Mrs. Surratt, will you be kind enough to step here a minute?"' Said I, "Do you know this man? Did you hire him to dig a ditch for you?" She raised both her hands, and said, "Before God I do not know this man ; I have never seen him ; I did not hire him to dig a ditch." Shortly after that, a carriage reported, and Mrs. Surratt and the three ladies were sent to General Augur's headquarters. A little while after, Payne also was sent there in another carriage. Both carriages went in charge of detectives. Q. Who did you find in the house ? A. We found Mrs. Surratt, Miss Surratt, Miss Fitzpatrick, IMiss Jenkins, a little colored girl asleep on the floor in the back room. We found Susan Ann Jackson, or a colored woman who said her name was Susan, and a man down stairs who, she said, was her husband. Q. Woi\ld you know this Susan if you were to see her? A. I think I would. Q. Was she a full-grown person? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you talk with this man ? A. I did a few minutes. Q. Did you ask Susan any questions ? A. Yes, sir, 1 asked her a number of questions. Q. Did you ask her anything about John Surratt ? (Question objected to by INIr. Jiradley. Mr. Pierrepont said he had the right to ask whether the witness had held any conversation ; he had not asked what that conversation Avas. The court decided the question could be put in that shape.) Q. Did you question her ? A. I did. Q. Did you question all the others ? A. I questioned them all. Q 34 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Did you make a written report of your examination at that house at the time ? (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley as immaterial. Objection sustained.) Q. Have you a distinct memory of what occurred at the time 1 A. I have. Question objected to by Mr. Bradley as improper on examination in chief. The Court said it was proper to ask a man whether his memory is distinct about what he says. Witness. My memory is distinct even to the very words. Cross-examination by Mr. Bradley : Q. You were examined before the military commission that tried the con- spirators ? A. I was. Q. Did you give the same statement you have given here ? A. Very nearly the same. Q. I ask you in what it differs. A. It differs in regard to the testimony about Miss Surratt. Q. Is that the only particular 1 A. That is, as near as I can remember, Q. Did you state to the commission anything about looking into the parlor windows, seeing the ladies sitting there, and this whispering about Kirby, or anything of that kind? A. I believe I did ; I do not remember, not having reviewed my testimony particularly. I know in the statement I made in my written report, I did. Q. I am not asking you about that ; I am asking you about your examination in the trial of the conspirators 1 A. I must say I cannot remember exactly what did occur in the trial before the military commission. Q. You do not remember having stated there that you looked into the window and saw four ladies engaged in conversation, looking up and listening, and of one of them coming to the window and whispering, " Is tliat you, Kirby ?" A. I could not swear that I did or did not give that testimony. . Q. Did you state anything before that commission about Mrs. Surratt asking for time to kneel down and pray ? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Nor in regard to the incident between Mrs. Surratt and her daughter, in which Miss Surratt made the exclamation you have stated 1 A. No, sir. Q. "Will you describe to the jury in what manner Payne was dress .'d ? A. Payne was dressed in a gray coat, with a gray vest, black pantaloons. His boots were rather fine, and if I remember right had red tops to the legs. The pantaloons were tucked into the top of one of his boots, and the other leg was hanging round his feet. He had on his head a woollen sleeve, appearing like a night-cap. It turned out to be a woollen sleeve, which he had pulled down over his head, letting the end hang down like a tassel. Q. What was the condition of light in that passage ? A. It was about half head, I should judge, of gas ; I do not know. Q. Do you recollect in your testimony before the military comuiission, in answer to the question whether you knew a certain coat, saying " I am certain that this is the coat. I remember it by its color and general look, as near as I could judge by the light that was in the hall at the time ? " A. The light was not on full head at the time ; it was about half head on. Q. How near was Mrs. Surratt to you when you asked her if she knew that man ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 335 A. I should judge about four or five feet. Q. Did she come out of a strongly lighted room, or not 1 A. No, sir. In the whole house the gas had been slightly turned down. There was a rather dim light in the parlor also. Q. What did Payne reply when she said she did not know him ? A. He replied nothing to her. Q. Were his pants and dress fresh or soiled ? A. His dress was a great deal soiled. It was right muddy round the lower part of his person. Q. Was his coat worn or in good condition 1 A. His coat was at that time a little muddy; otherwise it was in good condi- tion, and appeared to be rather new. Q. Do you remember the buttons ? A. The buttons Avere gutta-percha, stone color; that was what I recognized the coat particularly by. Q. Could you not by the buttons, and button-holes, tell whether it was nearly new or not 't A. Yes, sir : but I did not notice whether it was new or not, more than that it was a good-looking coat. Q. Can you describe to the jury Avith more certainty what color the coat was ? A. The coat was gray ; such as is called confederate gray. Q. Describe to the jury in what way the sleeve you have mentioned was put on his head. A. It was pulled like a night-cap closely on, the knit Avrist hanging down the side to represent a tassel. Q. How far Avas it pulled down on his head or face ? A. It was pulled down on his forehead. Q. What Avas the color of it ] A. Gray. Q. Was it soiled, or not? A. It Avas considerably Avorn, and did not look very clean. You could not tell whether it Avas soiled or not on account of the color. Q. Describe, if you please, the relative position of these parties, Mrs. Surratt and Payne, and the position of the gas-light in the passage. A. The parlor door was, I should judge, about eight feet from the front door. Right opposite the parlor door was the gas fixture. Payne Avas just under the gas fixture, in the chair. Q. Against the Avail ] A. Close to the Avail. Q. The breadth of the passage between him and Mrs. Surratt ? A. Mrs. Surratt stepped out of the parlor door. Payne rose, and I asked her, "Do you recognize this man ?" The hall is a narrow hall. Q. He rose directly up from the chair under the gas-light ? A. He rose up from the chair, and Avas not exactly under the gas-light, but nearly so. Q. So that the gas-light shone upon the back of his head? A. No, sir; the gas-light was shining upon his face, and also the light of the parlor. Q. The gas-light shone on his face in that position ? A. Yes, sir ; it came doAvn at an angle. Q. Was it nearer the parlor door than the steps, as you go up stairs ? A. It Avas near the centre of the hall, nearly opposite the parlor door. By Mr. ]\Ierrick : Q. You say that Mrs. Surratt, Miss Jenkins, Miss Fitzpatrick, and Miss Surratt were in the parlor Avhen you went in. Where was Miss. Surratt ? 336 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT. A. She was on the sofa. Q. Where was Miss Jenkins ? A. In a chair near the head of the sofa. I would not venture to say whether she was closer to her than Miss Fitzpatrick. I paid very little attention, more than to see that they were there. Q. Where was Miss Fitzpatrick ? A, She was right near by the head of the sofa. Q. They were grouped about the sofa? A. They were grouped about the head of the sofa, where Miss Surratt was lying. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt enter the parlor with you? A She did. Q. Did you follow up close alongside her, or stop at the entrance of the par- lor ? A. I went right in with her. Q. Where did she go when she went into the parlor? A. She stood up near the centre of the room. Q. Did she advance towards the sofa — towards IMiss Surratt ? A. When I said I had come to arrest them, Mrs. Surratt then advanced to- wards her. Q. When you told them you had come to arrest them, you were standing near the centre of the room ? A. I was. Q. Miss Surratt began to cr3', and Mrs. Surratt advanced towards her ? A. Yes, sir ; and embraced her, and induced her to be quiet. Q. Miss Fitzpatrick and Miss Jenkins were near by them ? A. Yes, sir ; they were all near the corner of the room. Q. And you say you did not testify to that fact before the military commis- sion ? A. No, sir. Q. Were you not asked before that commission to state all that occurred in the house on the night you arrested this party ? A. I was. By Mr. Pif,rrepo>jt : Q. Why did you not state all ? A. Because a natural embarrassment, I suppose, drove it from my mind. I remembered it afterwards, and stated it. I did not think of it at the time. I recollected it when I made my written statement afterwards. Mr. Mekkick. No matter what you did afterwards. Have you been asked anything about what would be your testimony in this case ? A. No, sir. Q. You have not been examined by anybody with a view to this case 1 A. No, sir. Ulysses S. Grant, General United States army, sworn and examined : By Mr. PiERREPOxXT : Q. At what time were you in command at Vicksburg ? A. In the early part of 1863 — the first half of the year 1863; there and oppo- site Vicksburg, on the Mississippi, near Vicksburg. Q. Will you tell the jury at what time, if any, you met Jacob Thompson, and under what circumstances 1 (Mr. Bradley desired to have objection to this testimony noted.) A. I met Jacob Thompson some time during the first or second month I was at Millikcu's Bend, in the beginning of 1863. I cannot state the exact time. Q. State the circumstances and what claim he there made. A. One of our picket-boats discovered a little sail or row boat with a few TRIAL OF JOHN K. SURRATT. 337 persons in it, up the river, near the sliore on the Mississippi side, about abreast of where we were lying at ihe time, or where the flag-ship of Admiral Porter was lying. I sent out to bring them in. AVhen we were near to tliem we dis- covered that they had a little Avhite flag, like a flag of truce. We brought them in, and I met Thompson at that time at the flag-ship of Admiral I'orter. Mr. Bradley objected to any conversation between General Grantand Thomp- son, or anvbody else not connected with the conspiracy. Mr. I'lEKKKPoNT stated that the prosecution had connected Jacob Thompson with money. They had a man who went there the same day, and expected to have a man who took the money. They wanted to show who Jake Thompson was and what relation he held. Mr. MERKiCKasked whether the prosecution expected to connect Jacob Thomp- son with tlie conspiracy to kill the President. Mr. PiEUKEPOXT said he expected to show that he was in it and aided in it by the use of money. The Court understood counsel for the prosecution to say he expected, in the examination of witnesses hereafter, to show the connection of the prisoner at the bar with Jacob Thompson in regard to the disbursement of money in the prosecution of this conspiracy. If he could make that connection, the evidence would be relevant. If not, it would be irrelevant. For the present, the testi- monv was admitted. 4/ ]\Ir. Br.adlev desired an exception to the ruling to be noted. Witness, continuing: I met Thompson on Admiral Porter's flag-ship and had some conversation with him He represented himself as a staff otlicer, stating some ostensible business, I tliink he represented himself as acting in- spector general of the rebel army. I do not think he stated that he held a commis- sion at all in the confederate army, but represented himself as an acting staff otficer. It was in the eirly part of 1863, when I was at Milliken's Bend. Mr. Bradley. That is to say March, 1863? A. I think in February, 1863. Charles Dawson sworn and examined. By the A.ssisTANT District Attorney : Q. State where you were employed in the early part of 1865. A. I was at the National Hotel in 1865. Q. Are you still there ? A. Yes, sir ; I have been there ever since. Q. Were you, in April, 1865, acquainted with John Wilkes Booth ? A. I was. Q. Be good enough to say if you have before you the register, departure book, and cash-book belonging to the year 1865, and for the month of April of that year ? A. I have. Q. Refer to them and state the times of Booth's arrival and departure during the months of January, February, March, and April, 1865. A. I cannot tell from these books without going over the whole books. Q. Will you state what articles Booth left at your house and which were there on the day of the assassination of the President ? A. Hi' left a large trunk and a valise. Q. Where did they remain? A. Tliey were placed in the baggage-roora of the hotel and remained there. Q. When were they first examined, to your knowledge ? A. They -were first examined on the night of the assassination and taken ^.o^Yn to the baggage-room and locked up. Tliey Avere not, to my knowledge, touched at all for a long time. A few days before the arrest of Surratt I was 338 TRIAL OF JOHN 11. SURRATT. in the baggage room examining some baggage. Tlie valise was partially open. I opened it to examine the condition of the clothing. His trunk has never been opened. Q. Did you examine the condition of the clothing in the valise 1 A. Yes; I took two or three pieces out, found they were in rather a bad con- dition, and put them back again. Q. State what, if anything, you found, that particularly occurs to you, in that examination. A. I lifted up a black velvet vest and several cards fell out of the pocket. Q. What did you do with the cards? A. I returned to the pocket all except one or two ; on one of them was written "J. Harrison Surratt." Q. Have you that card here ? A. I have. (Card produced.) Q. Has it been in your custody ever since? A. It has. Mr. Bradley said as the card had not been placed in evidence nor proved to be in the handwriting of the prisoner, he desired to have that part of the answer which stated anything written on the card stricken out. The Court so directed. By the District Attorney: Q. Did you know John Wilkes Booth? A. I did. Q. Did you know him well ? A. I saw him a great number of times in the course of two years. Q Did you ever see him write ? A. I have seen him write his signature on the register. Q. Did you ever see any Avritten communications of his ? A. I don't think I ever did. Q. Do you know his handAvriting ? A. I know his signature. Q. Examine this letter (letter handed witness) and state if you recognize it, or if you remember ever seeing it before ? A. Yes, sir ; I have seen that letter before. Q. Where did you see it ? A. It was in the rack at the hotel, where letters are kept under initials. Some time during the trial at the arsenal I was looking over the letters under the head of "B," and the initials on this struck me as rather strange. I took the letter down to Mr. Bingham while the trial was going on. It came through the mail, and was among the letters in the hotel in the alphabetical rack. Q. The initials are J. W. B. ; was there any other person than Booth with those initials at that time stopping at the hotel ? Mr. Bradley. Was Booth stopping there? A. He was not ; he was dead. Q. How long after the assassination did you first see this letter ? A. It was some time after the assassination, and some time after the letter was postmarked. Q. When was the last time you saw Booth at the National Hotel ? A. On the day of the assassination, the 14th of April. Q. On that day, or for some week previous, had there been any person stop- ping at the hotel with these initials, to your knowledge ? A. I can say that, at the time I discovered the letter, I looked over the rack and found that there was no one with these initials there. Q. What was the postmark of that letter ? TRIAL OF JOHN H SURKATT. 339 A. I cannot decipher the name of the office. It looks as much like Cumber- land, Maryland, as anything. The date of the postmark is May 8. Q. Was the letter shown you inside that envelope ? A. It was. Mr. PlEKRKPONT. We propose now to offer this letter in evidence. Mr. Bradlkv said he could not conceive on what ground it could be offered. Mr. PiBRRKPONT said the letter was of such a character that, it' produced on a trial for murder, it would be admitted in evidence, not as conclusive as to what it states, but as one of the iacts to go to the jury, the jury to decide what infer- ence could legitimately be drawn from it. The Court (to witness.) Do you know at what time it came into the hotel? A. I cannot tell what time it came there. It was on the 24th of May, ac- cording to the report of that trial, that I found it. The CoiRT overruled the objection, and admitted the letter in evidence. Mr. Braulev desired to have au exception noted. The letter was read as follows : South Braxch Bridge, April 6. 1865. Friexd Wilkes: I received yours of March 12th, and reply as soon as prac- ticable. I saw French and Brady and others about the oil speculation. The subscription to the stock amounts to eight thousand dollars, and I add one thousand myself, which is about all I can stand; now when you sink your well go deep enough, don't fail, everything depends upon you and your helpers ; if you can't get through on your trip, after you strike ile, strike through Thornton Gap and across by Capon, Uomney's, and down the branch, and I can keep you safe from all hardships for a year. I am clear of all surveillance now that infernal Purdy is beat. I hired that girl to charge him witli an outrage, and re- ported him to old Kelly, which sent him in the shade, but he suspects too damn much now; had he better be silenced for qoodl I send this up by Tom, and if he don't get drunk, you will get it the ninth. At all events, it can't be under- stood if lost. 1 can't half write, I have been drunk f )r two days. Don't write so much highfalutin next time. No more; only Jake will be at Green's with the funds. Burn this. Truly yours, Lou. Sue Guthrie sends much love. « By the Assistant District Attorney: Q. Are you acquainted with the signature of Booth ? A. I am. Q. Examine the signature on this card, (card shown to witness,) and say whether it is his signature A. I believe that is Booth's signature. Cross-examined by Mr. Merrick: Q. I understand you to say that that letter was mailed May 8 ? A. That is the post-mark. Q. Who distributed the mail at that time at the hotel? A. I could not tell. There were three clerks; I could not say which one received that particular mail. Diff'^rent mails weie received at diti'erent hours of the day. (The witness was here directed to make memoranda, from the hotel books, of the arrivals and departures of Booth from January 1. 18(55, down to the date of the assassination, and bring it to the court when he should have done so.) The court here took a recess for half au hour. 340 TRIAL OF JOHN TI. &URRATT. AFTERNOON SESSION. KiCHARD C. Morgan — residence, New York city — sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. In April, 1S65, where were you stationed, and wliat were you doing 1 A. I was in the service of the War Department, as chief clerk to Colonel 01- cott, special commissioner of that department. Q, You remember, of course, the assassination ? A. Yes, sir. Q. On the evening of Monday, the 17th of April, following the assassination, what did you do ? A. On the night of the 17th of April, 1865, I was directed to proceed to the Surratt house on H street, which I did. Q. You were not under Colonel Smith, I suppose ? A. No, sir. Q. You went under a separate order ? A. Yes, sir. He was sent down there first, and I was sent down afterwards to take charge of the party that was sent down. Q. When you got to the house what did you do 1 A. When I got to the house 1 knocked at the door. I found that Major Smith and Captain Wermerskirch had just entered. Captain Wermerskirch introduced me to Major Smith, telling him at the same time who I was. I then took charge of the party. Q. Did you see Mrs. Surratt there ; and if so, who else 1 A. I saw in the parlor Mrs. Surratt, her daughter, Miss Surratt, and two other ladies whose names, if my memory serves me, were Miss Fitzpatrick and Miss Jenkins. I cannot be sure about the names, however. There vv^as a colored woman in the basement. Q. You saw the colored servant, did you ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Give a des cription of her as nearly as you can. A. She was rather a tall woman. That is all I can say about her. Q. And about how old 1 A. I should think about thirty. Q. A full-grown woman 1 A. Yes, sir ; and veiy black. Q. Did you speak to her 1 A. Yes, sir. I asked her Mr. IMekrick. No matter about that. The Court. You must not speak of anything that was said by others, un- less it was said in the presence of the prisoner, Mrs. Surratt, or Payne. Q. Have you a distinct memory of what occurred that night 1 A. Yes, sir ; as distinct as a person can have of matters that occurred two years ago. I have a very good memory. Q. Did you make any written statement of what took place there at the time 1 Mr. Bradley. I object. Is it material to this issue to know whether he made any written statement or not ? "^J'he Court. I have ruled that it is not. Mr. Pierrepont. I did not so understand your honor's ruling. If such is the case, of course I withdraw the question. Q. Will you please state what occurred in the presence of Payne ? A. I directed that Mrs. Surratt and all the others in the house should be sent up to the ])rovost marshal's office. They hesitated about going. I told them they should not delay, but go right away. I told Mrs. Surratt to go up stairs TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 341 and get the bonnet? and sliawlr^ of the rest of the party. Slio did so, T send- ing an officer along with her. She got all the things and l)rought theui down in the parlor, where they prepared themselves to leave. When they were about ready to go, she said something about it being a cold, dam]) night I said I would send for a carriage, and immediately directed one of my men to go and get one. About three minutes before he returned there was a knock and a ring at the door. I was at the time standing by the parlor door. I instantly stepped forward and opened the door, thinking it was the man returning with the carriage. Instead, however, of it being him, a man entered dressed as a laboring man, with a pickaxe over his shoulder. As soon as he saw me he stepped back and said, " Oh, I am mistaken." Said I, " Who do you wish to see?" He said, " Mrs. Surratt." I replied, " It is all rigiit; come in." I passed him in and put him behind the door, standing myself with my hand on the door, open. I said to Mrs. Surratt, " Are you ready ? " and then remarked either to ^lajor Smith, or one of the clerks standing there, I cannot now say which, " Pass them out." As they were about starting I looked around and saw Mrs. Surratt just getting up from her knees and crossing horself. I said, " Hurry up and get along; the carriage is waiting." I sent a man off with them to the provost marshal's office. After I passed them out I commenced to f[ues- tion Payne. Q. Passed who out ? A. Mrs. Surratt and the other three ladies. Q. Before you passed Mrs. Surratt out what was said to her about Payne, if anything ? A. After she got up from her knees, iMajor Smith made some inquiry as to whether she recognized him. I did not hear exactly what he did say, nor the reply she made. Q. What did she say to you ? A. She leaned her head over toward me and said, " I am so glad you ofH- cers came here to-night, for this man came here with a pickaxe to kill us." I made no reply, but passed them out the door, and then clo-ed it and commenced to question Payne. I asked him how he came there, and what for 1 He said he came to dig a gutter for Mrs. Surratt. I asked him how he knew Mrs. Surratt. Q. Was this after she had made the statement that he had come to kill them ? A. Yes, sir. She made that remark to me as she passed out. I then asked Payne if he knew Mrs. Surratt, and how she happened to engage him. He told me that he met her on the street and she then engaged him. He stated that he was a poor man, a refugee from the south. I told him it was a pretty time to come to dig a gutter, and asked him where he was on Friday night. IL- men- tioned some sort of street, the name of which I have forgotten. I asked him if he boarded there; and if not, where he lived. He said he boarded wherever he got work. 1 asked him if he expected to sleep there that night. He said he ex- pected Mrs. Surratt would let him stay there that night, as he was going to work early in the morning. 1 asked him where he was from. He said that he was from Fauquier, Virginia. Previous to this he had pulled out an oath of alle- giance, on which was written, Lewis Payne, Fau([uier county, Virginia. I then took the pickaxe out of his hand, hurled it round, and asked him about him- self. I ask(!d him how old he was, whether he had any money, and whether he was a poor man. He said he made his living by the picka.te. I asked him how much he earned and where was the last place that he worked. He gave me a very unsati.-^factory account. I said to him that I would have to arrest him, and would send him up to the provost marshal's office as soon as the carriage returned, as my prisoner. On saying that he moved as if about to make some resistance. I called the captain's clerk and he stood by him. lu a few minutes the carriage returned with the man who had taken up Mrs. Sur- 342 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. ratt and party ; I then directed two officers to take a pistol and go with Payne in the carriage to the provost marshal's office. I then had the pickaxe put in and the carriage was driven off. I remained there searching for papers until about three or four o'clock in the morning, when I repaired to the provost mar- shal's office, where I saw Payne in irons, and was told that he had been recog- nized. Q. Who did you see in the house besides the parties you have mentioned 1 A. There was a colored man there who said Mr. Merrick. Never mind what he said. Q. Did you find anybody else in the house except those you have mentioned ? A. No one else but this colored man. Q. You have said that you were there until three or four o'clock in the morn- ing examining the house? A. Yes, sir. Q, What did you get, and what did you do with what you got ? A. We found different letters, cartes-de-visite, a buUet-rnould. Q. Where did you find the bullet-mould 1 A. In the room back of the parlor, which I was informed was Mrs. Surratt's. Mr. Bradley. Never mind what you were informed. The Court. You must not give second-hand information. Q. You say you found the bullet-mould in some room ? A. I found it in the room back of the parlor, on the first tloor. Mr. Bradley. Did I understand you to say that you found the bullet-mould, or somebody elge ? A. Well, Captain Wermerskirch was with me, and we might both have seen it at the same time. We took possession of an empty trunk which we found there, and anything we discovered that we deemed of any consequence we would throw into this trunk. Q. What else did you find in this room ? What was found by yourself or when you were present and looked on ? A. Well, I will just say that I might have picked up a letter or something and showed it to Captain Wermerskirch, and he might, on the other hand, have done the same by me ; we were both searching together. Q. Well, let us know what was found in that way. A. There were some letters, a portfolio, and some bullets. Q. Where were the bullets found? A. I think near the bullet-mould. We also found some caps. Q. Did you learn from jNIrs. Surratt whose room that was in which you found the bullet-mould, the bullets, and the caps ? A. I cannot say 1 did, only some one there said Mr. Merrick. Nevermind. The District Attorney. You can state what was said, if in her presence. Mr. PlERREPOXT. What, if anything, was said in her presence as to whose room it was in which these things were found ? Mv. Bradley. In her presence and hearing. Mr. PiERREPONT. Yes, sir. Witness. I could not say about that positively, but it is my impression that she said as she was passing out, " This is my room," or something of that kind. Q. Yonr impression is that she said that? A. Yes, sir ; that is my impression, but I am not certain about it. Q. What is your best recollection as to whether she said that or not ? A. Well, as I say, 1 think she did, but I am not positive. Q. That is your best recollection ? A. Yes, sir. Q. It was the room oft' the parlor ? A. Yes, sir. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 343 Q. What flse did you find 1 A. A card, with "*/c semper tz/rannis" on it. Mr. Bradley. Don't state that. The Court. You must not state what the card had on it. Mr. PiERREPONT. You found a card with some writin<^ on it. What did you do with that i A. Threw it in with the other things. Q. What else was found ? A. A pair of boots. Those were found in the room over this one, in the mid- dle of the floor. Tliey were all dirty, as if they had just been taken off. We also found a portfolio and a whistle. Q. Have you seen the whistle lately 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. What else ? A. I will have to think awhile. It was a good while ago, and so many things have occurred since then that I cannot upon the instant recall everything. Q. Did you find a spur? A. Yes, sir ; a part of a spur. Another one was found, too, which was also broken. Q. And what else ? A. A bank book ; I took the bank book, I remember. Q. Did you find an under-shirt ? A. I do not recollect all those things. I might have. ]\[r. PlERREPONT. I only want what you remember. Mr. Bradley. Are you now talking about the room back of the parlor, or the one up stairs ? Witness. We went through the lower rooms first. Then we went through the upper ones. Q. And you found a pair of boots all dirty in the upper room ] A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you find any letters ? A. Yes, sir ; any quantity of them. . Q. What did you do Avith that quantity of letters ? A. Put them in the trunk and delivered them at the provost marshal's office, with the other papers. Q. Have you seen them since? A. I saw them the next day, or a few days after that. Q. You have not seen them lately, I suppose ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you identify this? (handing witness a small whistle.) A. I think that is the same whistle that I picked up there. It is my im- pression that I picked that up on the floor in Mrs. Surratt's room, or on the man- tel-piece. Mr. PlERREPONT, after privately consulting with counsel for the prisoner, said : I hold in my hand, your honor, what purports to be a receipt given by Miss Anna Surratt for certain articles taken from her mother's house, which were delivered to her on the 28th of June, 1865, by the then provost marshal of this city. Mr. Bradley. Dont'tlet us have that kind of evidence in the case. Mr. PlERREPONT. I will merely ask if the counsel will produce these articles. Mr. Bradley. You must serve us with regular notice for anything we have relating to this case. Mr. PlERREPONT. I presume we will have to do so before we can get them. Mr. Bradley. The court has no contiol over that. Mr. PlERREPONT. I do not know how that may be. Of com-se we will have to conform to whatever has been the practice.. 344 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. The Court. Are the papers or articles mentioned there in the custody of Miss Anna Surratt ? Mr. PiERRKPOXT. It seems from this statement that certain papers and letters ■were delivered to her. We desire tlie papers, and will, of course, pursue what- ever is the proper mode in order to get them. I am not familiar with the prac- tice here. Mr. Bradley. Surely the district attorney knows, if Judge Pierrepont does not. Mr. Merrick. The court has nothing whatever to do with it. It does not know anything about it as yet. Mr. PiERkEP().\T. I myself do not know what course to take in order to secure them, whether by application direct or some other process. Xo doubt the district attorney knows, and I will confer with him. Examination resumed. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. Have you stated anything about photographs ? A. I mentioned cartes-de-visite. Q. Were they photographs 1 Mr. Bradley'. What is a carte-de-visite but a photograph? Witness. There is a diflFerence. Mr. Pierrepont. What is the difference ? Witness. The one is taken on glas^ and the other on a card. Mr. Merrick. What, a photograph taken on glass 1 The District Attorney. Well, gentlemen, we will exhibit them to the wit- ness. The Court. I think he is hardly an expert in the photograph business. Mr. Pierrepont. Whatever they are, we can produce them. Mr. AVright has them, I believe. Q. You say there were a large c^uautity of Ittters ? A. Yes, sir. Q. About how many would you say ? A. I should think one hundred, or so. Mr. Pierrepont. We shall have to take the necessary means to get them before we can lay any foundation for proving their contents ; whatever is re- quired under the practice of course we will comply with. Mr. Wilson (after conferring with the witness Wright.) There is only one of these photographs here. ]\Ir. Pierrepont. Where are the others ? Mr. Wilson. They have been returned, I suppose. Q. Do you know anything about that? (handing witness a square pasteboard frame containing a carte-de-visite.) A. It is my impression this was found on Mrs. Surratt's mantel-piece. Q. Is It in the same condition now as it was when you found it 1 Mr. Bradley. The witness says it is his impression he found it. Q. When you say " your impression" what do you mean ? A. I mean a frame like that was found. Q. What do you mean — that that is your best recollection 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you any recollection of having seen that before 1 A. I recoll(;cl of having seen it at Mrs. Surratt's house on the mantel-piece. That is, to the best of my recollection, I saw it. Q. What was it in when you saw it there ? A. It was a different kind of a picture. There was a fancy picture, and on the back of it there was TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 345 Mr. Bradley. Stop a moment. The witness says he saw a different kind of a thing at that time. Let us have that different kind of a thing. Mr. PiERRKPONT. I haven't the thing, as I know of; I am trying to find it. You know as much about it as I do. Q. I want to know what was in this frame when you found it in Mrs. Sur- ratt's room ? A. I cannot remember. There was a picture in it ; something in the back of it ; a carte-de-visite of Booth in the back of it. Q. Is the carte-de-vis;ite of Booth in the back of it now ? Mr. Merrick. We object to that testimony. The Court. You object to his saying anything about it at all 1 Mr. Merrick. We object to his making known what was in it, in the way of a paper having on it a picture or writing. Let them produce the paper. Mr. PiERREPONT. Suppose we don't choose to produce it. Mr. Merrick. Then you can't prove it. Mr. PiERREPONT. Yes, we can, if we show there was a picture in it. Q. Tell us what there was in it. Mr. Bradley. We object until they lay the foundation, Mr. PiERREPONT. I undertake to show what was the condition of that when found. That I have a right to do. I do not know what was in it. I am en- deavoring to ascertain that. Mr. Merrick. Then I say you had better have somebody examine the wit- ness who does know. I will cite this, your honor, in illustration of the propri- ety of our objection. As I understand it, this is a sort of a frame in which dif- ferent pictures might fit. The counsel hands this frame to the witness and asks him whether there was or not some picture in it when he got it which is not in it now. He might just as well hand the witness an envelope which might contain any one letter, and ask him to look at the letter in it, and state if that is the same letter he saw in it before ; and when the witness says it is not the letter which was in it when he first saw it, then ask him to go on and state what was in the envelope when he did see it. I cannot see any difference. Mr. PiERREPONT. There is no difference ; I would have aright to present the witness with an envelope and ask him whether it was in the same condition now, as when he first saw it ; and if he said it was, why very well ; but if he said it was not Mr. Merrick. You would have a right to ask him as to whether the enve- lope was in the same condition, but you would not have a right to ask him as to the contents of the envelope. Mr. PiERREPONT. I am not asking the contents. The Court. I do not see that there is any occasion for any difference belAveen you. You are both desirous, I presume, of getting at the fact whether this frame is in the same condition now as it was when first seen by the witness. Mr, Merrick. He has already stated distinctly that it is not in the same con- dition. He was then going on to slate that there was a carte-de-visilQ of J. Wilkes Booth in it, to which we oljected. Tlie gentleman insists that he has a right to ask him what was on the card. Mr. PiERREPONT. I have not asked him what Avas on the card. Mr. Merrick. We object to anything being said about the carte-de-viBite, unless they produce it. Mr. PiERREPONT. We have not reached that point yet. Q. I will ask you to look at this frame and state if you now find, anything in the back of it ? A. No, sir. Q. Anywhere ; I do not care where ? A. This is the back ; (back of the glass face.) Q. I say in it ? 23 346 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Yes, sir. I find in it a card with "morning, noon, and night*' on it. Q. I will ask you whether there was anything else in it when you found it 1 Mr. Mkkrick. Don't state what it was. A. This frame is not in the same condition as when I found it, but I cannot exactly say. Mr. PiERREPONT. I am not asking now the condition of the frame; I am asking whether there was anything else either in the back or front when you found it. A. Yes, sir; there was a card. Q. Will you tell us what became of that something ] A. It was turned over to the government. Q. Will you look at that (handing witness a photographic picture of Booth,) and state whether that is the something that was turned over to the government. Mr. Bradley. You might have produced that at first and saved all trouble about it. Mr PiERREPONT. We were trying to get at this. Mr. Merrick In rather a circuitous manner. Mr PiERREPONT. The circuity grew out of your objection. Q. You will please answer the question. A. I can say that it was a picture like this. I cannot say that this is the Identical one. Q. Do you know who that is the picture of? A. J. Wilkes Booth. ^. We started from there and went back to the American House. I •went with him as far as the jail to find ;Ui officer, but I could not find one, and returned back in front of the American, where I met Albert Sowles and his brother. Q. What is his brother's name ? A. Edward A. Sowles, a lawyer. Q. Did you succeed in arresting this man ] A. I did not. Q. Whereabouts and at what time did you last see this man ? A. The lai^t 1 saw of him was at the depot, wheu 1 returned back there. Q. How did he escape you ? A. I could not say. I could get no officer. I went to the cars, went to the west side of them, and round on the east side of them, aud through the cars, but saw this gentleman no more. Cross-examination by Mr. Bradley : Q. What date do you think this was ? A. I could not say. Q. Cannot you fix the day of the week ? A. As near as 1 can fix it it was some three or four day.s after T h'eard of the assassination of the President. From that time I was on the lookout ; I was near the depot. Q. Were you there when the cars came in that day ? A. I could not say. The only way I recollect that day was that on Tues- day morning I was to receive oysters, aud I have no doubt that I was there, but I could not say. Q. You cannot tell whether you went to the cars the morning you saw this man or notf A. I cannot. Q. Can you tell what time this man left ? A. No, sir. Q Can you tidl whether there was any connection between St. Albans and Montreal immediately on the arrival of the cars from the south going to Mon treal ? A. When the cars were late Q. My question was whether there was a regular connection there habitually ? A. I cannot tell whether there was or U't. Q. You say you have a saloon near the depot ? A. Yes, sir ; the first door east of the depot. Q. Can you tell from memory whether or not the cars that came up from Burlington on the east side of the lake formed a connection there with the cars going on to Montreal ? A. I cannot. Q. You cannot recollect whether passengers coming up the lake to St. Albans staid at the depot or went on 1 TRIAL OF JOHN 11. SURRATT. 359 A. I could not at that time. Q. You say there were two persons together ; did they continue together all the time ? A. They did until I followed them into the depot. Q. Do you know who came up with the train that day as conductor ? A. I do not. Q. Do you know the conductors on the trains running up and down at St. Albans 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Who were the conductors at that time 1 A. Hobart and White were, and there were a number of others. I could not name the others now who ran at that time. Q. I understand you to say that you were on the lookout, on the arrival of the train, for the assassins of the President 1 A. I was looking out for such men. I was near by the depot, and for that reason my attention was drawn to every strangei' that arrived at the place. Q. And you cannot tell now whether the train stopped there, or whether it connected and went on towards iMontreal 1 A. The train was in the depot when I followed the gentlemen in, headed north towards Montreal. Whether then; was an engine on oi not 1 could not say. Q. You did not see the train arrive ? A. I do not recollect. Q. Where did these gentlemen come from — in what direction ? A. Tlie first I saw of them, I stood in my shop dour and saw them on the sidewalk. Q. Going in what direction ? A. They were going from the depot. Q. There were two of them coming, and no more ? A. Two and no more. Theie were other gentlemen on the walk — plenty of them np and down ; they were going right side by side. Q. Were there other people walking close by them 1 A. No, sir, I think not; they were together. Q. Walking in the same direction from the depot, up into town ? A. They were walking from the depot towards tlie St. Albans House. Q. Dili y .u fillovv them? A. I (lid not then. Q. When did you lose sight of them? A. I turned ; there were some men in the shop. I stood in the door as they went past, but went back into the shop. Q. How far were they from you ? A. Five or six rods. Q. A rod is five yards and a little more, isn't it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You lost sight of them when you turned to go into the shop ; when did you see them again ? A. I got rid of these men ; 1 cannot say how long it was. I stood again in the door, and they passed l)y towards the depot. Q. How long were you in the shop V A. I could not say. It was not more than twenty minutes until they passed my shop going towards the depot. Q. Had any train left the depot in the mean time ? A. I could not say. Q. What did you do then ? A. I locked my door and followed them. Q. Where did they go then ? 360 TEIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. They went towards the depot. I went in front and came in the rear of them. As they passed by I turned about and came in the rear of them. Q. Which way did you go then ? A. They took a circle round across the track towards the depot j I cut across towards the depot where they were making for. Q. Did you come up with them again ? A. I did not cross their path again. Q. Did they enter the depot 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you leave them ? A. I left them in the depot. Q. When you returned with Mr. Sowles, where did you see them ? A. I saw them in the depot. Q. Had any train left in the mean time ? A. I cannot say. Q. Now describe the dress of the two men. A. The taller one had light pants, light vest, and a dark blue or black coat ; a black fur hat. Q. You mean a high-crowned hat ? A. What we term a stove-pipe hat. The short man had light clothes; sandy complexion. I could not say what kind of a hat. Q. Were all his clothes light 1 A. Yes, sir ; coat, vest, and pants. Q. Could you say whether they were made of linen or woollen stuflF? A. I cannot say ; I did not take so much notice of that man. Q. Had you had any description of any of these men who were supposed to have been concerned in the assassination of the President ? A. I had not, only what I had seen in the papers ; in the Burlington Times. Q. When had you seen that ? A. Previous to the time I was after these men. Q. How long ? A. I could not say. Q. One or two days before ? A. I am unable to say the time ; it might be three or four days ; I could not state the exact time. By a Juror : Q. Was it after the assassination ? A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Merrick: Q. I understood you three or four days after, and that you saw it in the Bur- lington Times. A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Bradley : Q. How long after you saw the description in the Burlington Times before you saw these men ? A. I could not say. Q. One or two days ? A. It might have been that day, and it might have been the day before. I took the Burlington Times at my shop regularly, and I must have had that paper that morning. Q. Then how long had you been on the lookout for men going up there 1 A. It could not have been long. Q. If you received the Burlington Times that day, it must have come by that train ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 361 A. Tt must have come bv that train. Q. Tlien you were standing at the door when you first saw these men ; how came you to be on the lookout for these men ? A. I tliink I saw a description of that man in the paper. Q You think you saw it that morning ? A. I cannot say for certain that it was that morning; it is my impression that it was that morning. Q. I understand you you got the paper by that train, and you cannot tell at what hour in the morning' the train arrived ? A. The morning train got in very early. I used to come to my shop in the morning at half-past four and stay until the trains were all out, and then I would go back and have my breakfast. Q. Then did I misunderstand you that you had been on the lookout for these men from the time yon heard of the death of the President ? A. For men. Q. What men ? A. Strangers and the like of them. Q. Was there not a constant stream of strangers passing throngh St. Albans ? A. Yes, sir ; and there was considerable excitement about those days. Q. If you had been on the lookout for men, and did not get that description till that morning, you were not on the lookout for that particular man 1 A. No; 1 was not for that particular man I saw described in the papers. When I saw the description I was on the lookout, and as quick as my eye struck tbat man I made up my mind he was the man. Q. You are quite confident about the dress of the tall man ? A. I am. By a Juror : Q. Have you the paper which contained that description ? A. It was here yesterday ; whether it has gone home or not I do not Icnow. Q. Where is it now ? A. I think it is on its way home ? By Mr. Merrick : Q. How came you to send it home ? A. It was not in my possession. Q. Who sent it home ? ' A. The officer who had it. Q. Who was the officer ? A. I cannot call his name now. Q. Whore does he belong ? A. He belongs in St. Albans. Q. You live tliere, and yet you cannot tell the name of that officer ? A. He came there this spring, after I moved away fi-om home. By Mr. PlERREPOiNT: Q. Could you tell his name if you were to hear it ? A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Bradley: Q. When did you last see that officer ? A. Last night. Q. Where was he stopping ? A. He stopped at the Ebbitt House. Q. You have seen him this morning ? A. No, sir ; he left on last night's train, I believe. Q. And you allowed him to take that paper with him ? A. He had it in his possession, and took it. 24 362 TKIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. Q. Do you remembev the date of that paper 1 A. The 18th of April. 1865. Q. That is the paper you saw ? A. That is the description of the man I saw. Q. I want to know whether it is that paper you saw on the ISth ? A. Yes. it was. Q. You recollect it ? A. That must have been it. Q. I want to know whether you recollect ? , A. That must be the date of the paper. I saw the description of the man in that paper, and I picked him out in the street as the man. By Mr. PlERREPONT : Q. Who did you understand at the time was the man you were seeing ? (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley.) The Court. I suppose the question is proper, if it is put in the proper form. Witness. The man's name is Booth. Mr. Bradley. I hope the court will caution the witness not to answer when he is stopped. Q. Who did you suppose it was that you saw at that time? (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley as irrelevant ) The Court said the question could be asked whether the prisoner was the party he saw. Mr. PlERREPONT. My question was, what was the name of the person lie supposed he then saw from the description ? Question disallowed in that shape. Q. Have you ever seen Booth since? A. I never saw him. Q. You were looking for a man, from what cause ? A." From the description I saAV in the Burlington Times. Q. A description of whom 1 A. I cannot say now. Q. Who did they say it described ? A. I could not recollect who it was. I have not seen the paper to read it. Q. Who did you speak of as Booth ? A. That was a description, as I understood, of Booth. By Mr. Bradley : Q. Then the man you were looking for was Booth ? A. I think the description in the Burlington Times — the one I came across — represented Booth. Q. That is, you saw the description of Booth in the Burlington Times, and you were on the lookout for Booth ; you saw a man who looked like Booth and you wanted to arrest him ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do I understand that Booth was described in the paper you saw ? A. I cannot say whether it was Booth or who it was. Edward A. Sowles sworn and examined. By the District Attorney : Q. Where do you reside ? A. St. Albans, Vermont. Q. Do you know a gentleman there by the name of Conger, a carpenter by occupation ? A. I do. Q. Do you recollect his calling your attention to any person about the 18th of April, 1865 ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. 363 A. My attention was called to the fact that there were two persons, or one person at least, who was supposed to have been connected with the assassination of the President, and that he was at the American Hotel, St. Albans ; in short, he was supposed to be Booth. I went to the American Hotel with my brother, Albert Sowles. We saw two persons there who were pointed out to us as the supposed persons. Q. State when this was. A. This was on the Tuesday following the assassination. Q. What day of the month ] A. I think it was on the ISth. Q. What time of the day was it 1 A. It was in the forenoon. Q. You cannot state more definitel}^ the time 1 A. I do not know that I can state the hour. I passed through the bar-room of the hotel. They were then in the bar-room. About the same time I learned there was a photograph of this supposed person in the hotel. We applied to the proprietor of the hotel and he showed us the photograph. Mr. Bradley. Photograph of Booth 1 A. Supposed to have been Booth. After passing through that room and see- ing the photograph we came out, and as we came out these two persons passed out and went down by the depot, which is in what is called Lake street, perhaps thirty or forty rods off. During this time we met Mr. Conger. Mr. Bradlev. You mean Avhen you were going to the depot? A. I thiuk we had seen him before. I would not be positive about that. He wanted to know if this man could not be arrested. We went into the depot, and there we saw these two persons again. While we were there, there was a train of cars standing upon the track in the depot, and my recollection is that it was about ready to leave for the north, towards Montreal. After remaining there a short time, we returned. On my return I went to the First National Bank with my brother, who is the cashier. I might say that 1 did not see that person, or these persons, after that time. I have a faint recollection that they took the train, but I would not be certain about that. Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley: Q. Can you describe how these persons were dressed? A. There was a tall one who had light pants, light vest, and, I should say, dark coat. Q. Do you remember his hat ? A. My recollection is that he had on one of these silk hats. Q. What we call a stove-pipe? A. What we call a stove-pipe. Q. Your attention has been called to the prisoner; has he been pointed out to you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you identify him as the man you saw ? A. All I can say about that is that this person had black hair, rather lor.g, and black moustache. Q. Black whiskers ? A. Yes. Q. What is there that fixes this as the ISth rather than the 21st of the month ? A. I can tell you in regard to that. You will remember that I stated in my examination in chief that I looked at a photograph. I had a conversation at that time in regard to the manner or the time in which tliat photograph got there. Persons who were there raised the question, and I myself expressed some doubt, about its getting there so soon. I had travelled over the route 364 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. from Washington to St. Albans previous to that, and I told them there was no trouble in its getting there in that time. They said the government would have to get up a photograph. My reply was that there was pufficient time to get it up and have it there by the time we saw it. I learned at the same time that the photograph had come in that morning. Q. Did the photograph correspond in some measure with the man you were looking at ? A. As far as hair and whiskers were concerned it did. Q. Do you think you would know that man were you to see him ? A. I cannot tell whether I would know him or not with the black hair and whiskers. If you ask me whether I could recollect him, I should answer I do not think I could. Q. Perhaps you could when some circumstances were brought to your mind. A. I only saw him a short time, and whenever I tried to see him full in the face he would disappear. Mr. Merrick. We shall direct the marshal to summon you as a witness for the defence. Witness. I think it would be useless to summon me upon the part of the defence to identify the person who was there, because I could not do it. I could only state these facts in regard to his general appearance. Q. You state that that photograph could get there after the assassination from Washington city ; do you know whether it came by mail, or how? A. I can only state what the proprietor of the hotel said. I do not know except what he told me. Q. In calculation of the time the photograph would take coming from Wash- ington, what time did you start it from Washington relative to the assassina- tion, which took place Friday night about ten o'clock 1 Witness. The question would arise then when they were taken. Mr. Merrick You say you hal information that there was time enough for it to get to St. Albans ; in the formation of that opinion, at what time relative to the assassination did you start it from Washington city ? A. I do not know that I calculated that ; that was merely a conversation that we had. I could say that if it left here Sunday night there would be no diffi- culty in its getting there at that time, and perhaps not if it left on Monday morning. Q. You say you do not know how it got there, except what the landlord told you. How did he tell you it got there '{ Question objected to by the district attorney. Mr. Bradley. AVe will comii directly at it, then. Was it not brought there by one of the detectives ? A. That I do not know, lie did not tell me that. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. You stated that a photograph of Booth, or one claiming to be such, was there; did you look at the photograph ? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Did you think that photograph was the photograph of the man you saw with black hair ? A. We thought we could see some resemblance. Q. Did you think it was the man ? A. We thought so ; otherwise we should not have made any effort to arrest him. Q. After you saw the man ? A. I had doubts all the time. Q. You stated bis hair and moustache were black ; did you observe whether he had any hair on his chin 1 TRIAL OF JOHN H SURRATT. 365 A. I could not state that. Q. Had lie a moustache? A. He had. Q. He had no side whiskers ? A. No, sir. Mr. Merrick. Did not you say ha had whiskers ? A. I do not think I did ; if I did, I wish it to be corrected. I have no recol- lection of his having whiskers. Mr. PlERREPONT. Tell the jury whether this black moustache and black hair you saw there were the natural color, or whether they were colored. A. I could not say ; they were very black. Mrs.E. W. McClermont — residence, Washington city — sworn and examined : By the District Attorney : Q. How long have you lived in Washington ? A. I have lived in Washington most of my life, since I was a child. Q. Were you living in the city in 1864 ? A. I was ; on the Island, on B street. Q. Do you remember any occurrence at that time which had any connection with the assassination ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Please state what it is, as distinctly as you can ? A. It was in April, 1864, as near as I can recollect, between the 12th and 15th of April. Q. Where were you ? A. I came from the Island, and was standing on the north side of the avenue, on the corner of Tenth street, waiting for a car to go to Capitol Hill. Q. About what time of day was it ? A. As near as I can recollect, in the forenoon. Q. Now tell the jury what you saw and heard ? A. While Avaiting for a car, there were two men standing within a few feet of me, who seemed to be impatiently waiting for some one. Q. Please state what was said. A. In a few moments these were joined by another ; I turned my head away and do not know whether this person who joined them came down Tenth street or not. They spoke in an under tone, and the only remark I heard, in speaking to the one who joined them, was " Jim." Then I heard the President's name mentioned; one of the men spoke of his coming from the Soldier's Home; then 1 heard them mention the word "telescope rifle." One of these answered and said "His wife and child will be along." Another replied, "It makes no differ- ence ; if necessary, they too could be got rid of." At this I turned, and one of them saw I was lookng at them ; they ceased conversation and walked on the avenue. Q. In what tone was the conversation ? A. It was in an undertone; I could just get the words in monosyllables; they were not standing there more than five or ten minutes. Q. Did you hear anything more than you have stated 1 A. No, sir; I did not wish to appear to be listening — they made the remarks, and I could not avoid hearing them. Q. How many were they there talking together ? A. Three. Q. The third one came down what street and joined them ? A. Tenth street, I believe. Q. Did you ever see any of these men afterwards 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Where? 366 TRIAL OF JOHN H SURRATT. A. At tlie conspiracy trial. Q. Now state who of these men you saw at the conspiracy trial. . A. Herold and Atzerodt were the two men who were standing on the corner. Q. And the one that came down Tenth street, did you see him at the trial ? A. No, sir. Q. Please decribe to the jury the man who came down Tenth street. Was he an old man or a young man 1 A. He was a young man ; at the time I thought I had seen him before, but could not place him. Q. Was he tall or short ? A. Medium height. Q. How was he dressed ? Was he well dressed or otherwise ? A. He was very genteelly dressed. I do not recollect much about his dress. Q. You thought you had seen him before, do you know where you had seen him before ? A. Not then ; I could not place him. Q. Can you place him now ? A. Yes, sir ; I have seen him perform here, and also at Philadelphia. Q. What is his name 1 A. John Wilkes Booth. Albert Sowlrs, cashier First National Bank, St. Albans, Vermont, sworn and examined. By the Assistant District Attorney : Q. Where did you reside in April, 1865 ? A. ]n St. Albans. Q. Were you there on the Tuesday and Wednesday following the assassina- tion ] A. I was. Q. Do you know Mr. Conger, who just left the stand a few minutes ago ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Describe, if you please, to the jury what occurred, and whether or not you and your brother, with Mr. Conger, visited the depot. State, distinctly, the circumstances of that "^ isit on that morning. A. I was going to the depot that morning, and was stopped by Mr. Conger, whe informed me Mr. Mkrrick. No matter what he said. Witness. 1 went to the depot with Mr. Conger; it must have been three or four days after the assassination ; I am not positive about the time of day ; it was after nine o'clock; I go to the bank at nine o'clock. We went to the depot and a man supposed to be Booth, in company with another, was pointed out to me; these men immediately left tlie depot and went back to tlie American House ; we followed after, went into the American House, and saw these men there a moment. Q. What did you do then? A. I remained in the American a short time and then returned to the depot. We went there again, and then I saw this man conversing with the shorter man on the steps of the depot; they were strangers to me. Q Describe the size, figure, face, and dress of the man you were particularly looking after ? A. He had on light pants, light vest; he had a tall hat, I think. Q. What of his figure 1 A. He was a tall man, quite straight and erect. He would weigh about 160 pounds, I should judge. Q. Describe the shape and appearance of his foce. A. I do not know that I can exactly. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 367 Q. As neai" as you can ? A. He had a black moustache ; his hair was dark. Q. Where did you last see him 1 A. 1 saw him at the depot that day. Q. You lost sight of him there ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State whether he had whiskers or a goatee, A. He had no whiskers, and I think he had no beard on his chia ; I merely gave a glance at hira, and cannot answer positively. Q. State as nearly as you can the day of the month and day of the week. A. I cannot; it was soon after the assassination. Q. How many days ? A. I could not state ; three or four days, probably. Cross-examined by Mr. Bkaoley : Q. Do you know whether a train runs north, or did at that time, on Sunday? A. I am not aware of it. Q. Did you see a photograph of the person pointed out to you as Booth ? A. I saw a photograph that was said to be Booth's. Q. After seeing that photograph, did you follow this man you suspected to be Booth ? A. We went to the depot afterwards ; yes, sir. Q. This man preceding you ? A. Yes, sir ; I went to the depot ; I wanted to see the man again. Q. I undei-stand you that shortly after you were at the American Hotel you ■went down to the depot; did you see the photograph at the American Hotel be- fore the man went out, or just about the time he went out? A. We were looking at the photograph in a room when this man came in, and the photograph was immediately laid aside. Q. And you followed him ? A. No, sir; the man came to the door and turned around and went back. He went off to the depot and we followed him. Q. Was there any resemblance between that man and the photograph, that induced you to follow him ? A. I was not positive. Q. Was it sufficient to induce yon to follow him ? A. I wanted another look at him ; I did not get a full front view. Q. How soon did the train start after you got down to the depot 'f A. The train was standing in the depot, and I left the train standing there. Q. You were looking for a man you supposed to be one of the assassins of the President, and saw him go into the depot. Did you see him go into a car ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you see him go off in the train or not ? A. No, sir. Q. And your suspicions were very strong ? A. I became satisfied it was not Booth. c Q. How did you become satisfied of that ? A, In my own mind ; we were receiving despatches that Booth was being followed ill another direction. Q. And that satisfied you ? A. That was one thing. Q. Did you yourself receive a despatch, or was it published at the telegraph office ? A. I went to the office with despatches. Q. Did you go to the telegraph office between the time this man was pointed out and the time he left ? 368 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. It was in my way. The telegrapli office was in the depot. Q. Describe that depot totlie jury. A. I can only say that it is a very large building. Q. Closed in 1 A. Yes, sir, with offices ; a telegraph office and express office in it. (4. What companies did it belong to ? A. To the Vermont Central and to the Vermont and Canada Railroad Compa- nies. Q. I suppose as a business man, and especially as the cashier of a bank, you know something about the arrival and departure of the trains. Do you know at what time the train came in at that time 1 A. It was a morning train. I do not know the hour. Q. How long did the early train lie there ? Did it go directly on to Mon- treal ? A. It usually lies there a sufficient time to get refreshments. Q. Twenty minutes is the usual time, is it not ? j A. Yes, sir ; that is the usual time. Q. That train arrived that morning and stopped twenty minutes, and then went on to Montreal 1 A. Yes, sir, it did, if it was on time. Q. Have you gone to Montreal frequently to know the time it takes to run to Montreal from there ? A. Two or three hours. j| Q. Two and a half hours ? A. Perhaps so. Q. About that time did you leave St. Albans yourself and go in the morning train ? A. No, sir. I have never been to Montreal by the morning train. By Mr. PierrepoiXT : Q. Have you ever seen a man since that time who looked like the man you saw that morning ? (Question ol jected to by Mr. Bradley, as not in response to anything drawn out by cross-examination.) Mr. PiERREPONT. We will put it in chief. : Mr. ]^RADLEY. The court will decide whether that can be done. The Court. The prosecution can re-examine its own witness, which, of course, will reopen the cross examination. Mr. Bradley. I only wished to have the point established — that we were entitled to cross-examine him in reply. Q. Have you seen lately any man Avho resembles the man you then saw ? A. 1 think 1 see a man who resembles him in this court-room. Q. Is he the prisoner? A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Bradley : Q. By nvhom was the prisoner pointed out to you, when, and where ? A. I think I saw him come into the court-room Monday morning Q. By whom was he pointed out, and with whom did you speak about it? A. My brother and Mr. Conger were with me at the lime. (4. Any one else ? A. I think not. Q. He was not pointed out to you in this court-room? A. No, sir. Q. At that time had he irona on his wrists in the custody of the marshal ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And your attention was thus drawn to him ? TRIAL OF JOHN II. SUERATT. 369 A. Yes, sir. Q. Now tell us the points of resemblance wbicli strike you. A. His general appearance, face, and eyes. Q. Did you not tell us you had so slight a look at him that you could not tell whether it was Booth or not, and that you followed him because you wanted to get another look at him ? A. Exactly. I had seen him before. Q. And now you tell us you can identify this man as somewhat like the mau you saw there that morning I A. Yes, sir ; he resembles him in height and size. ** Q. And you think this man weighs 160 pounds 1 A. I thought he did. Q. How about the man now ? A. I could not say. Q. Did not you have a good look at him on his way over to the court-house ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Cannot you tell better now, after looking at him, how much he would weigh than you could that man at St. Albans after your slight look at him ? A. I think he would weigh 160 pounds now. Louis J. Weichmax sworn and examined. By Mr. PlERREPONT : \ Q. State your full name. [ A. My name is Louis J. Weichman. Before the trial of the assassins I spelled my name Wic. I gave it distinctly to the reporters, as I thought, but they spelled it Wei, and since that I have spelled it that way. Mr. PiEKREl'ONT. It is uot of the slightest consequence whether the i gets before the e or after. Q. Where do you reside ? A, I reside at Philadelphia now. Q. Do you know the prisoner at the bar? A. I do, very well. Q. State to the jury the first time you ever saw him. A. I first met John Harrison Surratt, the prisoner at the bar, at St. Mary's College, near Ellicott's Mills, Howard county, Maryland, in September, 1859. Q. I will pass over the intermediate time and come down to 1863. Where were you then living 1 A. In the latter part of 1862 I accepted a position as teacher in St. Matthew's Institute, on Nineteenth street, between G and H. Q. How long did you continue as teacher in that institute 1 A. I tauglit in that institute for over a year — a year and ten days. Q. Did you see Surratt in that year — 1863 ? A. In the month of January, 1863, 1 for the first time met Surratt since we left college. Q. Where did you meet him ? A. I met him at St. Matthew's Institute, where he paid me a visit. Q. Did he visit you there more than once 1 A. He visited me there frequently during the years lS63-"64. Q. Did you return his visits ? A. I visited liis house at Surrattsville in March, 1863, and there made the ac- quaintance of his mother, Mrs. Mary E. Surratt, and his sister Anna. Q. Who presented you to xMrs. Surratt ? A. Her son John, Q. How far was that house from this house ? A. About ten miles from the Navy Yard bridge. Q. In what direction from this house ? 370 TRIilL OF JOHN U. SURRATT. A. I believe it is a southeasterly direction. Q. What was the place you visited ? A. The place was called Surrattsville. Q. Was there a village there, or only a tavern ? A. The place was called Surrattsville after Surratt's father. It was a house of about ten rooms, and a post office there. Q. Was it a tavern ? A. Yes, sir. There was a sort of a bar attached to the post office. Q. They^took lodgers — entertained travellers — did they ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was the father then living ? A. No, air; the father died in 1862, I believe. Q. When did you next visit at Surratt's house ? A. I visited there two or three times in 1863 and 1864. I wish to state here that during my first visit to Mrs. Surratt in 1863, in March, we were aroused one night by a very delightful serenade by the Marine band, which had gone down from the city here. Mr. Bradley. That is not evidence. Witness. I intend to make it evidence. I intended to state that there I met David E. Hernld. Mr. PiERREPONT. You need not state about the Marine band. Witness. Very well. That band returned in the morning, and David E. Herold, who was with the baud, was introduced to me by John H. SuiTatt. Q Was he the same Herold who was tried as one of the conspirators ? A. The same. Q. At that time, in March, 1863, did you meet another one of the conspirators ? A. No, sir. Q. When did you next see John Surratt ] A. 0, I saw John Surratt very frequently. Q. Did he call to see you 1 A. Yes, sir; he visited me from time to time in '63 and '64, and was always treated with the greatest kindness. Q. Will you state when Mrs. Surratt came to the city to live ? A. Mrs. Surratt moved to her house in the city, No. 541 H street, between Sixth and Seventh, on the 1st of November, 1864. Q. When did you first visit the house after she first moved there on the Ist of Novembei', 18641 A. I commenced boarding there the 1st of November, 1864; or I should say I took lodgings there. I did not take my meals there till the 1st of December. Q Where did you have your washing done ? A. I had it done in the latter part of my stay at Mrs. Surratt's house by a colored woman at Mrs. Surratt's hnnse. Q. Who was the colored woman ? A. Her name was Susan Jackson. She did my washing for about f ur months before I left. Q. Where did you have it done before the last four months ? A. I do not know exactly where the colored woman who did my washing lived, and I do not know her name. Q. You had it done out of the house ? A. Yes, sir; during the mouths of November and December it was done out of the house, and during the months of January, February, March, and April it was done in the house. Q. What was the name of the last person in the house who did it ? A. Susan Jackson. Q. She was the last one ? A. Yes, sir. I TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. ' 371 (This examination objected to by Mr. Bradley as having been already gone over. Objection sustained by the court as a waste of time.) Q. Now, will you state, between the time you first went there to board and the assassination of Mr. Lincoln, whether you boarded at any other house ? A. No, sir, Q. Were you there on the night of the assassination 1 A. I was. Q. You boarded there all of the time from the 1st of December until the as- sassination 1 A. Ye-!, sir. Q. Will you tell the jury when and who you first saw at the house connected •with this conspiracy, after you went there to board, excepting John H. Surratt and Mrs. Surratt, his mother? A. The first one I saw at Mrs. Surratt's connnected with the conspiracy was John AVilkes Booth. Q. Tell the jury when you first saw John Wilkes Booth at the house. Witness. Do you wish me to state when I first made Bo.ith's acquaintance f Mr. PiERREPO.XT. I wish you to state just now when you first saw him at the house. A. I first saw him at the house in the latter part of December, 18C4, or iu the early part of January, 1865. Q. That is the first time you saw him there ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now state where you first made his acquaintance. A. In the winter of 1864-'65, I was invited one evening by Surratt to take a walk Avith him down the street. We left the house and walked towards Seventh street, and went down Seventh street. Just as we were opposite Odd Fellows' Hall somebody called, "Surtatt, Surratt." I said, "'John, there is some one calling you." He turned, and as he turned, recognized Dr. Samuel Mudd, an acquaintance of his, from Charles county, Maryland. He shook hands with the doctor, and then introduced him to me. Dr. Mudd then intro- duced his companion, as Booth, to both of us. After the etiquette of the second on such occasions. Booth invited both of us to his room at the National Hotel. Arriving at the room. Booth requested us to be seated, rang the bell, and had the servant bring drinks and segars to the room for the four gentlemen assem bled. I made some remark about the appearance of the room; Booth said yes ; it was a room tliat had been occupied by a member of Congress. Q. Do you know the number? A. The number of the room at that interview was 84. Booth took down some congressional documents from the secretary, and remarked what a mce read he would have to himself when left alone. Q. Was Dr. Mudd still there ] A. Yes, sir. After a little conversation Dr. Mudd rose, went out into the entry that led by the room, and called out Booth. They did not take their hats with them; they did not go down stairs, because if they had done so I should have heard the noise of their footsteps. After five or six minutes they returned to the room, and Jolm Surratt was called out. The three then remained in the entry for several minutes, and came back again. Dr. Mudd then came over to me where I was sitting and remarked: " Weichman," said he, " I hope you will excuse the privacy of the conversation ; the fact is, Mr. Booth lias some busines.*? with me; he wishes to purchase my farm in the country, but lie does not want to give me enough." Booth also came to me and made an apology to the same effect, saying be did intend to purchase lands in the lower part of Maryland, and that he wanted to buy Dr. Mudd's farm. I was then seated on a sufa near the window. Booth, Dr. Mudd, and Surratt then seated themselves round a centre table in the middle of the room, about eight feet from me. They then 372 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. began a private conversation, audible merely as to sound. Bootb took out from hia pocket an envelope, and made marks on the back of it, and Surratt and Mudd were looking intently at him. From the motion of the pencil I concluded that the marks were more like rnads or straight lines than anything else. After about twenty minutes' conversation around the table, they rose, and Dr. Mudd then invited us around to the Pennsylvania Hotel, where he was stopping. Arriving at the Pennsylvania Hotel, I sat down on a settee and talked with Dr. Mudd. Booth and Surratt seated themselves around the hearth, and talked very lively there. Booth showing him letters, and Surratt evincing a great deal of glee. About half past ten Booth got up and bade us good night. "We left a short time after. Dr. Mudd stating that he was going to leave town next morn- ing. On going home, John Surratt remarked that that brilliant, accomplished young gentleman, to whom I had been introdnceil, was no less than J. Wilkes Booth, the actor. When I first met Booth on Seventh street, I did not know that he was an actor at all. I had seen him several times on the stage, but I did not know that he was J. Wilkes Booth, the actor. I knew when he told me so. He said that Booth wanted to purchase Dr. Mudd's farm, and that he, Surratt, was to be the agent for the purchase of that farm Some weeks afterwards, when I asked Mrs. Surratt what John had to do with Dr. Mudd's farm, and whether he had made himself an agent" of Booth, she said, "O, Dr. Mudd and the people of Charles are getting tired of Booth, and they are pushing him off on Juhn." Q. Up to the time of this interview, had you met Herold except down in the country ? A. Yes, sir ; I met him the second time at Piscataway church, in the summer of 1864. Q. Where is Piscataway church ? A. In Prince George's county, about ifive miles from Surrattsville. Q. Who was with you ] A. John ."-unatt. I met Herold there for the second time. Q. Did anything then occur? A No, sir ; merely a casual meeting at the church, nothing more. Q. Where did you and John Surratt go after this meeting with Dr. Mudd and Booth 1 A. We went home. Q. About what time did you get home? A. We got home in the evening about 11 o'clock. Q. Did anything further occur that afternoon? A. No, sir. Q. We will now come down to 1865. Did you know of Surratt being in any business? A. Yes, sir ; in the latter part of December, 1864, and the early part of Jan- uary, 1865, he was employed by Adams Express Company in this city. Q. How long was he there ? A. To the best of my knowledge he was there about ten days. Q. Did he tell y;>u anything about how long? A. I believe he did ; ten days or two weeks. Q. Did be leave ? A. Shortly fifi.er Booth's introduction to him, he was very anxious to get two weeks' leave of absence to go into the country. There being at that time a great press of business in sending off soldiers' boxes, &c., they refused to give him that leave. He told me that he took French leave. Q. In January, 1865, did you know where he went? A. Well, he did take French leave, and was away from the house several days. When be returned I asked Lim where he had been. His answer was, to Port Tobacco. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 373 •I Q. Do yoii know how he went away at that time? A. He told me he went on horseback. Q. Do you know how he returned ? A. I do not know exactly. Q. Did he say anything to you about having met Mr. Martin, or anybody else, at Port Tobacco at tloat time ? A. No, sir. Q. Did he speak of meeting any one from Nti-w York there ? A. No, eir. Q. Do you know what horse he rode ? A. No, sir. Q. Look at the book now shown you, (book exhibited,) and tell the jury what book it is. A. This is the register of the Maltby House, Baltimore, Maryland. Q. Please look under the date of that register of January 21, lS6a, and state what you find there. A. 1 find my own name and the name of J. Harrison Surratt registered there on the twenty-first of January, 1865, as occupying a room No. 127. Q. The same room ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Whose name is first entered 1 A. My name. Q. In whose handwriting is it 1 A. In my handwriting. Q. Whose name is next entered? A. Surratt's. Q. Is it in his handwriting ? A. It is. Q. W^ill you state whether or not those names were actually entered on that day by you and feurratt ? A. They were. Q. Did you occupy room No. 127 ? A. We did. Q. What time in the day did you reach Baltimore 1 A. On tlie evening of the 21st of January. It was a Saturday evening. Q. At this time did you know Payne 1 A. No, sir ; I had never met him. Q. Nor Wood, as he was afterwards called ? A. No, sir. Q. Will you state what occurred while you were there ? Give it in its order of time. Fi^^^t I will ask you if you know, of your own knowledge, wh( ther Payne was boarding in Baltimore then ? A. No, sir ; I do not know, of my own knowledge. (4. Now proceed to state what occurred while you were there. A. On the morning of the 22d Surratt took a carvingi! and said that he had $300 in his possession, and that he Avas going to see some gentlemen. on private business, and that he did not want me along. Q. State whether from the time you first knew Surratt until this date he had been engaged in any business, except during the brief period he was at Adams'd express ollice. A. No, sir. Q. What did he do when he went out on this private business, as he states ? A. That I do not know. He took the carriage and rode off". I told him I did not care about what gentlemen he was going to see ; that 1 had business of my own to transact. Q. How long was he gone 1 374 TRIAL OF JOHN H SURRATT. A. He was at the hotel to dinner at 3 o'clock. Q. You do not know, of your own knowledge, to whose house he went ? A. No, sir. Q. Did Snrratt name to you then, or at any subsequent time, the name of the person who kept the house where he went ? A. No, sir. Q. When he came back, which you say was at 3 o'clock, what occurred ? A. I returned home that evejping ; whether he returned with me or not I do not know, but it is my impression that he did not. 1 think I left him in Balti- more. Q. You returned that evening ? A. Yes, sir. Q. At Mrs. Surratt's house, at this time, where was your room in the house in relation to Surratt's room ? A. Well, Suiratt and 1 were so friendly and so intimate with one another that Ave occupied the same room. Q. How about the bed ? A. We occupied the same bed. Q. Did you ever see Atzerodt? A. Yes, sir ; I met Atzerodt about four weeks after Surratt's first introduction to Booth, and about a Aveek or ten days after Surratt returned from the country, in the early part of January, 1865. Q. From Port Tobacco ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long after he returned from Port Tobacco ? A. About a week or ten days, in the latter part of January. Q. Where did you meet Atzerodt ? A. In Mrs. Surratt's parlor ; he was introduced to me by John Surratt. Q. How is that name pronounced ? A. I call it Atzero. Q. How was it called in the house ? A. Surratt called it Atzerodt ; the young ladies, they did not understand his name, and knowing that he came from Port Tobacco, they called him " Port To- bacco." He was a very witty sort of a fellow, and I supposed they named him so on pni'pose. Q. Then he was sometimes called Atzerodt ? A. He was always called " Port Tobacco" in the house, except by Mrs. Sur- ratt when she spoke to him personally. Q. What time in the day was it you first saw him in Mrs. Surratt's parlor ? A. It was after 4 o'clock, on my return from work. Q. What did Surratt say when he presented him ? A. He merely said, " Mr. Weichniaun, let me introduce to you Mr. Atzerodt." That is all. Atzerodt was a very funny sort of a fellow. Q. Did you talk with him? A. I do not remember anything that he said. Q. Was there anytlting more said by Surratt at that time that you remember ? A. No, sir. Q. Did Atzerodt say anything except the ordinary courtesy of the introduction ? A. No, sir, Q. What did Atzerodt do then ? A. I do not know ; he visited Surratt very frequently. Q. How long did he stay there this time ? A. He staid there perhaps an hour, or a little longer. Q. State whether he and Surratt on this occasion Avent out together. A. That I cannot noAV remember. Q. Did ihey converse together ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 375 A. 0, yes, sir. ' Q. Where? A. In the parlor. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt converse with either of them ? A. Yes, sir ; Miss Anna Surratt also, and Miss Fitzpatrick. Mr. PiERREPONT. 1 am speaking of Mrs. Mary E. Surratt. A. Yes, sir. Cj,. What part of the parlor did Surratt and Atzerodt talk in 1 A. I really cannot remember that. Q. Was there anything particular said on this occasion ? A. No, sir ; nothing at all that 1 remember. Q. How long did he stay 1 A. He may have remained in the house an hour. Q. Did he go into any other room than the parlor ? A. Not that I remember. Q. Do you know with whom he went away ? A. 1 do not know whether he left tlie house with Surratt on that particular occasion or not. Mr. Bradley. Then answer the question. Mr. PiERREPoXT. You say you do not know ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What other man did you see in the house that night ? If not any, say so. A. None at all except Mr. Holahan ; he was a boarder at Mrs. Surratt's. Q. When did you uext see Atzerodt at the house 1 A. 0, I saw him very frequently there between the time of his first coming there and up to the time of the assassination ; perhaps he visited there alto- gether twenty times. Q. He was there, then, very often ? A. 0, yes, sir ; very often indeed. Q. That is, you saw him there very often ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you state during what hours of the day your occupations kept you from the house ? A. From nine until half past four. Q. At what hours in the day or at night were you in the habit^of seeing Atzerodt there so frequently ? A. I generally met him in the parlor on my return from work between four and five or five and six o'clock. Q. What was he doing there 1 A. Nothing in particular that I know of, except talking with Surratt. Q. Did Booth also come there ? A. Booth came there very frequently. Q. Do you remember of Surratt going anywhere in February of that year 1 A. Yes, sir; he weut to New York in the early part of February. Q. Did he tell you what he weut for 1 and if so, what ? ■ A. He did not state what he weut for, but he did state whom he saw there. Q. Who was that ? A. John Wilkes Booth. Q. What more did he tell you about that visit to New York when he saw John Wilkes Booth ? A. Nothing, except saying that Booth had a very fine parlor, and that he had been introduced to Edwin Booth. Q. In New York ? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you first see Payne ? A. I met Payne at Mrs. Surratt's house in the latter part of February, 1865 376 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. for the first time. I was seated in Mrs. Surratt's parlor one evening when I heard the door-bell ring. I went to the door. On opening it I saw standing there a man, tall, with very black hair, very black eyes, and ruddy counten- ance. He asked me if Mr. Surratt was at home. I said he was not. Then he asked me if Mrs. Surratt was at home. I said she was. lie then expressed a desire to see Mrs. Surratt. I inquired his name, and he said Mr. Wood. I went into the parlor and told Mrs. Surratt that a gentleman by the name of Mr. Wood was at the door who wished to see her. She requested me to intro- duce him. I did introduce him to Mrs. Surratt and the rest in the parlor as Mr. Wood. I had never met him before this, and I did not introduce him to Mrs. Surratt of my own accord. T never saw the man before. Q. What did Mrs. Surratt do ? A. Payne approached Mrs. Surratt and talked to her. I do not know what he said. She came to me in a few moments and said " that this gentleman would like to have some supper, and as the dining-room below was disarranged, she would be very much obliged to me if I would take supper up to him n\ my own room." I said " yes," and I did take supper on a waiter to him in my own room. Q. At this time did Mrs. Surratt appear to know him 1 Mr. Bradley. He has told us all he knows about it. Mr. PiERREPONT. Was there any sign of recognition ? A No, sir ; not that I could see. Q. And you introduced him 1 ' A. Yes, sir. Q. What occurred after the supper was carried up to your room 1 A. I sat down there while he was eating supper and made some inquiries of him, asking him where he was from, &c. He said he was from Baltimore. Q. In what story was this room of yours where he had this supper ] A. It was in the third story. Q. Front or rear ? A. Third story, back room. Q. What furniture was there in the room ? A. There was a bed there. Q. The bed on which you and Surratt slept ? A. Yes, sir — a table, a looking-glass, and three trunks. Q. It was a bed-room ] A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you here describe that house ? Describe how the parlor story is en- tered, and how the basement is entered. A. It is a house containing ten rooms. The two rooms on the first story were respectively the dining-room and the kitchen. Q. How did you enter them I A, The dining-room was entered from the street There is a passage that leads right along by the dining-room, and that is entered from the street. Q. What is the passage you speak of, an alley way ? A. No, sir ; a passage in the house — a hall. Q. Is there an alley-way on the lot ? A. There is an alley-way on the side of the house towards Sixth street. Mr. PiERREPOiXT. 1 mean that. Is it on the east side ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How do you enter the parlor story ? A. The parlor story is entered by a very high flight of stairs. Q. Where are the stairs ? A. Outside on the street. The parlor fronts the street, and Mrs. Surratt's room was directly back of the parlor. She occupied the back room on the sec- ond story. There are two rooms in the second, and three in the third story. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 377 Q. Your room, to which you took the supper, was a bed-room in the third story back ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Tell what occurred while Payne was eating his supper there. A. I asked him where he was from. He said Baltimore. " Any business there ?" said I. He said : " I am a clerk in the china store of Mr. Parr." Q. "What more ? A. That was about all. He ate his supper and then said he would like to retire. He did retire. Q. To what room ? A. He slept in the attic. He did not then, nor did he ever, sleep in my room. Q. Did you see him the next morning ? A. No, sir. When I arose he was gone. Q. When did you next see Payne at the house ? A. I saw Payne the next time on the evening of the 13th of March, 1865. As luck would have it, I was again sitting in the parlor when the bell rang. I again went to the door. I met the same man whom I had met three weeks be- fore. His former visit, however, had produced so little impi'ession on me that I Lad forgotten him. I asked him his name. He said : " My name is Mr. Payne." He again asked for Mr. Surratt, but Mr. Surratt was not at home that evening. 1 took him into the parlor, where were Mrs. Surratt and the la- dies, and said : " This is Mr. Payne." They all recognized him and sat down and commenced conversation. In the course of the conversation one of the young ladies called him Mr. Wood, and then I recollected that on the previous oc- casion he had given the name of Wood. On this occasion he was no longer a clerk in a china store, but he represented himself as a Baptist preacher. He wore a suit of gray clothes, and a black neck-tie. His baggage consisted of two linen shirts and a linen coat. The following day — I believe it was the af- ternoon — Surratt had returned. He was lying on the bed at the time. Mr. Bradley. Who was 1 A. Surratt. I was sitting at my table writing. Payne walks in, looks at Surratt, and says : " Is this Mr. Surratt 1" Q. You were in your room, up stairs ? A. Yes, sir. I said, " It is." He then looked at me, and immediately ob- served, " I would like to talk privately to Mr. Surratt." I then got up and went out of the room, as any gentleman would have done. The following day, the 15th March, on returning to my room from my work, I found a false mous- tache on my table. Not thinking much about it, I threw it into a toilet box that was there From the appearance of things around my room, I knew John Surratt was at home. I then went up into the back attic, and just as I opened the door I saw Surratt and I*ayne seated on the bed, surrounded by spurs, bowie-knives, and revolvers. They instantly threw out their hands as if they would like to conceal them. When they saw it was me they regained their equanimity. Q. Where did those things lie ? A. They were on the bed. Q. State Avhat those things were. A. Eight spurs — bran now spurs — and two revolvers. Q. How were they as to being new ? A. I do not now remember whether the revolvers were new or not. There were two revolvers, however, and two bowie-knives. When I went down to dinner, I walked into the parlor and told Mrs. Surratt that I had seen John and Payne fencing with those things here, and added : " Mrs. Surratt, I do not like this." Q. Did you tell her what you did not like 1 25 378 TRIAL OF JOHN H SURRATT. A. Yep, sir ; about Surratt being seen with bowie-kuives. Q, Did you tell her what you had seen ? A. Yes, sir. I told her I had seen them on the bed playing with those toys. She told me that I should not think anything of it ; that I knew John was in the habit of riding into the country, and that he had to have these things as a means of protection. We went down to dinner. The same evening Surratt showed me a $10 ticket for a private box at the theatre. I wrested the ticket from him, and told him I was going to the theatre. "No," said he, "you are not. I don't want you to go to the theatre this evening, for private reasons." He then struck me in the pit of the stomach, and took the ticket away from me again. He was very anxious that evening to take the smallest ladies in the house. Q. Did he take any 1 A. He asked Miss Dean to go, and she consented. Q. State who Miss Dean was. A. Miss Dean was a little girl in the house about eleven years of age. He requested Miss Holahan, daughter of the Mr. Holahan to whom I have refer- red, to go, but as Miss Holahan was then preparing for her first communion iu our church, she refused. Q. How old was she ? A. Miss Holahan, I suppose, was about thirteen years of age. I did not ask their ages, and therefore do not know them positively, but from appearances such was my judgment. He next asked Miss Fitzpatrick to go, and she con- sented. Q. About how old was Miss Fitzpatrick at that time ? A. She was seventeen at least, I should think. Those who went to the theatre were Miss Dean, Miss Fitzpatrick, Payne, and Surratt. Before they left Surratt came and borrowed a blue military cloak that I had at that time, and said that he wanted Payne to wear it. Q. How long was this before the assassination ? A. Just about four weeks. It was on the 15th of March. Q. To what theatre did they go ? A. To Ford's theatre. That night, about eleven o'clock, as I was lying in my bed — I had retired — Surratt and Payne came into the room. Surratt took a pack of playing cards which were on the mantle of my room, when they both left, and remained out all night. A few days afterwards, iu conversation Avith a young man named Brophy Mr. Bradley. Was Surratt present ? A. Yes, sir. In this conversation with this young man, Surratt stated that he had spent the other night, meaning the 15th of March, Avith a party of socia- bles at Gautier's saloon, and that he would like to introduce us, but it was a private club, or something to that effect. Q. When was it you saw Surratt and Payne again, after they left that night, at eleven o'clock 1 A. The next day, on returning from my oflfice. Q. That was the 16th of March ] A. Yes, sir. Q. You did not see them in the morning ? A. O, yes; they came in the morning about seven o'clock. Q. Came to the house ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State what then occurred. A. They simply came ; nothing occurred other than their entrance. Q. What time did you go to your office that day ? A. I had to be at the office at nine o'clock, and I generally left the house at a quarter past or half past eight. The court here took a recess for half an hour. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 379 AFTER\00\ SESSION. Louis J. Weichmax. Examination resumed. By Mr. PiERUEPONT: Q, I had passed to the 15th and 16th of March in my last inquiry. I now pass back to the 3d of March. Can you tell what occurred on the 3d of March, 1865 ; whether you saw Surratt and Booth 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Where ? A. I went down the street with Surratt in the evening of that day. At that time there was a good deal of serenading around town on account of the proposed inauguration of the President on the following day. After awhile Surratt left me, and I went to hear the music. Q. Whom did you first go out with 1 A. John Sm-ratt. Q. Was there anybody else with you when you first went out ? A. No, sir. Q. Did anybody join you ? A. No, sir. Q. You came back together ? A. No, sir ; we did not come back together ; Surratt left me. Q. Where did he leave you 1 A. On Pennsylvania avenue, near Eighth street. Q. Then what occurred ? A. When I returned to the house of Mrs. Surratt I saw John Wilkes Booth and John II. Surratt in the parlor talking together. Q. About what time did you return 1 A. After 7. Q. Tiien what occurred ? A. Then I proposed that we should walk up to the Capitol. Congress was at that time in session. Three of us did go — Surratt, Booth, and myself. When Ave were returning from the Capitol Surratt and 1 left Booth at the corner of Sixth street and Pennsylvania avenue. Q. What did Surratt then do 1 A. We went home. Q. Did you see Booth again that night ? A. No, sir. Q. After you and Surratt got home, what ? A. Nothing. Q. Did you see Booth the next morning, the 4th March ? A. I saw him on the evening of the 4th, at Mrs. Surratt's. He was in the parlor then. I did not see him during the day. Q. Was John Surratt at home that evening 1 A. Yes, sir; he had been riding round town all day with the procession; he was on horseback. Q. Did you see Herold that evening ? A. No, sir. Q. Who else beside Booth and Surratt were at the house that evening 1 A. No one that I know of, except those in the house. Q. Up to this date had you seen Herold at the town house ? A. I m 't Herold at Mrs. Surratt's once. Q. When was that 1 A. In March, 1865. Q. What time in the day ? 380 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. After 4 o'clock. I generally saw these people there, and these events that I narrate, after 4 o'clock. Q. Where was Herold then ? A. He was in my room talking with Atzerodt and John Surratt. Q. He came there on horseback. Do you know how he went away 1 A. He went away on horseback. He had left his horse in Mrs. Surratt's yard. Q. When did you next see Herold at the house 1 Did you see him there be- tween that time and the 16th of March, 1865 1 A. I saw him only once at Mrs. Surratt's house. Q. Do you know what the play was on this night that you speak of Payne and Surratt going to the theatre with these young girls ? A. Jane Shore. Q. Do you know whether Booth played that night 1 A. He did not. Q. Do you know when he did play at Ford's theatre next after that? A. He played on the evening of the 18th of March. Q. What did Booth play in at Ford's theatre on the 18th ? A. He took the part of Pescara in the play of the Apostate. Q. Who were there 1 A. Surratt invited me to go to the theatre that evening with him. I at first refused, but finally consented. He showed me a pass for two, signed by J. Wilkes Booth. As we went down Seventh street, near the corner of Seventh street and Pennsylvania avenue, we met Atzerodt. He was also going to the theatre. At the theatre we met David E. Herold and Mr. John T. Holahan, a fellow-boarder at Mrs. Surratt's. Q. Then at the theatre that night were Surratt, Herold, Atzerodt, and your- self, and Booth playing. A. Yes, sir. Mr. Holahan was also there. Q. And this you say was on the 18th ? A. Yes, sir. Q. On the 19th did anything happen? A. Nothing in particular that I remember. Q. On the 20th 1 A. Surratt was walking past the post oflice then. I met him as I was going home. He went to the post ofiice and inquired for a letter addressed to him under the name of James Sturdy. Q. He got such a letter did he? A. He did. Q. Did he show it to you ? A. He did. Q. Do you know where it came from ? A. From New York. Q. Do you know who wrote it ? A. The letter was signed " Wood." It was written in a very bad hand. (Mr. Bradley objecting to any reference being made as to the signature of the letter or its contents, the witness was cautioned by the court not to speak of the contents of any paper unless it was produced and proved, nor to refer to anything said by any person other than some of the parties connected with this u&piracy. Q. Will you tell us what Surratt said to you on getting this letter 1 A. He did not say anything that I now remember of. He merely showed me the letter. Q. Did he state who the man was, or anything about it ? A. Yes, sir; he stated it was "Wood," who had been at Mrs. Surratt's house. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 381 Q. Did he tell you where thia " Wood" was? A. No, sir. Q. Was there anything more that he told you on that subject that you remember 1 A. No, sir. Mr. PiERREPONT. Then I pass from that to the following day, the 21st. Did anything occur on that day ? A. Not that I remember. Q. Did you see any of these parties on the 21st? A. Not that I remember. Q. Did you see Surratt? A. If he was at home at the time I must have seen him. Q. I ask what your memory is about seeing him ? A. I have no memory about it. Q. How on the 23d of March ? A. On the 23d Mrs. Eliza Holahan, the wife of J. T. Holahan, who boarded at Mrs. Surratt's house, came to the office where I was employed and handed me a telegram from New York. Q. Do you know where that telegram is ? A. The last that I saw of it, it was in the possession of the War Depart-, ment. Mr. Bradlkv. Say nothing about it then. Q. State whether this is the telegram. (Handing witness a telegram from New York, dated March 23, 1865.) A. Yes, sir ; that is it. The telegram was then read as follows : ' New York, Marc/i 23, 1865. " Received, Washington, March — , 1865, ^— o'clock. " To WicKMAX, Esq , 541 H street : " Tell John to telegraph number and street at once. " J. BOOTH." Mr. Bradley. I object to the introduction of the evidence, because there is no sort of proof that J. Wilkes Booth wrote the telegram. This copy cannot be any evidence of that fact. Mr, PiERUEPoNT. This is the one received. The Court. It cannot be any evidence, unless connected in some way. Mr. Pierrepon't. It will be connected in a few seconds, sir. Mr. Bradley. That is what I am waiting for. Q. What did you do when you got this telegram ? A. There were two things about the telegram that struck my attention. My first name was omitted, and my last name was not spelt correctly. It was spelt " Wickraan." I knew of no party in New York who could send me a telegram. I had no acquaintances there 1 opened the envelope, and I saw it was from Booth. I did not know why he should address me a telegram. I showed it to several of the clerks in the office, and I took the telegram home that day and showed it to Surratt. Q. What did he say? A. I told him I thought it was intended for him. I asked him what number and street were meant. The telegram reads, " Telegraph number and street at once." He says, " Don't be so damned inquisitive." That same evening he asked me to walk down the street with him. We went as far as Tenth and F, when he met a Miss Anna Ward. He then walked back from Tenth and F street to Ninth and F streets with me, and went into the Herndon House and called for Mrs. Murray. 382 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. You went in with him 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. When she came he desired to speak to her privately 1 A. Mrs. Murray did not understand him. Then Surratt said, "Perhaps Miss Anna Ward has spoken to you about this room. Did she not speak to you about engaging a room for a delicate gentleman who was to have his meals sent up to his room, and that he wanted the room for the following Monday, which was the 27th of March, 1865?" Mrs. Murray recollected, and said that a room had been engaged. The name of the party for whom the room was engaged was not mentioned by myself, by Mrs. Murray, or by John Surratt. Q. What more occurred in the Herndon House at that time 1 A. Nothing more ; we then left and returned home. After I got to my room he went out again. Q. Did he say anything about this man who was delicate and who would want his meals in his room ? A. No, sir; he did not mention his name at all. Q. Did he say anything about him further than you have mentioned ? A. I think he stated that he would come from New York; that, however, is merely an impression of mine. ' Mr. Bradley. Let us have facts, not impressions. Q. When you say your impression what do you mean] Do you mean your best recollection? A. Not exactly a recollection, but a faint idea. Mr. PiERREPONT. I do not desire anything that is not your recollection and your best recollection. Q. What more was done ? A. Nothing more that evening that I remember. Q. Did you get any other telegram? A. No, sir. Mr. PiERREPONT. We have here now the original telegram, a copy of which was introduced and read a few moments since. Q. Is that (handing telegram to witness) Booth's handwriting? A. It is. Mr. Bradley. Before he gives an opinion let us ascertain what knowledge he has of Booth's handwriting? The Court. Let him state his opportunities for knowing whether it is his or not. Mr. PfERREPONT. What opportunities have you had for knowing anything about Mr. Booth's handwriting? A. I saw, previous to the receipt of this telegram, several cards at Mrs. Sur- ratt's house with Booth's name on them. Q. Written do you mean? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you seen him write ? A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Bradley: Q. When did you see him write ? A. I saw him write between the time I made his acquaintance and the time of the assassination. Q, When and where ? A. I cannot be so positive as to the time when, but I have seen him write between those two dates. Q. Write what? A. Well, he wrote his name on a card. U. Was it J. Booth ? I TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 383 A. J. W. Booth. Q. Did you ever see him write his name J. Booth ? A. No, sir. Q. And yon mean to say that from having seen him write some other name, and that on cards, you are able to identity this ? A. 1 have seen him write his own name, and tliis corresponds exactly with what I saw him then write; I can tell it is his from the general character of his writing, and the manner in which he made his " B." Q. Where did you ever see him write it ] A. At the National Hotel in this city. Q. A letter, or what ? A. I have seen him write his name. Q. But I am not asking you about his name because you saw him write J. W. Booth. What else did you see him write ? A. I saw him write a card once that he sent to Mrs. Surratt. Q. Pencil or not] A. He wrote with pencil. Q. The extent, then, of your knowledge of his handwriting is that you once saw him write a card with pencil, and saw him write his name — how often ? A. I do not remember that. Q. Did you ever see him write it except on that one card ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where? A. He gave me his autograph once. Q. Was that J. Booth ? A. No, not J. Booth ; he put in the initial of his middle name. Q. And from the knowledge of his handwriting thus gained you swear posi- tively that this telegram is in his handwriting? A. The writing corresponds exactly. There is the same " B." Mr. Bradley. That will do; let it go in. Mr PiKRREPOMT. If there is any question about this being his handwriting we will prove it beyond a doubt. Mr. Bradley. It will be time enough to talk about that when you offer the proof. Your honor will say whether that is evidence to go to the jury. The Court. Yes, sir; I am satisfied that that is evidence sufficient to let this go before the jury. Mr. PiERREPONT. This was on the 23d of March, I think. Now, on the 24th of March did anything occur or not ? A. No, sir. Q. Then I will come to the 25th of March, 1865. Did you see John Surratt on that day ? A. Yes, sir. As I went to breakfiist, and looked out of the dining-room window, I saw John Surratt, his mother, and Mrs. Slater, who had been at the house previously, in a carriage containing four seats, to which were attached a pair of white horses. Q,. Do you know where the horses came from ? A. Yes, sir. Mrs. Surratt, the same evening, told me that the horses had been hired from Brooke Stabler. Q. Did the three go away together ? A. Yes, sir. Q. About what time in the day did the three leave ? A. About 8 o'clock in the morning. Q. When did you next see Mrs. Surratt 1 A. I saw her the same evening. Q. Where ? A. In her house, 384 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. How did she come back ? A. She returned alone. Q. Did she return in the carriage, or in some other way ? A. In the Port Tobacco stage — the stage that runs from Bryantown, or Port Tobacco, to Washington, and delivers passengers at the Pennsylvania House. Q. Did Mrs. Slater and John Surratt return with her 1 A. No, sir. Q. Did they come there that night at all ? A. No, sir. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt tell you anything that occurred with them ? A. I asked her where John had gone. She said he had gone to Richmond with Mrs. Slater, to get a clerkship. Q. Did you see those horses again ? A. I did. Q. When? A. I saw them the following Sunday. Q. How long after ; what day of the month was that 1 A. That was the 26th day of March. Q. The next day, then 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you see them ; who had them ? A. I saw them in front of Mrs. Surratt 's house. They were driven thereby a Dr. Wyvil. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt say anything to you about them ? A. On Saturday evening, as I was leaving the house, she requested me to go round to Brooke Stabler's, and say that the horses would not be returned until the following Sunday, the 26th of March. I made some objection. " O," says she, " Brooke considers John, Herold and Atzerodt a party of gamblers and sports, and I want him to think so." Q. Did you tell Brooke Stabler ? A. ] did. Q. When the horses came back, what was done with them 1 A. They were returned by this Dr. Wyvil to Brooks Stabler. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt say anything to you about her son having gone to Rich- mond with Mrs. Slater, or about the horses ? A. No, sir. Q. You remember nothing more ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember anything more in this connection on this day ? A. On the morning of the 26th of March, as 1 was going to church, Mrs, Surratt came to me. Q. The 26th Avas Sunday, was it ? A. Yes, sir. She came to me and asked me if I would not go to the Na- tional Hotel and request Mr. Booth to come and see her in the afternoon. As I went down Sixth street, between Pennsylvania avenue and C street, I met Atzerodt, who was also going to see Booth. Q. You went together, did you ? A. Yes, sir. When we got to Booth's room. Booth introduced me to Mr. J. B. McCullough, the actor. After I communicated my message, I left and went to church. Q. Wliat did you tell him ? A. I told him that Mrs. Surratt wanted to see him on private business. That was Mrs. Surratt's message. Booth did come that afternoon. Just while these horses were in front of the house, Mrs. Surratt had an interview with him alone near the head of the kitchen stairs. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 385 Q. Did you hear anything they said 1 A. No, sir. Q. Did you go to church with her that day 1 A. I did. Q. What occurred iu going or coming from church ? A. Nothing that I remember. Q. Did she stop at any house ? A. No, pir, not on the 26th of March. Q. Did she at any time with you in coming or going from church 1 A. There were two churches that she was in the habit of going to. One was St Aloysius church, at the other end of the town, near the depot, and the other was St. Patrick's church. On this Sunday, however, she went with me to St. Aloysius church. When she went to church with me on Sunday, she always went to St Aliiysius church. Q. Did you return from church with her ] A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you stop anywhere? A. No, sir ; not in going from St. Aloysius church. Q. In going from any church ; I do not knov/ the names of the churches here ? A. On Sundays she went to St. Aloysius. During Lent there were evening services at St. Patrick's during week-days, and she went there. Q. Did you go with her to church at any time, and returning, stop anywhere 1 I do not remember the dates. You will give them. A. Yes, sir. After the 27th, I do not remember the particular evening, Anna Surratt, Miss Jenkins, Miss Fitzpatrick, Mrs. Surratt, and 1, had been to St. Patrick's church, on the corner of Tenth and F streets. Q. What occurred in returning 1 A. On returning she stopped at the Herndon House, at the corner of Ninth and F streets. She went into the Herndon House, and said that she was going iu there to see Payne. Q. Mrs. Surratt said that ? A. Yes. sir. Q. Tell what occurred ? A. She did go, and she came out. Q. How long was she in there? A. Perhaps twenty minutes. Q. Did you see her when she came out ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where were you waiting 1 A. We walked down Ninth street to E — the party did — and down E to Tenth ; and then returned to the corner of Ninth and F, and met Mrs. Surratt just as she was coming out of the Herndon House. Q. Did she join you 1 A. Yes, sir ; and went home with us. Q. To her house ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did she say anything to you ? A No, sir. Q. Did you have any conversation with her that day on that subject iu any way? A. During that week I was one day going down Seventh street, and again near Seventh street and Pennsylvania avenue, I met Atzerodt. I asked Atzerodt where he was going. He replied, to see Payne. Then I inquired, "Is it Payne who 386 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. is stopping at the Herndon House ?" His answer was, '' Yes." I had always been curious to know who that man was who was stopping there. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt tell you who it was? A. When I mentioned to her, after reaching home, that the man Payne who had been boarding at her house was at the Herndon House, she wanted to know how I knew it. I just told her, as I have stated here. Q. What did you tell her ? A. That Atzerodt told me. She appeared angry that Atzerodt should have said so to me. Q. State in what way she indicated her anger. A. Merely by her countenance — her expression. Mr. PiERREPOiN'T. I come down now to the month of April, in which the assassination happened. Do you know where Mrs. Surratt was on the 1st of April ? A. In the morning, when I left the house, she was sitting at the breakfast table, and when 1 returned in the evening she was not at home. Q. When did you next see her ? A. She came home a short time afterwards in a buggy driven by her brother, Mr. Jenkins. She said that she had been to Surrattsville. Q. Did she say anything more ? A. No, sir. Q. On that 1st of April, or the evening of that day, did you see either of these parties at the house ? A. No, sir. Q. On the the 4th and 5th, did you ? A. I saw Atzerodt at Mrs. Surratt's house on the 2d of April. She had again sent me, on the morning of the 2d of April, to the National Hotel to see Booth ; and if he was not there, to go and see Atzerodt, and tell either of them that she wanted to see him that morning. Q. Did you go ? A. I went to the National Hotel, but Booth was not there. Q. Did you find Atzerodt 1 A. I then went to the Pennsylvania House, and right in front of the Pennsyl- vania House I saw Atzerodt standing and holding by the bridle two horses; one was a very small one, and the other a very large horse, blind of one eye. Said I to him, "Whose horses are those?" He replied, "One is mine and the other is Booth's." I then communicated ray message to him, and he requested me to get on one of the horses and ride back with him. I refused, stating that I wished to go to church. He then said he would go to church with me. Then I mounted the horse, and Atzerodt and I rode to Mrs. Surratt's house. Atze- rodt got off aud went in to Mrs. Surratt's, and I remained outside part of the time, taking care of the horses. That same afternoon Mrs. Surratt said to me that ]\Ir. Jtmkins, her brother, would like to return to the country, and that she would be much obliged to me if I would go to the Pennsylvania House and see Atze- rodt, and say to him that he would oblige her very much by letting Mr. Jenkins have one of John's horses — meaning her son's horses. I went down to the Pennsylvania House that afternoon with Mr. Jenkins, and I did ask Atzerodt for one of these horses for Mr. Jenkins, stating to him my message as I had received it. His reply was that before he could loan Mr. Jenkins one of the horses he would have to see Mr. Payne about it. I then said to him : " What has Payne to do witli the horses ? You have said that one is yours, that an- other is Booth's, and Mrs. Surratt says that the horses are John's." John Sur- ratt himself had told me that they were his, and had shown me at one time a re- ceipt for the livery of the same two horses, the bill amounting to S30. Q. What did he reply ? A. His answer was that Payne had a heap to do with them. Mr. Jenkins, TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 387 Atzerodt, and myself then walked up to the corner of Ninth and F streets, and Atzerodt requested us to remain outside and he would go in and see about the horses. Q. What house was that ? A. The Herndon House. He told us to remain outside on the pavement. Mr. Jenkins and I remained on the pavement for about twenty minutes. Atzerodt came out, and he told us that Mr. Payne would not consent to the loan of those horses. I returned to Mrs Surratt's house and told her what Atzerodt had said. She said she thought it was very unkind of Mr. At- zerodt ; that she had been his friend, and had loaned him the last five dollars out of her pocket. Q. What more occurred ? A. Nothing more on that day. Q. Yon didn't get the horse? A. No, sir; Mr. Jenkins walked home the next morning, I believe. Q. This was the 2d ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now on the 3d, what occuiTed ? A. On the 3d of April, after the excitement and noise of the day, I was seated in Mrs. Surratt's parlor in the evening, on the sofa, when, about half past six o'clock, John Surratt walked into the room. He was very neatly dressed. He had on a new pair of pants. I asked him where he had been. His answer was to Richmond. I then said, " Richmond is evacuated. Did you not hear the news 1" " No, it is not," he said ; " I saw Benjamin and Davis in Richmond, and they told me it would not be evacuated." Q. Was Mrs. Surratt in the room at this time 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. What did she say ? A. She merely bade him good evening. Q. How long did he stay there ? A. He went up into my room and put on some clean clothes. Q. Did he go with you 1 A. No, sir ; he went up before me. I went up a few minutes afterwards ; I think he called me up stairs. Q. When you got to the room with him, what did he say ? A. He did not say very much. He said that he wanted to exchange forty dollars in gold. He did exchange this forty dollars in gold for forty dollars in greenbacks He showed me in the room nine or eleven twenty-dollar gold pieces, and fifty dollars in greenbacks. Mr. Braoi.kv. Before he made the exchange? A. He made the exchange after he showed me the gold. He showed me the gold and the greenbacks at the same time. Q. Did he say anything as to where he had got the money ? A. I did not ask him where he got it. I expressed a sort of surprise. He said that he had an account in the Bank of Washington, but he did not say that he had gotten this money from the Bank of Washington. Q. Did he say anything when you expressed your surprise? A. No. sir. Q. Did you see any other money that he had ? A No, sir ; not that evening. Q. Any other evening ? A. No, sir. Q. That was all the money you saw him hare at that time ? A. I had seen him before. He always appeared to have plenty of money in his pockets — five dollars and tea dollars. He seemed to be always well sup- plied. 388 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Had yoii seen him with any quantity of money, except on the occasion of which you have just spoken ? A. No, sir. Q. Did he tell you where he got this, or any of it ? A. No, sir. Q. What time in the evening; of the 3d of April, did he leave the room ? A. He left there about 7 o'clock. Q. What did he say ? A. Between half past six and half past seven he asked me to go down the street with him and take some oysters. He was dressed in gray clothes, with a shawl thrown over his shoulders. He told me that same evening that he was going to Montreal. We got the oysters near Four-and-a-half street and Pennsyl- vania avenue. Q. Did he tell you the day he left Richmond ? A. No, sir. Q. After eating the oysters, what occurred ? A. We walked back as far as the Metropolitan Hotel, and there he bade me good night. He said he would correspond with me when he got to Montreal. I have not met him since, except to-day. Q. On the 5th of April, what occurred ? Did you observe Booth or Herold ? A. Booth was at the house between the 3d and the 10th of April, on one or two occasions. I remember on one of those occasions a letter was received. Q. What time in the evening was this the case ? A. About 7 or 8 o'clock. Q. In the parlor ? A. Yes, sir. I walked into the parlor. Booth was sitting on the sofa. Mrs. Surratt was in the room, and a young lady; and Miss Anna Surratt was directly opposite Booth. I sat down at the other end of the same sofa on which Booth was sitting. After conversing for a while around the room. Booth got up and said, "Miss Ward, will you please let me see the address of that lady ?" Miss Ward advanced to meet him in the centre of the room, and handed him a letter. After Booth and Miss Ward had gone out, Anna Surratt got up and said, " Mr. Weichmann, here is a letter from brother John," and read the letter. No lady's name was mentioned in it. Mr. PiERKHPONT. We cannot give the contents until we produce the letter. Mr. Bradley. If he can repeat it, I have no sort of objection. Mr. PiERREPONT. I do not want him to repeat it, until the letter is in court. Mr. Bradley. What became of that letter ? Witness. I do not know, sir; I have not seen it since. Mr. PiERREro.\T. Well, go on. Witness. On another occasion, when Booth was in the parlor, I commenced to jest him about the fall of Richmond. He said that the confederacy was not gone up yet, and shoAved mc one of the Perrine war maps. Q. Was this the same evening on which you had seen the letter 1 A. No, sir. It was on another evening. Q. What are those maps of which you speak ? A. They area sort of war maps — maps of the southern section of the country. He showed me the diO'erent routes that Lee and Johnston were going to take. Nothing more than that. Q. On the 6th of April, what occurred ? A. Nothing that I remember of now. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt go into the country on the 6th ? A. Not that I remember. Q. Do you remember anything as to whether Atzerodt, between the first and the tenth, used to come there as well as Booth 1 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 389 A. I did not see Atzerodt at Mrs. Siirratt's bouse after Sunday, the 2d of April. Q. Did you see Herold there ? A. I did not see Herold at Mrs. Surratt's house after March, 1865. Q. We now come to the 11th, just before the assassination. What occurred ou that day, as you remember? A. On the evening of the 10th Mrs. Surratt asked me if I would not be kind enough to drive her into the country ou the morning of the 11th of April. I consented. Q. What day of the week was that? A. That was Tuesday. Q. Did you go with her 1 A. Yes, sir, the following morning. Q. What time did you leave ? A. She said to me, " Mr. Weichmann, won't you go round to the National Hotel and tell Mr. Booth that I sent you for his horse and buggy, and desire to know whether I can have it." I did go to the National Hotel, and found Booth in his room. I communicated my message just as Mrs. Surratt bad told me. He said, " I have sold the horse and buggy, but here are ten dollars ; go you and hire one." In speaking about the horses, 1 said to him, " I thought they were John Surratt's horses." " No," says he, '' they are my horses." I left the hotel, and went to Howard's stable and hired a horse and buggy. I then went to Mrs. Surratt's house. We left the house about half past nine o'clock. As we were on our way down to Surrattsville, we met Mr. John M. Lloyd. Q. Where did you meet him ? A. I met him just outside of a little village there. The name of the village I have since understood to be Uniontown. Q. Did you stop ? A. Yes, sir ; and she told Mr. Lloyd to stop too. Mr. Lloyd got out of bis carriage, and came and spoke to her. She leaned her head out of the window and talked to him. 1 do not know anything of the conversation that passed between them. Q. Why did you not hear it ? A. In the first place, I never make a habit of listening to people ; and in the second place, the conversation was not loud enough for me to hear. Q. How long did he stop there ] A. Several minutes. Q. You may state whether this is the Lloyd who kept the tavern 1 A. Yep, sir. He had rented Mrs. Surratt's house at Suri-attsville. Q. Will yuu state in what tone of voice this conversation between Mr. Lloyd and Mrs Surratt was carried on ? A. It was in that kind of a tone that I did not hear. Q. You can tell whether it was of an apparent confidential tone in lowness, or whether it was loud and free ? A. It seemed to me to be in a confidential tone. Q. You did not hear the words '.' A. No, sir. If 1 had heard them, I would have no hesitation in saying so. Mr. PiERRKPONT. You did not hear them, and therefore, of course, you can- not tell what they wore. Mr. Bradlby. We want what the witness recollects; not any feelings, or im- pressions. Witness. Mrs. Surratt, after this, had a conversation in a louder tone with Mrs. Offutt, who was sitting in the carriage. Q. AVas Lloyd driving ? A. Yes, sir ; he had been driving. Q. Did you hear what she said to Mrs. Offutt? 390 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Yes, sir. Q. What was it 1 A. Slie was speaking of a man by the name of Howell, who had been arrested on the 24th of March and thrown into the Old Capitol prison, as a blockade runner. Q. After this conversation what did you do 1 A. I drove to the tavern. Q. What occurred there ? A. She wanted to meet a Mr. Nothey there, but when we arrived at Surratts- ville, at half past 12 m., Nothey was not there, and she had a messenger des- patched for him, with word that he should meet her there at 2 o'clock. We then drove further on to Mr. Bennett Gwynn's, where we took dinner. After dinner, Mr. Gwynn, Mrs. Surratt, and myself returned back to Surrattsville. Q. What occurred there ? A. Mrs. Surratt went into the parlor, and this time found Mr. Nothey there. She had an interview with him. Q. Then what occurred ? A. I do not know what occurred. I was not in the parlor when they had this interview. Q. I only ask what you saw and heard? A. After they had concluded that business, Mrs. Surratt got into the buggy and returned to town. Q. At what time did you get back to town ? A. We got back to town between five and six o'clock ; perhaps not until six. Q. Did anything occur that night with any of these parties after you got back ? A. No, sir. Q. On the next day, Wednesday ? A. No, sir. Q. On Wednesday evening ? A. No, sir. Q. On Thursday ? A. No, sir, Q. On Thursday evening? A. No, sir. Q. Now I come to Friday morning, the day of the assassination ; what oc- curred on that morning ? A. On Friday morning I went to my office as usual ; arrived there at nine o'clock. This was Friday, the 14th of April. Was at the otfice untilabout half past ten, when an order cajne from the Secretary of War to the effect that those clerks under his charge who desired to attend divine service that day might do so. Q. This was Good Friday 1 A. Yes, sir. I left the office and went directly to St. i\Iatthew's church, at the corner of 15th and H streets. After service was over, about a quarter of one or one o'clock, perhaps, I went home to Mrs. Surratt's house. Q. At what time 1 A. I got home at one o'clock or a little after one. I took some lunch, and then went up to my room and sat down and wrote a letter. Mr. Bradley. Of what earthly consequence is all this 1 Mr. PiERRKPONT (to the witness.) That is not important. Witness. About half past two or twenty or twenty-five minutes after two, I heard a knock at my room door. In opening the door I saw Mrs. Surratt. She stated to me that she had received a letter from Mr. Charles Calvert about her property, and that it would be necessary for her to go into the country again and see Mr. Nothey, who owed her $479 with interest on the same for thirteen years. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 391 Q, The same Mr. Nothcy with whom you had seen her on the 1 1 th ? A. Yes, sir. She gave me a ten-dollar note with which to go and gi^t ahorse and buggy. As I went out the parlor door, John Wilkes Booth came in. He ehook hands with me and then went into the parlor. I then went to Mr. How- ard's stable and there saw Atzerodt, who was endeavoring to hire a horse. His request was not complied with. He could not get one. 1 asked him what he wanted with a horse. "0," he says, " I want to send ofif Payne." I then went to the post office and dropped the letter I had written and returned to Mrs. Surratt's house. Mr. Bradley. Did you get the buggy? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you went back with the buggy? A. Yes, sir ; I went up into my room for a minute or two, and as I passed the parlor door I saw Mrs. Surratt and Booth in conversation. Q. What time in the day was this ? A. I cannot state the precise hour. It was between twenty-five minutes past two, and twenty or twenty-five minutes to three. Booth was standing with his back against the mantel-piece with his arm resting on it, and Mrs. Surratt had her back towards him. Q. What further ? A. I went down to the buggy, and Mrs. Surratt came down in a few moments, and was just about getting into the buggy when she said : "Wait, Mr. Weich- mann, I must get those things of Booth's." She went up stairs into the house, and came down with a package in her hand. It was a package wrapped up in brown paper, tied round with a string, I believe, and, to the best of my know- ledge, about five or six inches in diameter. I did not see the contents of the package. Q. Did you see what was done with it ? A. It was put in the bottom of the buggy. Mrs. Surratt stated that it was brittle. She said even that it was glass, and was afraid of its being wet. I then helped her into the buggy, and we drove off. Q. On the way down, did anything occur of any note ? A. Yes, sir; the buggy was halted once near a blacksmith's shop, about three miles from Washington, on the road to Surrattsville. There were some pickets there on the left-hand side of the road near the blacksmith's shop. The soldiers were lolling on the grass, and the horses were grazing about. Mrs. Surratt had the buggy halted, and wanted to know how long those pickets would remain there. She was informed that they were withdrawn about 8 o'clock. She said: "I am glad to know it," and drove off". Q. Did anything further occur until you got down to the house ? A. No, sir. At this point the court took a recess until to-morrow (Friday) morning at 10 o'clock. Friday, June 28, 18G7. The court met at ten o'clock a. m. Examination of Lkwis J. Weichmann. By Mr. Pierrepont: Q. When the court adjourned yostorday you were at the point of progress towards Surrattsville where you and Mrs. Surratt met the pickets, or men who spoke of pickets. Will you proceed to state what occurred after that ? A. Mrs. Surratt's manner all the way down was very lively and cheerful. We arrived at Surrattsville about half past four or five. Mrs. Surratt got out. She took out of the buggy, or rather I took out and gave to her, the package that had been placed in the bottom of the buggy. She went inside into the 392 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT, parlor of Mr. Lloyd's house there. In a shoi-t time she called me and desired me to write a letter for her to Mr. Nothe. Would you like to have the contents of that letter stated 1 Mr. PiERREPONT. If you have not the letter you need not state the contents ; you may, however, state anything Mrs. Surratt told you. Witness. She told me to write a letter that unless Mr. Nothe came forward and paid that note at once she would enter suit against him immediately. Q. Did you write a letter at the house on that day ? A. Yes, sir ; in the parlor. Q. What day 1 A, Fourteenth of April, 1865. Q. The day the President was murdered 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. What happened further on that day ? A. She desired me also to compute the interest on four hundred and sev- enty-nine dollars for thirteen years. Q. Anything further after that at Surrattsville ? A. I sealed the letter and put it in an envelope ; she gave the letter to Mr. Gwiun to deliver to Mr. Nothe ; then I went out and for my own amusement drove the buggy up and down the road for about half or three-quarters of an hour. Q. Were you there when Mr. Lloyd returned ? A. Yes, sir ; he returned at about half-past six, just as Mrs. Surratt got into the buggy ready to return to the city. I saw Mr. Loyd ; he recognized me. He noticed that the front spring of the buggy was broken ; he called Mrs. Surratt's attention to it, and she told him to get a little piece of rope and tie around it, that it might be fixed ; he did so. In order for him to do so it was necessary for him to place himself between the horse and buggy. Q. Did he go there and do it ? A. Yes, sir, he fixed it. Q. Anything further connected with the buggy 1 A. No, sir. Q. Did you see Mrs. Offutt there ? A. Not that I remember. Q. What hour did you start for home ? A. We left Surrattsville on our retui'n home about half-past six in the evening. Q. What occurred on the way home with Mrs. Sun-att ; was she verv cheer- ful on the way returning ? A. On our way home she said she was very anxious to be home at nine o'clock ; that she was to meet some gentlemen there. Q. Did she state who ? A. I asked her who it was, if it was Booth. She made no reply. Q. What further occurred in returning ? A. I further stated something about Booth's being in the city here and not acting ; I asked her why he was not acting. Her reply was, Booth is done acting and is going to New York soon, never to return. She turned round to me and asked if 1 did not know that, or if I did not know that Booth was crazy on one subject; I told her 1 did not. What that one subject was she never stated to me. On our return we met the pickets I had seen stationed on the left side of the road as we went down. The soldiers at this time were on their horses returning to the city ; our buggy passed right between them. I should suppose there were four or six soldiers on horseback, and I remember distinctly that the buggy passed right between them. Q. When you got on the hill in front of the city did anything occur ? A. Yes, sir; just about two miles from Washington there is a very high hill, which commands a fine view of the city. That evening of the 14th there was TRIAL OB' JOHN H. SUKRATT. 393 a brilliaut illumiuation in WasLington on account of the restoration of the flag over Fort Sumter. I made some remarks to Mrs. Surratt, saying that it was better for the country that peace should return ; she said, " I am afraid that all this rejoicing will be turned into mourning and all this gladness into sorrow." Q. We now come down to the time you reached home. Witness. I wish to state the end of this interview. I turned round to her and asked what she meant. She said that after sunshine there was always a storra ; that the people were too proud and licentious, and that God would pun- ish them. Q. Anything further in that conversation ? A. No, sir. Q. Then [ will come down to the time you reached home. What hour was that ? A. Just as we came into Pennsylvania avenue, near the Capitol, we saw a torch-light procession coming either up or going down the avenue. The horse shied at the brilliaut lights and we were compelled to turn up Second street. Q. After turning from the torch-light procession, where did you then go ? A. We arrived at home at 9 o'clock, or a few minutes before nine. I helped Mrs. Surratt to get out, and then returned the buggy. We left Surrattsville at half past six, and it takes two hours or two hours and a half to come to Washing- ton. I returned the buggy to Howard's stable, which was right back of Mrs. Surratt's house on G street. I then immediately returned home. I then went down and partook of some supper. Mrs. Surratt the same evening showed me a letter which she had received from her son. While I was sitting there eating supper with Miss Fitzpatrick, Miss Jenkins, Miss Surratt, and Mrs. Surratt in the room, I heard some one very rapidly ascending the stairs. Q. What stairs? A. The front stairs — the stairs leading to the second story. Mrs. Surratt, herself, answered the bell. Q. You mean the stairs outside of the house? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mrs. Surratt answered the bell — that is, she went to the door] A. Yes, sir. The servant remained below. The footsteps I heard going into the parlor. Q. Were they the footsteps of a man or a woman I A. The footsteps sounded to me like those of a man, made by boots. A woman generally makes a very light tread, and would ascend stairs without making any noise at all. Q. How long did he stay in the parlor ? A. He remained there about five minutes, and then I heard the same foot- steps descending the stairs. Q. What occurred with Mrs. Surratt after the footsteps descended the stairs ; did she come down or remain up 1 A. She remained in the parlor. After supper I went into the parlor, and the young ladies who had been at supper with me also came into the parlor. We sat and talked there, Mrs. Surratt once asked me where the torch-light proces- sion was going that we had seen on the avenue. I told her that I thought it was a procession of arsenal employes going to serenade the President. She re- plied that she would like to know very much, as she Avas interested in it. As I recollect now, her manner appeared to me to be very nervous, and very restless. I once asked her what was the matter. She said she did not feel well. She had some prayer beads in her hand — she was walking up and down the room. She once asked me to pray for her intentions. I asked her what her intentions were. She said I never prayed for any one's intentions unless I knew what they were. Q. Did this nervous excitement continue ] 26 394 TEIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Anna Surratt, Miss Fitzpatrick, and I were jesting and laughing a good deal ; Mrs. Surratt said "Ob, Mr. Weiclimann, you and the girls are making too much noise ; it is time for you to be ofF to bed anyhow;" and in a playful man- ner she chased us out of the parlor. I know Miss Fitzpatrick, Miss Jenkins, Miss Surratt, and I left the parlor at the same time, leaving Mrs. Surrat there alone. I retired to my room perhaps ten or fifteen minutes before 10 o'clock. Miss Jenkins and Miss Surratt retired to their rooms in the attic about the same time, and bade me good night at the door of my room. Q. Were their rooms over yours ] A. They were not exactly over mine, but in the story above, in the attic. Miss Fitzpatrick occupied Mrs. Surratt's room. Mrs Surratt occupied the room immediately in the rear of the parlor — in other words, she used the back parlDr as a bed-room. Q. Miss Fitzpatrick slept in that room ] A. Yes, sir ; with Mrs. Surratt. Q. Did anything occur in regard to your health that night requiring you to get up ? A. The next morning, about 2 o'clock, I had been to the yard, had gotten to my room again, gone to bed, and was just about falling asleep, when I heard the door bell ring very violently. It rang several times in very quick succes- sion. There were only two gentlemen in the house, at that time, to my knowl- edge, Mr. Hollahan and myself. I drew on my pants, and, with my night-shirt open in front, barefoot, I went down to the front door. I rapped on the inside of the front door and inquired who was there. " Government officers," was the reply, "come to search the house for J. Wilkes Booth and John Surratt."^ Q. What did you say ? A. I told them that neither of them were at home. Q. What occurred further ? A. "Let us in anyhow," said they ; "we want to searc5i the house." By the Court : Q. Was this on the morning of Saturday I A. Yes, sir ; about two or half past two on the morning of April 15. 1 then told them it would first be necessary for me to ask Mrs. Surratt^s permission ; in order ta do so, I went to her bed-room door, which was immediately in the rear of the parlor, and rapped, saying ''Mrs. Surratt, here are government officers who wish to search the house." "For God's sake let them come in," said she; "I ex- pected the house would be searched." Q. Did you let them in 1 A. Yes, sir ; I let them in. Q. Who were they ? A. There were about six or eight officers, as near as I can remember now ; I remember two more particularly, Clarvoe and McDevitt, who belong to the city Metropolitan Police here. Some men had been stationed outside the house in the alley-way, and some had gone into the yai-d ; Clarvoe, McDevitt, and others immediately proceeded to search the house. They first went to the attic, where Miss Jenkins and Miss Surratt were sleeping. I did not go up there with them. Q. Y"ou may state in what part of the house you went with them I A. I returned to my room ; the detectives also came to my room. Q. Did you dress yourself that morning. A. Not just then ; the detectives commenced to search my room, they looked in the closet, looked under the bed, and looked all around. I asked them for God sake tell me what is the matter; what this means; what means searching the house so early in the morning,- one of them looked at me and said, " Do you pre- tend to tell me you do not know what happened last night." I said 1 did, I did not know what had happened. . TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 395 Q. Was this said with an air of great incredulity to you ? A. I cannot recollect the air. (This examination objected to by Mr. Bradley — it was not competent to ask what air the officer had. Objection overruled.) Q. State what was the manner of these officers in making this inquiry ? A. They appeared to be astonished that I had not known what had trans- pired. Then j\Ir. Clarvoe said, " I will tell you," and he pulled out a piece of a cravat; there was blood on it. Said he, "Do you see that blood ? That is Abraham Lincoln's blood; John Wilkes Booth has murdered Abraham Lincoln and John Surratt has assassinated the Secretary of State." I then went down stairs with Mr. Clarvoe and Mr. McDevitt. Mrs. Surratt just then came out of her bed- room. I said, "What do you think, Mrs. Surratt — Abraham Lincoln has been murdered." I did not say Abraham Lincoln, I said, '' President Lincoln has been murdered by John Wilkes Booth, and the Secretary of State has been assassinated." I did not bring her own son's name out, from respect to her feelings ; she raised her hands and exclaimed, "My God, Mr. Weichmann, you don't tell me so." She seemed astonished at the news. At this time Miss Surratt and Miss Jen- kins were not down stairs. Q. Did they come down afterwards ? A. After the detectives had gone they came into the parlor ; I was there, Miss Jenkins was there, Miss Fitzpatrick was there, Miss Surratt and Mrs. Surratt were there. Q. What did Mrs. Surratt then say ? A, The talk was about the murder ; every one in the room had been told that Booth had done it ; Anna Surratt commenced to weep and said, " Oh! ma, all this will bring suspicion on our house; just think of that man (we were speaking about Booth at the time) having been here an hour before the mur- der." "Anna, come what will," she replied, " I think John Wilkes Booth was only an instrument in the hands of the Almighty to punish this proud and licentious people." Q. Did you see the man whose footsteps yon have mentioned] A. No, sir; I was in the kitchen at the time; the kitchen was down stairs, and it was simply impossible for me to see him. Q. What do you call the kitchen ? A. The front basement room. Q. Was it the kitchen or dining room. A. The dining room ; we always took our supper in the dining room and not in the kitchen ; there are two rooms in the basement, the front room is the din- ing room; in the rear is the kitchen. Q. What further occurred ? A. I returned to my room and did not see Mrs. Surratt again till morning. Q. What occurred on the morning of the 15th. A. Nothing in particular ; I do not think I have any more evidence on that point; I was at breakfast on that morning. Q. Was she at the table 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. You did not see John there that night ? A. No, sir; I said to Mrs. Surratt and Mr. lloUahan at the table that I had my suspicions about this business, and I was going to the government and state my suspicions about it ; state who I had ever seen in Booth's company and do all I could to bring these parties to justice. Q. Did you go to the government ? Objected to by Mr. Bradley. The Court. He may state whether he gave information to the government, but not detail any conversation he had. 396 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUREATT. Witness. I went to Superintendeut Ricliards's headquarters, Mr. PiERREPONT. You need not go into particulars ; I simply want to know if you did go and give information. Q. You stated that Mr. Hollahan was in the house when you went out to give information to the government ; what did you or Mr. Hollahan or McDevitt or any of these parties do ? A. Mr. Hollahan was with me when I went to the Metropolitan Police head- quarters and stated what he knew to McDevitt ; we went to the lower portion of Maryland that day. Q. Who went ? A. McDevitt, Bigley, Clarvoe, Mr. Hollahan, myself, and others. Q. Where did you go to ? A. We first went to Mrs. Herold's house. Q. What day was that ? A. That was the 15th. Q. At what time of day did you reach Mrs. Herold's house ? A. That morning I had met the stable keeper from whom a horse had heen hired the previous night. Mr. Bradley said he hoped the witness would be required to answer the question and not go off on collateral matters. Witness. I went with McDevitt to Mrs. Herold's house; we asked Mrs. Herold where her sou was. Q. Where is Mrs. Herold's house ? A. It is at the Navy Yard ; I ascertained from Dr. Walsh where the house was ; I did not know myself. Q. From Mrs. Herold's house did you go to the stable you have spoken of, or did you go before ] A. It was before. Q. What occurred at the stable 1 A. I met a man by the name of Fletcher. Mr. Bradley. Do not state anything Fletcher said. Q. Did you make any inqury there about a horse 1 A. 1 did ; I asked Fletcher to give a description of the party who had hired a horse from him. Q. Did he give you a reply to that question. A. Yes, sir. Q. What time in the day did you get back to the house after you had been at Mrs. Surratt's 1 A. We went to the lower part of i\Iaryland ; I was never at Mrs. Surratt's house after I took breakfast there that morning. Q. You went into what portion of Maryland ? A. We went away down as far as Piscataway. Q. How long did you stay there? A. We returned in the evening and searched the Pennsylvania House, where Atzerodt had been stopping ; this was on the evening of the loth. Q. Next morning where were you 1 A. It was then suspected that Atzerodt had gone to Baltimore. Mr. Bradley requested that the witness be instructed to answer questions. The Court so instructed the witness. Q. Did you go to Baltimore ? A. Yes, sir. Q. For what? A. To see if Atzerodt was there. Q, Who went ? A. Mr. Hollahan, Mr. Clarvoe, Mr. McDevitt, and myself. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 397 Q. "When did you, Hollalian, Clarvoe, and McDevitt go to Baltimore in search of Atzerodt ? A. Sunday, the 16th of April. Q. How long did you stay there ? A. 1 staid until the following Monday morning, and reached here about 6 o'clock on the 17th of April, Monday. I took an early train, 1 believe the half- past four train, from Baltimore. Q. How long did you stay here ? A. Until that afternoon, at 3 o'clock. On Monday afternoon, the 17th, at 3 o'clock, we started for Canada in pursuit of John H. Surratt. Q. Who went ? A. Mr. Bigley, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. llollahan, and myself. Clarvoe also, and Mr. Keese or Neese, I forget the name, started with us. Clarvoe did not go to Canada. Q. Where did you go to on that afternoon of the 17th ] A. We reached Philadelphia about 11 o'clock. Q. Did Clarvoe go on to Philadelphia with you ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he leave yoit there on the way ? This course of examination objected to by Mr. Bradley as leading. Mr. PiERREPONT said that if he allowed the witness to go on his own way counsel found fault that he went into collateral matters ; he was now trying to keep him to the point. Witness. Chii'voe there arrested a man by name of Celestina. Q. Did Clarv^oe or not go on with you 1 A. He returned to Washington that night. Q. Who went on to New York ? A. Neese, Bigley, HoUahan, McDevitt, and myself. Q. What time did you get to New York ? A. We reached New York on the morning of the 19th of April. Q. What day of the week ? A. That was Wednesday. Q. Where did you stop '! A. We did not stop at any place ; we immediately took a car. Q. Where did you take breakfast ? A. We got our breakfast at a hotel ; I do not remember the name of it. Q. What time did you take the cars ? A. We took the cars that morning at 6 o'clock. Q. For what point ? A. We took the Hudson river road for Montreal, Canada, leaving New York on the morning of the 19th. We travelled all that day and reached Burlington. Vermont, on the evening of the 19th. Q. Where did you go after you got to Burlington on the evening of the 19th? A. We registered false names at the American Hotel, Burlington, Vermont, and left the next morning. Q. State the false names which you entered ] A. I was Mr. Thompson. Q. What name did Hollahan enter ? A. That I do not remember. Q. Do you remember any of the other false names ? A. Bigley was Porter. Q. Do you remember the name McDevitt entered ? A. No, sir, I do not remember his nor Hollahan's. Q. Now, can you tell the false names each entered by referring to this register? (Register produced.) A. No, sir; I do not recognize my handwriting there. We staid there all 398 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. night. I do not know of my own knowledge that it was the American House. I inquired the other day what the name of the white building was, and they told me it was the American House. Mr. Bradley. Inquired of who ] A. A gentleman by the name of Blinn, Q. After you registered your names there what did you do ? A. We staid there that night, and the next morning started for Montreal, reaching there about noon. We registered our names at Burlington on the evening of the 19th, and left for Montreal on the 20th. Q. Did you sleep at the hotel on the night of the 19th? A. We slept at a hotel, and on the next morning started, Q. Give a description of the building you slept in. A. It was a square white building. Q. You say you did not know the name then ? A. I do not remember the name now of my own knowledge. Q. What time on the morning of the 20th did you leave the hotel ? A. We took the cars I suppose that morning between 5 and 7 o'clock. Q. Did you all leave together ? A We left together. Q. Where did you go that day, the 20th 1 A. AVe went to Montreal. Q. How long did you stay in Montreal ? A. I do not know whether I left there that afternoon or the nest evening for Quebec with Mr. Bigley, Q. Did anybody else go with you to Quebec? A. No, sir. Q. Whei-e did you leave Hollahan and McDevitt ? A. At Montreal. Q. At what house, do you remember ? A, I do not remember the name of the hotel now. It is one of the small hotels in Montreal. I think it was the St. James. We stopped at the Ottawa House for half the day. Q. From Quebec where did you go ? A. We returned direct to Montreal. Q. From there where did you go ? A. Then we returned to the United States. Q. When did you get back ? A. We reached Washington about noon on the 29th of April. Q. Who reached Washington with you ? A. Mr. Hollahan, Mr. Bigley, and McDevitt. In New York on our return we met Superintendent Kichards, and he came on to Washington with us. Q. You have stated that on the evening of the murder there was a colored woman in the house by name of Susan ; when did she come there, if you know ? A. To the best of my knowledge Susan had been there only about three weeks before the murder. Q. After the murder Avere there any clothes of yours left there to wash ? A. No, sir. I always gave my washing in Monday or Tuesday. Q. You gave in no washing to be done, then, after the previous Tuesday ? Mr. Bradley. I cannot really see the bearing of where the witness had his washing done. Mr. PiERREPONT. You will, perhaps, see before you are a great deal older. The Court inquired what relevancy the testimony had ? Mr. PiERREPONT replied he proposed to show that the washing left was John Surratt's. Q. Did you leave any clothes to be washed that week after Monday or Tues- day ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. 399 A. Xo, sir. Q. After Susan came there who did your washing ? A. Susan did my washing for only three weeks. Q. Before that who did it? A. The colored servant, Avhoeverwas there before. Q. State how long you had had it done at the house. A. About four months. Q. Did you have it done by Susan Jackson four months ? A. No, sir ; if I said so it was a mistake. Q. Were you at Mrs. Surratt's house on the 16th of March, I860 ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you tell what men came into the house that night and what happened ? A. That afternoon I had returned from my work and on going to the attic, where the day previous Mr. Bradley. Don't go into that; just answer the questions asked. Mr. PlERREPONT : Q. Who did you see there ? A. I saw Payne, Booth, and John Surratt, come into the room about half- past six in the evening. Q. State how they were dressed or armed, if they were armed 1 A. Surratt was the one who came in first, as I was sitting there. He had his pants in his boots. He was much excited, and had one of these four-bar- relled Sharp revolvers in his hand ; one of these little square four-barrelled pis- tols that you could easily put in a vest pocket. I asked Surratt what was the matter. He levelled his pistol at me and said, " My prospects are gone ; my hopes are blighted ; I want something to do ; can you get me a clerkship ?" I told him he was foolish ; that he ought to settle down and be a sensible young man. Q. State the degree of excitement ? A. He was very much excited. I cannot remember the degree now. Q. These other men, what did they do and what happened 1 A. In about ten minutes after Payne came into the room. He too was very much excited ; his face was red with excitement. Q. How was he dressed ? A. He was dressed in the same gray clothes he was on his second visit to Mrs. Surratt. Raising his vest, I noticed that he had a pistol on his hip. Q. Did Booth come in 1 A. About fifteen minutes after Booth came in. Q. State how he was dressed ? A. In his usual mode — dark clothes; he had a riding whip in his hand and walked round the room two or three times. He did not at first notice me ; I called his attention and he said, "Halloo ! You here? I did not see you." Q. Did you see any arms on him ? A. No, sir. The three then went up stairs into the back attic where Paj'ue had his room at that time, and were there, to the best of my knowledge, about thirty minutes. Q. What did they do then ? A. They all left the house together. Q. Who left the house ? A. Payne, Surratt, and Booth. Q. When did you next see Surratt ? A. I saw him the same evening, and asked him where Payne had gone, and where Booth had gone. Q. What did he say ? A. He said that Payne had gone to Baltimore, aud that Booth had gone to New York. 400 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Will you not tell the jury the manner of these men ? A. They were all very excited. Booth was so -excited that he was white with excitement. Payne was a different temperament, he was very red. Q. Two days after this did you see anything of these men, if so state it 1 A. I went to the theatre two days afterwards when Booth played Pescara the Apostate. On leaving the theatre, Herold, Atzerodt, Mr. Hollahan, Surratt, and myself, came out all together. Mr. Hollahan, Sun-att, and I, went as far as the corner of Tenth and E streets. Surratt th( n turned around and saw that Atzerodt and Herold were not following us. He directed me, being more intimate with me than with Mr. Holohanto goback and tell Herold and Atzerodt to come to Kloman's saloon on Seventh street, and partake of an oyster supper with them. Q. Did you do so ? A. I went to the saloon right adjoining the theatre. As I came in I saw Booth, Herold, and Atzerodt, talking very confidentially and very friendly together, near the stove. When I approached them Booth came forward and said, " Mr. Weichman, won't you come and take a drink." I, of course, con- sented ; I took a glass of ale Avith Booth, Herold, and Atzerodt. Q. Then what followed 1 A. Then the three went aside again and had a little conversation ; then Herold, Atzerodt, and myself left and joined Surratt and Mr. Hollahan near Eighth and E streets, and went and ate our oyster supper at Kloman's. The whole party consisted of Surratt, Hollahan, Herold, Atzerodt, and myself. Q. Was Booth tliere ? A. No, sir ; Booth was not. Q. How often was Booth at Mrs. Surratt's house two or three months prior to the murder ? A. He came very frequently. It was a very common thing for me to see him in the parlor with Sui-ratt, when Booth was in town after 4 o'clock. They appeai'ed like brothers. Q. Was there any term by which Booth was called ? A. Mrs. Surratt appeared to like him very much. Q. What term did she use in speaking of him 1 A. I heard her once when Booth had stayed two or three hours in the parlor call him " Pet," saying," Pet stayed two or three hours in the parlor last evening." I am positive she used the word " Pet." She named the hours from 10 at night until 1 in the morning. Q. What was the character of his intimacy there ? A. I think he was nothing more than a friend. Q. State the character of his intimacy. Mr. ]^Irrri('K. Can that question be asked. The Court. It is rather vague in its character. Mr. PlERREPO.NT said his desire was to avoid a leading question, and his object to find out whether Booth was very intimate there. Mr. Bradley said facts could be stated. Q. Please state the facts in regard to his intimacy ? A. He was just as intimate there as I was. Q. Take that telegram (telegram exhibited to witness) and state if you know in whose handwriting it is ? A. I know the handwriting. Mr. Bradley. Before you state in whose handwriting it is I want to ask you tAvo or three questions. What means have you of knowing the handwriting of that telegram ] A. In the first place the handwriting corresponds exactly in style and character with a telegram I received from Booth. He makes his " B's" in the same way, and his " e's" in the same way, more like "i's." TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 401 The Court, State whether you have seeu that person write. A. I have seen Booth write ; I have had his autograph in my possession for weeks. Mr. Bradley. Have you got his autograph now 1 A. No, sir ; 1 don't care about having his autograph in my possession now. Q. How do you know it was his autograph ? A. I saw him Avrite it. Q. When and where ? A. I saw liim write some time in April. The Court. The proper way to lay the foundation for identifying writing is to ask the witness if he has ever seen the party write. By Mr. PlERREPONT : Q. Have you seen this person write ? A. I have. Q. Have you received notes and cards from Booth ? A. Booth gave me his autograph. Q. Have you received a telegram from Booth ? A. I received a telegram on the 23d of March. Q. Do you know Booth's handwriting ? A. Yes, sir. ]\[r. PiERREPONT. I now oifer to prove by this witness the handwriting of this telegram. Mr. Bradley said that he desired to take an exception to this ruling — he was not permitted to cross-examine the Avitness — ^as to his ability to identify the hand- writing. The Court said that counsel could cross-examine in the usual way ; this was not the time to cross-examine. Mr. PiERREPOiVT. WJiat do you say as to the handwriting of this telegram ? Witness. It is Booth's handwriting. Mr. PiERREPO.XT then placed in evidence the following telegram 1 " New York, Mafc7i 13, 1864. " To Mr. McLaughlin, No. 57 Norf/i Exeter street, Baltimore. Md.: "Don't you fear to neglect your business. You had better come at once. "J. BOOTH." Mr. PiERREPONT explained that the telegram was written on a printed blank marked 1S64, but on the back of it was an indorsement 1865, and he had no doubt 1865 was the proper date. (To witness :) Now look at this telegram and (another telegram exhibited) state in whose handwriting it is ? Witness. That is Booth's handwriting. Mr. PiERREPONT, after making the same explanation as to date being 1865 instead of 1864, read and placed in evidence the following telegram : "New York, March 21, 1864. " To Mr. McLaughliyi, No. 59 North Exeter street, Baltimore, Md. : " Get word to Sam. to come on. With or without him, Wednesday morning we sell — that day, sure. Don't fail. "J. WILKES BOOTH." Q. Look at the letter now shown you (letter exhibited to witness) and state in whose handwriting it is ? A. It is in my handwriting. Q. Is it the one you spoke of in the testimony ? A. Yes, sir; it is one I wrote for Mrs. Surratt on the 14th of April. Mr. PiERREPONT, read it. Witness read the letter as follows : 402 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. "SURRATTSVILLE, MARYLAND, April 14, 1864. "Mr. John Nothey : " Sir : I have this day received a letter from Mr. Calvert, intimating tliat either you or your friends have represented to him that I am not willing to settle with you for the land. You know that I am ready and have been waiting for the last two years, and now if you do not come within the next ten days I will settle with Mr. Calvert and bring suit against you immediately. Mr. Calvert will give you a deed on receiving payment. " M. E. SURRATT, " Administratrix of J. H. Surratt." Mr. Bradley. Was it signed by Mrs. Surratt or by you ? A. By me. By Mr. PlERREPONT. Q. By whose direction did you sign it ? A. Mrs. Surratt's. Q. Where was it written 1 A. In the parlor of Mrs. Surratt's house at Surrattsville. I addressed the envelope there. By a Juror. Q. Did I understand you that you signed her name to it ? A. Yes ; she told me to sign her name ; she said it did not make any difference. Mr. PlERREPONT offered to put in evidence all the contents of the diary taken from the body of J. Wilkes Booth. Mr. Bradley said they had not been identified. Mr. PlERREPONT said he was under the impression they were identified by the witness Conger; if not, he would withold them for the present. Q. Look at the entries in the book now shown you (diary taken from the body of J. Wilkes Booth) and say in whose handwriting they are 1 A. I recognize them as Booth's handwriting. Q. Look also at the leaf in it (letter to Dr. Stewart) and say in whose hand- writing that is 1 A. I recognize both the diary and leaf as in Booth's handwriting ; it is a smaller hand than he generally wrote — such as he would write in pencil. Mr. PlERREPONT then offered the diary in evidence. The letter referred to was also placed in evidence, and is as follows : "My Dea — , [piece torn out,] forgive me, but I have some little pride. lean- not blame you for want of hospitality. You know your own affairs. I was sick, tired, with a broken limb, and in need of medical advice. I would not have turned a dog from my door in such a plight. However, you were kind enough to give us something to eat, for which I not only thank you ; but on account of the rebuke and manner in which, to — [piece torn out.] It is not the substance, but the way in which kindness is extended, that makes one happy in the accept- ance thereof. The sauce to meat is ceremony. Meeting were bare without it. Be kind enough to accept the enclosed So (although hard to spare) for what I have rec'd. " Most respectfully, your obedient servant." Q. Look at this card and see if you know this handwriting. (Card shown to witness.) A. That is in the handwriting of John H. Surratt. The card being one identified by the witness, Dawson, as having fallen from the vest pocket of Booth, was read and placed in evidence as follows : " J. Harrison Surratt : I tried to get leave, but could not succeed." TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 403 Q. Have you had any experience in writing yourself — I mean beyond the or- dinary experience ? A. Yes, sii*. Q. What can you write ? A. I write short-hand ; I write the German alpliabet. I have had a great deal of experience in comparing letters, and in reading letters hard to deciphei*. I taught writing for about sixteen months at school. Q. How long were you employed at the War Department 1 A. From the 9th of January, 18G4, till the 14th of April, 18(55. Q. Do you know whether there is a difference in people in their capacity to detect forgery ? Question objected to by Mr. Merrick. Mr. PiERREPONT stated there were experts on various subjects. His object was to show, as the law required before offering evidence, that there were such things as experts on the subject in question. The Court said the question could be asked witness, what experience he has had to show that he is or is not an expert. Mr, PiERREPONT. I will ask that question. Witness. In 1S66 I was reporting a trial in Philadelphia. Three letters were submitted to me which had been found in the west. The letters were in different kinds of handwriting. Mr. Bradley. We object to this. Mr. PiERREPONT. Very well, I will not ask for any more experience if gen- tlemen do not want it. (To witness.) I want you to take this letter (letter known as the Charles Selby letter) and examine it. Witness. The handwriting appears to me to bo evidently disguised. Q. Do you think that is written in the natural hand I A. No, sir ; the letters are all disjointed. Q. What is your opinion as to its being a disguised hand ? A. It is my opinion it is a disguised hand. The court here took a recess for half an hour. AFTERNOON SESSION. Louis J. Weichmaxn: examination resumed. Upon reassembling Mr. Pierrepont stated that he had in his possession two letters which he had omitted to show the witness when he was before on the stand, and he now proposed to hand them to him, and ask him in whose hand- writing they were. The two letters were then exhibited lo the witness. Q. AVill you state in whose handwriting they are? A. This one (letter dated Surrattsville, November 12, 1864) is in Surratt's handwriting. This one (dated September 21, 1864) is also in Surratt's hand- writing, lie wrote two bauds. Mr. PiERREPONT. I am simply asking you if they are both in Surratt's hand- writing 1 A. Yes, sir. I will state that I did not receive the letter I first examined at all. The second one (one dated September 21, 1864) I did receive, and it is the last one I ever did receive from Surratt. Mr. Pierrepont. I now propose to read these letters. Mr. Bradley. I object. I desire, y^ur honor, first to see the letters, and then I will proceed to state the grounds of my objection. The letters were then handed to the court and read by him, when Mr, Bradley said: I do not propose to argue the question, if your honor please, but I rather think that this is the first time in the history of criminal jurisprudence in this country, since the case of Algernon Sidney, where a paper 404 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. or the draft of a paper found in the possession of the defendant, and never out of his possession until taken from him by the government, has been offered or sought to be offered in evidence in a court of justice. This first letter the wit- ness acknowledges was never received by him. It was found in possession of the defendant, and was never out of his possession until taken by the govern- ment. Can it then, sir, be introduced here ? As to the second paper — the one dated September 21 — I am not conscious of any possible bearing it can have upon the issue in this case. It is wholly immaterial ; has no reference what- ever to any matter in controvei'sy, and is therefore not admissible on that ground. Mr. PiKRREPOM'. If your honor please, if the counsel had not stated what he did with so much apparent confidence, it would have surprised me. The counsel thinks this is the first time that a paper obtained under the circum- stances this was has ever been sought to be introduced as evidence in a court of justice since the case of Algernon Sidney. I must say that this is the first time in the history of criminal jurisprudence when I have known it to be held that upon the seizure of a criminal a paper found in his possession which tends to throw any light whatever upon the crime with which he stands charged, whether such paper be written by himself or not, cannot be given in evidence. Mr. Bradley. I did not make that point. Mr. PiEKREPONT. I thought that was the point. Mr. Bradley. Then you misunderstood me. Mr. Pibrrepont. Let me hear what it was. Mr. Bradley. I stated that it was sought to introduce here a paper that had never been published by the party, that had been written long before any overt act was committed, if anv ever was committed, and that had never been out of the possession of the defendant ; and that such an offer was altogether improper and should not be entertained. Mr. PrERREPONT. The objection to the reception of this paper, as I under- stand it, is that it was found with the defendant's papers. I claim that it was found with the defendant's papers, and hold that that is one of the strongest reasons why it is good evidence in this cause. In illustration I will refer to a case with which I think my learned friend is quite familiar. It was the case of a murder which had been committed in England, where no clue to the murderer could be found. Mr. Bradley. Give us the name of the case. Mr. PiERREPONT. I cannot recall the name. Mr. Bradley. There are so many murder cases in England that it is difficult to remember them all. jMr. PiERREPONT. I think you will call to mind the case when I state the facts. I think you will find it cited in Chief Justice Shaw's opinion in the Webster case, 5th Cushing, if I am not mistaken. As I said, during the inves- tigation no clue to the guilty party could be found. Finally, in the vest pocket of a man who was suspected was found a piece of paper on which was some writing. It was discovered that the wad which had been set on fire, and had fallen from the gun or was found in the wound or clothes, I believe, of the man who was shot, appeared to have been torn from this written paper that was found in the pocket of the suspected man. This evidence in regard to the paper and the wad was admitted ; on that evidence the jury found him guilty, and on that evidence he was hanged. Mr. Bradley. I do not dissent from that. Mr. PiERREPONT. Anything that is found in the possession of a man ac- cused of a great crime when he is arrested, that has any tendency to throw light upon the subject, however near or however remote, is evidence to go to the jury for them to weigh and consider, whether it has any bearing upon the case or not. Mr. Bradley. I do not wish to reply ; I, of course, reserve my right to ex- cept. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT 405 Mr. MERRrcK, If jour honor will allow me a single word. I merely wish to state that I see a very wide difference between the case at bar and the case put by the learned counsel on the other side. In the case put by the learned counsel on the other side, a "thing" is found in the possession of the defend- ant, which " thing" is shown to be the counterpart of another " thing" used in the murder. The counterpart of the "thing" is that "thing" which bears relation to the principal, wherein the difference makes them identical. The counterpart of the " thing" used in the murder was still in the possession of the prisoner, and as a "thing" it was offered in evidence to show the identity of the two articles, and the connection of the prisoner Aviih the murder. Here, however, it is not proposed to use the " thing " found in the possession of the prisoner, but the "thought" found in his possession. If this letter found in the possession of the prisoner was the counterpart of any other letter or paper found connected with the perpetration of the crime, for which the party is indicted, it would certainly be admissible ; but it isn't proposed to use it as the material substance, but as the thought of the prisoner ; and as long as the writing is still in his possession, the thought is unuttered, and it is not compe- tent to be put in evidence. And, as my learned brother says, that was the great question which arose in Sydney's case, and Avas disregarded in that case, which resulted in a judicial murder, but was afterwards permanently established in the English law — that you could not determine handwriting by comparison ; and that unspoken treason was not treason, although the document was written, and in possession of the party and treasonable in its character, yet being unspoken was not competent to go in evidence, for the reason that until thought is pub- lished it is not thought ; it is no act. And so here. This letter being still in the possession of the defendant when taken by the government, is a thought unspoken, which the government cannot produce as the spoken thought of the party. I think your honor will perceive that the difference between the case put by the learned gentleman and the case at bar is very great. Mr. PiERREPONT. I will only say that I do not want any "thought." It is the "thing" I am after, Mr. Merrick. Then I do not know what you want to read the letters for. Mr. Pierrepont. I repeat, I do not care anything about the " thought," I am after the fact. Mr. Bradley. What is the "fact." Mr. Pierrepont. I want this letter — this letter just as it is. The Court. I shall let the letter in. Mr. Bradi EY reserved an exception. The letter was then read as follows : " Surrattsville, November 12, 1864. " Dear Al. : Sorry I could not get up. Will be up on Sunday Hope you are getting along well. How are times — all the pretty girls ? My most pious regards to the latter ; as for the former, I have not a continental d — ra. Have you been to the fair? If so. what have we now ? I'm interested in the * bedstead,' How's Kennedy ? Tight, as usual, I suppose. Opened his office, I hear. Fifty to one 'tis a failure. Am very happy I do not belong to the * firm.' Been busy all the week taking care of and securing tlie crops. Next Tuesday, and the jig's up. Good by, Surrattsville. Good by, God forsaken country. Old Abe, the good old soul, may the devil take pity on him. " Surrattsville, Md, " Test : JOHN II, SURRATT. " To Louis J, Weich.maw, Esq., Washington city, D. C." 40 fi TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Attached to this 13 the following certificate : "Office of the Provost Marshal and Board of Enrolment of the District of Columbia, " Washington, May 10, 1865. " The paper was given to Lieutenant Samuel K. Brown, Y. R. C, depart- ment provost marshal, D. C, by Special Officer George Cottingham, of my force, Avho obtained it from the bar-tender of Lloyd at Surrattsville on the evening of April 28, 1865. Cottingham's statement is herewith appended. "JAMES R. O'BEIRNE, ''Major 22d Regiment V. R. C, Provost Marshal D. C" Mr. PiERREPONT. I now dcsire to have the jury see this writing for another reason connected with this letter. Mr. Bradley. We have heard this letter read your honor, and if it is pro- posed to exhibit it to the jury for the purpose of having them institute a compa- rison of the handwriting, as I understand it to be, I object. Mr. PiERREPONT. I have not yet made such a suggestion. Your honor has seen the difference in the handwriting of this same letter, and that is what I desire to have the jury see. Mr. Bradley. Difference in the handwriting ? Mr. PiERREPONT. Yes, sir. Mr. Bradley. Your witness says it is all the same handwriting. Ml'. PiERREPONT. Written by the same man. Mr. Bradley. Does your honor rule that it can be shown to the jury. The Court. I see no reason why it should be kept from them. Mr. Bradley. Very well, sir; I desire to reserve an exception. The letter was here handed to the jury, when Mr. PiERREPONT said : If the jury will look at the body of the letter and then at the bottom, they will see a difference in the handwriting. The letter dated September 21 was then read, and afterwards handed to the jury for inspection. To the admissiou and exhibition of this letter to the jury Mr. Bradley also reserved an exception. The letter is as follows : " Surrattsville, Md., September 21. " Louis J. Weichmann, Washington, D. C. " Dear Friend : John Surratt is neither dead nor drafted, though he ran the gauntlet of both. I am just able to walk but a little, yet very weak. I have had the chills and fever pretty severely. In hopes I have entirely escaped, I shall be in Washington as soon as possible. I intend to stay up a few days in order to recuperate. Possibly we may come up sooner than, we anticipate, on account of certain events having turned up. I am quite sorry Miss Estelle has gone to Philadelphia. There is no attraction there now for me. Miss Fannie and I were gettiug on a fair road to a flirtation when she bundled up bag and baggage and left for Washington. She says ' she is glad Mrs. Surratt intends moving to town.' All right. We Avill see. Write soon and tell me all the news. Nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to write a long letter. I am very happy to state that I escaped the draft. I sincerely hope you may do the same. Family all well and send respects to you. Yours, as ever, "J. Harrison Surratt." Q. Did you receive that? A. 1 did. It was the last one I ever did receive from him. Q. Did you liear anything said by Mrs. Surratt or John about a cotton or " ile " speculation ? A. Yes, sir. Shortly after Surratt's introduction to Booth, Surratt told me that he was going to Europe ; that he was engaged in cotton speculations. He TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 407 stated tins in the presence of liis sister. He said that S3, 000 had been advanced to him by some elderly gentleman residing in the neighborhood ; and that he ■\vas going to Liverpool, from Liverpool to Nassau, and thence to Matamoras, in Mexico, to find his brother Isaac. He was in the habit of stating that very fre- quently. Mr. Bradley, "Was in the habit of stating all this, or what? A. He stated the whole of what I have just said. At another time he said he was engaged in the oil business ; that he had six shares of oil stock. Once he even approached me and asked me if I would not Avi-ite an article for the newspaper to the effect that John Wilkes Booth, the accomplished actor, in con- sequence of having erysipelas in his leg, had retired from the; stage and was engaged in the oil business. He stated that Booth had made quite a fortune, and had presented his sister with the money he had made out of the oil. Q. Whose sister ? A. His own sister. Q. Booth's sister ? A. Yes, sir. He wanted me to give him a puff, but I refused. Q. Did he state in what paper he wanted you to put the article 1 A. No, sir. He said he simply wanted me to write the article ; that he would have it published. Q. Did he name the paper ? A. No, sir. Q. In this first letter the haud-Avriting at the bottom is very different from that in the body of the letter ; will you state which baud Surratt usually wrote ? A. He usually wrote the hand at the bottom of it. Q. The smaller one ? A. Yes, sir. The top hand is a back hand, or hand that he wrote by putting ills pen between his first and second fingers. Q. The body of the letter is not in his ordinary hand ? A. No, sir. Q. You have spoken of places that you went to on your way to Canada. I want the jury to get an idea of the position of those places. Will you point out on that map the position of the different places you went to after leaving New York, on your way to Canada ? Witness did as requested. Cross-examination by Mr. Bradlev : Q. What place are you a native of? A. I am a native of Baltimore. I am a native of the United States, too. Q. Do you mean Baltimore, Maryland 1 A. Yes, sir. Mr. Bradley. I believe that is in the United States. Q. You say that you were educated at the college at Ellicott's Mills, where you met John Surratt ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you ever at any place not a great distance from Baltimore for the purpose of getting an education ? A. I was at Borromeo college for a short while. Q. Has that any other name in the neighborhood ? A. It is at Pikesville. Q. Is there any place in that heighborhood called Texas, or Little Texas ? A. Yes, sir. I was teaching there two weeks. Q. Did you come from Ellicott's Mills College, St. Charles College, to Wash- ington, or whence did you come to Washington ? A. When I left St. Charles College, in July, 1862, 1 returned to Philadelphia, on a two months' vacation. In September, 1SG2, I accepted of a position 408 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUREATT. at Borromeo college, in Maryland ; was there three months, and then went and taught two weeks at^a little place called Texas. The schoolhouse being des- troyed by fire I came to Washington, and accepted of a position in St. Mat- theAv's Institute. Q. Did you meet with a gentleman there named St. Marie ? A. I did. Q. Where did you meet him ? A. I met him at Ellengowan, on the third of April, 1863. Q. Where is Ellengowan 1 A. Ellengowan and Texas are both one and the same. Q. You met him then at Texas ? A. Yes, sir. I met him on the third of April, 1863. I was employed in Washington, but was making a visit at that time with Surratt. I introduced Surratt to St. Marie. Q. On the third of April, 1863 ? A. Yes, sir; good Friday, in the afternoon. Q. How long did you stay there ? A. I left Washington on the second of April, 1863, and returned to Wash- ington on the following Monday evening. Q. Did you ever visit Texas after that? A. I believe I did ; I think the following Christmas. Q. Did you ever visit it in company with Mr. Surratt after that 1 A. I did not. Q. You are positive about that 1 A. I am. Surratt was with me at Ellengowan only once. Q. You are distinct in your recollection of that ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You were not there in 1865 ? A. Xo, sir. Q. AVhen you came to Washington, do I understand you correctly that you accepted a situation in St. Matthews' Institute ? A. I accepted a position in St. Matthews' Institute in the latter part of De- cember, 1862. Q. What do you mean by "accepting?" Did you not seek it, and seek it earnestly ? A. Yes, sir, I sought it ; I do not deny that. I was glad to get it, too. Q. How long did you remain there ? A.- 1 remained there from the 24th of December, '62, to the 9th of January, '64. Q. Under what circumstances did you leave it ? A. I left because I was not treated right. Q. Then you left of your own accord ? A. Yes, sir. I received only thirty-five dollars there, and I had a position offered to me which paid me eighty doUars a month. I always look out for self- interest, and, therefore, thought it was better to get eighty dollars than thirty- five dollars. Q. But in looking out for self-interest, which is a very commendable thing, can you state that you left there voluntarily, of your own motion ? A. I sent in my resignation. Q. And that was your own motion ? A. Yes, sir ; the duties of teaclier were not only exacted of me, but there was no man there to sweep the room, and the students under my charge for three months were compelled to sweep up. I remonstrated against this several times. Q. To whom ? A. To the gentlemen who had charge of the institution. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 409 Q. Who was tlaat ? A. Rev. Dr. White, pastor of St. Matthew's Institute. Q. Who had the direct charge of that school? A. I had the direct charge of the pupils. Q. What business had Mr. Murphy there 1 A. He was assistant teacher. Q. Who was the principal teacher ? A. I considered myself the principal teacher, because I taught iip stairs and he taught down stairs. [Laughter.] 1 had, too, the best and more advanced class of boys ; he had the little boys with bare feet. Q. Whei-e was this position of S80 a month that was offered to you ? A. It was in the office of the Commissary General of Prisoners. Q. Do you know by whose agency and instrumentality you obtained that appointment ? A. I do. By the agency of ilr. Shanklin, chief clerk of that office, on two letters of recommendation, one from Mr. White, and the other from Captain Batey, which I have in my possession. Q. Where were you living at that time 1 Witness. On the 9th of January, 1864 1 Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. A. I was boarding at the house of JMrs. Handy, but had lodgings at the house of Mrs. Sly. Q. You remained there how long ] A. I boarded at Mrs. Handy's until some time in the fall, when I went to board at 22 Pennsylvania avenue, at a house kept by a colored man named Purnell. Q. Can you not fix it any nearer than that ? A. No, sir. I do not remember the date. Perhaps about September. Q. How long did you remain at Mr. Purnell's ? A. I remained at Mr. Purnell's three or four months. I may have gone there in May or July. I do not remember exactly about going to Mr. Purnell's. Q. You do not know how long you staid there 1 A. I was boarding at Mr. Furnell's house until I came to board with Mrs, Surratt on the 1st of November, 1864. Mr. Bradley. That is not answering my question. A. I do not remember the number of months — whether one, two, or three. It was perhaps three months, and it may have been four. Q. Then you went to board at Mrs. Surratt's ? A. Yes, sir. Q. At St. Charles were you studying for the priesthood 1 A. I was. Q. And from that time to this have you k(!pt up your connection with the church ? A. I have kept up my connection with the church, but not as a student for the ministry. Mr. Bradley. I did not ask about the ministry, but your connection with the church. A. I have. Q. You lived at Mrs. Sun-att's how long ? A. From the 1st November, 1861, until 14th of April, I860. Mr. Bradley. That is five months and a half. During that time had you opportunities of observing her life and conduct ? A. I had. Q. Now state whether it was or not exemplary as a Christian woman. Mr. Pierrepont. I object. 27 410 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Mr, Braulev. I mean to put her character in issue. Mr. PiERREPONT. Undoubtedly ; but this is not the time. Mr, Bradley. The gentlemen on the other side have assailed her character in the worst possible manner. Mr. PlERREPONT. I submit, your honor, that there is no difficulty about put- ting her character in issue at the proper time, bui that it cannot be done on cross-examination. Mr. Bradley. I want to show what her whole life was during the time that this man has been detailing incidents of it, and Mr. PlERREPONT. I have not the slightest objection to his bringing all the church, all the laymen, and everybody else to whom your honor may be wil- ling to listen, to prove what her character was as far as they can speak from their own knowledge, but I object to its being done on the cross-examination of a witness. They cannot use a witness on cross-examination for the purpose of supporting character. Mr. Bradley. I do not expect to support her character by this witness. I wish to test this witness's observation and memory of it. The Court. I do not see, Mr. Bradley, that the evidence proposed to be given is at all responsive to anything brought out on the cross-examination. It is competent to prove character, but in doing so you make the witness your own, Mr. Bradley. Your honor then rules, that when the prosecution have shown that during a particular portion of the time this witness was stopping at her house — that is, on Sunday — she visited one church regularly ; and that during a certain portion of the services of the Catholic church, she habitually attended another chTirch, I may not inquire into her character ? The Court, 0, yes ; you can inquire into everything that has been gone into in the examination in chief. Mr. PlERREPONT. Certainly; we have no objection. The Court. If anything has been said in that direct examination about her attending church., you may question the witness in regard to it on the cross- examination. Mr. PlERREPONT. To which we shall certainly not object, ]\Ir. Bradley. I understand the question I put has been ruled ont by your honor ? The Court. Yes, sir. Mr. Bradley. I desire to have an exception resented, Q. State what, during the whole time of your stay there, her deportment was towards you personally. A. She treated me just as kindly as I treated her. Q. I asked what her deportment towards you was ? A. She treated me kindly. Q. Had you not, in her house, the freedom of a son almost ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you sick at any time during your stay there ? A. I was sick for a short time one night. Q. Were you not nursed and attended as though you were her son 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Y'^ou have spoken of the visitors to her house — Booth, Atzerodt, Payne, and Herold ; did you not see respectable citizens visiting there also 1 A. I did. Q. Many? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you recollect the names of any who were there frequently? A . I would not like to state who were there. Perhaps those gentlemen mighl object. TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 411 Q. I call upon you to state who ^vere frequent visitors at her house besides those you liave enumerated on your examination here. A. Father Wiget was a very frequent visitor, as was also her brother. Q. Who else 1 A. Sometimes one or two sisters of charity, Mrs. Kirby and Mrs. Dean. Those are about all I remember. Q. You do not remember any other gentlemen visiting that house in the five months you were there except the two you have mentioned, exclusive of those referred to in your examination in chief? A. No, sir. Q. Do you mean to say there were none others there, so far as you know 1 A. So far as I know ; that is, to the best of my recollection. If you were to call any others to my attention I could tell whether they used to come there or not. Q. I want to test your memory, and do not want to call your attention to anything. On the night of the 13th of March, 1865, where were you 1 A. I was in Mrs. Surratt's house, in the parlor. Q. Who else was there? A. Mrs. Surratt, Miss Anna Surratt, and Miss Fitzpatrick. Q. Who else besides members of the family ? A. Mrs. Hollahan. Q. She was a member of the family, was she not ? A. She was boarding in the house, but she was not a member of the flimily. Q. All those you have mentioned were inmates of the house, were they not ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You say there was no one else there that night except the inmates of the house ? A. Not that I remember of now. Q. Have you any distinct memory about it ? A. I have a very distinct memory that there was no one else there. Some one else came in for a short time. Q. Who was that ? A. Payne. Q. That was on the evening of the 13th of March, 1865 ? A. Yes, sir. Q. He was the only one there other than those who were inmates of the house ? A. He was the only one that I remember of Q. How do you fix that date of the 13th of March ? A. By the fact that it was two evenings before the 1 5th of March that Payne came. Q. How do you remember the 15th of March ? A. I remember that by the play at the theatre on that occasion, " Jane Shore." Q. On the 15th of March "Jane Shore" was played? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who played any prominent character in it ? A. I do not know. I was not at the theatre that evening. Q. How do you know, then, whether it was played or not ? A. John Surratt told me it was played. Q. When did he tell you ? A. A few days afterwards ; Little Miss Dean told me, also. She described the costumes, &c. Q. Who was at ^frs. Surratt's house on the 18th of March ? A. That I do not know, because I was out that evening. Q. Who was there before you went out ? A. Surratt was there. 412 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. Mr. Bradley. I do not speak of the inmates of the house. A. I do not remember of any others. Q. Where were you that night ? A. Surratt and I were at the theatre. Q. What was the play 1 A. The " Apostate. " Q. Who played in it? A. Booth and John McCullough. Q. Were you examined as a witness before the commission Avho tried the alleged conspirators ] A. I was. Q. Did you or not fix a different night then for the performance of that play ? A. I did. Q. Did you or not afterwards see the affidavit of John McCullough swearing that he was not here at that time, and did not play then ? A. No, sir; I did not see the affidavit of John McCullough, swearing that he was not here on the IStli of March. I did see the affidavit of Mr. McCullough swearing that he was not here on the 2d of April, Q. Did you not fix that period ? A. Which ? I did not say the 18th. Q. Was not the day fixed by you then as the time when John McCullough played here, a day other than the ISth of March ? A. I said, as well as I could remember, before the commission, that it was the 26th of March. I now state it was the 18th of March. I was mistaken not as to the fact, but merely as to the time ? , Q. Did you, before that commission, swear you were introduced to John McCullough, in the city of Washington, on the 2d of April 1 A. I did. Q. Was that true ? A. No, sir. Q. Did not you see the affidavit of John McCullough, stating that he was not here on the 2d of April ? A. I did. Q. Did not you see the affidavit stating that he did not know you, and had never seen you 1 A. Yes, sir; I saw that. Q. Afterwards, did not you change the date of your introduction to John McCullough ? A. No, sir; I changed the date before I had seen John McCullough's affidavit. Q. Where did you change it ? A. In my own mind. Q. To whom did you declare that change ? A. I told j\Ir. Aiken, while evidence for the defence was being taken, that it was not the 2d of April, but the 2Gth of March. I am positive that I met John McCullough, and if necessary Q. When did you tell Mr. Aiken ? A. I told him while the evidence for the defence was being taken, after I had got through with my testimony. I was merely mistaken as to the time. If necessary, I could detail the conversation which I had with Mr. McCullough. Mr. Bradley. I think Mr. McCullough is on the other side of the mountains; at least we have tried to get him, but have not succeeded ; so you will not detail that, if you please. Q. Can you now fix with any degree of certainty the time when you were introduced to Dr. Mudd ? A. I was introduced to Dr. Mudd in the winter of 1864-'65. I could fix it TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 413 certainly, beyond a doubt, by going to the National Hotel and seeing at Avbat time Booth occupied room 81. Q. Is there any other means ? A. Not that I remember just now. Q. When asked that question upon the trial before, did you state any other means by which you could fix it ? A. I stated that it could be fixed by means of the register at the Pennsylva- nia House. Q, Did you go to the Pennsylvania House to look for that register ? A. I did not — not to the Pennsylvania House. Q. Not the house down on C street 1 A. No, sir. I never saw the register of the Pennsylvania House, except on one occasion, several months before the trial, when I went there to look for a friend. Q. Did you not see it during the trial of the assassins ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you not fix the date as the 15th of January, or about that time 1 A. I said about the loth of January. Q. That was in the month of June you testified ? A. I testified in the month of April. Q. You testified before that commission in the month of April ? A. No, sir ; in the month of May, I should say. Q. And then your recollection was that it was the fifteenth of January that you saw Dr. Mudd ? A. To the best of ray recollection, from circumstances. I was sorry I did not go to the National Hotel to see the room. Q. What is your recollection now 1 A. My recollection is that it was in the winter of lS64-'65. Q. That is as near as 3''ou can come to it ? A. I will fix it positively by saying that it was room 84, Mr. Bradley. 1 am speaking now of the time you saw Dr. Mudd, when you went to the Pennsylvania House with him ? A. I fix it also by another circumstance — by the fact of Surratt being em- ployed by the Adams Express Company a short time after this introduction. That fact has occurred to me within the past two years. Had that fact come to my mind in 1865 I would have stated it. Q, Have you not been to the office of the Adams Express Company to ascer- tain when that employment was ? A. I have. Q. Didn't you ascertain that it was in the latter part of December, and not in January ? A. The man told me that it was on the 31st of December. He did not say anything about January. Q. You say that Surratt was employed shortly after the introduction to Mudd and Booth ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then you must have been introduced to Mudd and Booth before the Slst of December ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Yet on the trial of the conspirators you swear that it was about the 15th of January ? A. I did. Q. Now what, since that, has enabled you to change the date of the perform- ance of McOuUough and Booth at the theatre, and the day of your interview with Booth and Mudd ] A. I will answer any one of those questions singly. 414 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. First, what enables you to fix tlie change in the date 1 A, I changed the date before I ever saw John McCullough's affidavit. Q. I asked you what enabled you to change the date ? A. The fact that it was not Booth who called on the 2d of April, but Atze- rodt. I know that Booth had called at Mrs. Surratt's house a week previous to Atzerodt's arrival. Q. Do you know a gentleman named Ford, proprietor of Ford's theatre ? A. I do. Q. Did you or not, very shortly after you had given that testimony at the conspiracy trials, have a conversation with him as to the time when Booth and McCullough performed at the theatre. Witness. At what time ? They performed often. Mr. Bradley. I mean when the " Apostate" was performed in March, 1865 ? A. Not that I remember. Mr. Ewing was the first one who called my atten- tion to the fact that the " Apostate" was performed on the ISth of March. Q. But what you said to Mr. Ford, and what Mr. Ford said to you, you do not remember ? A. I do not. Q. Do you know Mr. Ford ? A. Slightly. Q,. Were you not imprisoned with him at the same time in Carroll prison ? A. I was at Carroll prison for 30 days ; but not in the same room. Q. You saw him daily? A. Almost daily? Q. Didn't you ride up and down with him to the trial of the conspirators ? A. I did. Q. You conversed on this subject with him 1 A. Sometimes I did, and sometimes I did not. Q. Did not you talk about this very time — talk about the performance of " Pescara," in the play of the "Apostate?" A. I do not remember. Q. Didn't he tell you then that you were mistaken as to the time when "Pescara" was performed? A. No, sir; I do not remember that. Q. You do remember that you had conversations with him ? A. I do. Q. What enables you to fix the change in the date as to the time when Dr. Mudd was at the Pennsylvania House ? A. The fact of his employment by the Adams Express Company. Q. Then you know that John Surratt was employed the by Adams Express Company after you had been introduced to Dr. Mudd and Booth ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You know that? A. Yes, sir ; I know that John Surratt was in the employ of the Adams Express Company one holiday, and that he wanted leave of absence for the holiday, but did not get it. Mr. Bradley. You have told us all about that — about his taking French leave. A. This is a different circumstance. Q. I want to know how you fix the fact that John Surratt was employed by the Adams Express Company after you were introduced to ]\Iudd and Boot h ? Mr. Pierrepont. He proposes to give the other circumstance. Mr. Bradley. 0, well, let him give it. I want everything to come out. Witness. I will answer your question by saying, merely because on one of the holidays at that time, a Sunday, or some other day, perhaps New Year's, TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 415 Surratt was at work all day in the office. I know it was a holiday because we had turkey for dinner. [Laughter.] Q. Then you know that was after your introduction to Booth and Mudd ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then that must have been in December ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long before John Surratt was employed by the Adams Express Company was it you had that introduction ? A. Several days. Q. A week ? A. Perhaps about a week or ten days. Q. Are you aware that proof was given on that trial that Dr. IMudd was not here at the time you named ? A. Dr. Mudd himself has admitted that what I said about him was true. Mr. Bradley. I am not asking you what Dr. Mudd admitted. Are you aware that on that trial proof was given that Dr, Mudd was not here at the time you fixed him here ? A. I have read Mr. Bingham's argument. Mr. Bradley. I am not asking you as to whether you have read Mr. Bing- ham's argument or not. I repeat my question: "Are you aware that on that trial proof was given that Dr. Mudd was not here at the time you fixed him here?" A. I am. Q. When was the time, according to the time fixed by the evidence or the arguments on that trial ? A. One of the times fixed was that he was here on the 22d of December, 1864. Q. Yet you on that trial swore that he was here about the 15th of January? A. To the best of my recollection. Another circumstance which comes to my mind as fixing tlie introduction in the latter part of December, 1864, is that Surratt went to Port Tobacco in the early part of January, 1865. It has im- pressed my mind, and I am positive that the introduction to Mudd and Booth was before this ride to Port Tobacco, which was in the early part of 1865. Q. Hadn't you thought over all these circumstances before you were examined here yesterday 1 A. I have thought over them for the last two years. Mr. Bradley. That will do for the present. The Court. Have you concluded the cross-examination of the witness 1 Mr. Bradley. 0, no, sir. Q. You say that "Jane Shore" was performed on the 15th of March. A. Yes, sir. Q. I will ask you if you gave that same date on the conspiracy trial ? A. I fixed it finally for Mr. Cox. I said "Jane Shore" was played on the 15th, as well as I could remember. Q. After having given your testimony in chief in that case, or just before, do you remember a conversation with Mr, Ford, or any one else, on the way from Carroll prison to the place of trial, in which you asked what night " Jane Sliore " was acted ? A. No, sir; I do not remember. I asked that fact of a Mr. Lewis Garland, who was an actor at Jlr. Ford's theatre. Q. An actor was he? A. Yes, sir. (After a moment's reflection:) No, he was not an actor, but he was employed at Ford's theatre. I believe he Avas costumer. Q. When and where did you ask him 1 A. I asked him down at the conspiracy trials. Q. Then did he tell you? 416 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Yes, sir. Q Did you swear according to what lie told you, or according to your recol- lection ? A. I swore according to my recollection. He corroborated my recollection. Q. You say Mr. Garland agi-eed with you in your recollection as to the date of that night? A. I do not say that he agreed. He corroborated my recollection. Mr. Bradley. That he corroborated, which is agreeing, I take it. Q. Where was that conversation with Garland? A. Down at the conspiracy trial. Q. Was it or not on the way from Garroll prison to the place where the trial was had? A . No, sir ; Garland Avas not confined in Garroll prison, but at the jail out here. Q. Do you recollect going down to that conspiracy trial with John M. Lloyd ? A. Yes, sir; I believe he was along one day. Q. Was anybody else with you? A. Two soldiers with loaded muskets. Q. Nobody else? A. There may have been two or three other persons, whose names I cannot now recall. Q. Was Mr. Ford with you? A. I do not remember whether he was with us that particular day or not, Q. You have testified here that when Mrs. Surratt was being driven by you in a buggy to Surrattsville, you met Lloyd in a buggy at a little village beyond the Eastern braucli ; that both carriages were stopped, and that Lloyd came up to the buggy which you were driving, and spoke to Mrs Surratt in such a low tone that you could not hear what passed; I believe that is the substance of what you testified to ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you, or not, at that time, look right into Lloyd's face while he was talking with Mrs. Surratt ? A. No, sir ; I sat right up in the buggy, with my back against the back part of the buggy. Q. You did not look into Lloyd's face ? A. No, sir, not at that precise moment, Avhile he was conversing ; I looked at him as he came from his can-iage over to Avhere we were, and he recognized me. Q. On the way to the prison of which I have spoken, when Lloyd was with you, and somebody else, did you not ask Lloyd in what tone of voice Mrs. Surratt spoke to him at that time ? A. Not that I remember. Q. You did not? A. No, sir. Q. Did not you tell him that you had testified that she had spoken in a whisper ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did he say ? A. He expressed astonishment. Q. Is that all he said? A. That is all I remember. Q. Did not he say that if you swore to that you swore to a lie? Mr. PiKRREPO.N'T. I submit to your honor whether this evidence is proper — what Mr. Lloyd said to him. The GouRT. You cannot ask the witness what Mr. Lloyd said. Mr. Bradley. Gannot I do so for the purpose of testing his memory ? Mr. PiERREPOiNT. Mr. Lloyd has already testified here, and we can produce Jiim again if necessary. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. 417 The Court. You may ask the witness whether he did not say so and so to Mr. Lloyd, and then, when he has answered, if you wish to contradict him you can bring Mr. Lloyd. Q. When you told Lloyd that she whispered to him, did you say anything else to him ? A. Not that I remember. Q. Did you tell Lloyd that she whispered to him at that time ? A. I did not say so. Q. Did you tell Lloyd, at that time, that you had sworn she whispered to him ? A. I told Lloyd that I had testified that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, she whispered to him. I did not hear that conversation. Q. Did not you ask Lloyd to correct the testimony ? A. No, sir. Mr. Bradley. It seems we cannot ask you what Lloyd said. Mr. Merrick. You can if the other side assent to it. Q. You have stated here to-day, if I understand you correctly, that you left no clothes at Mrs. Surratt's after the 16th or 17th of April, whichever it was ? A. I left no clothes which Avere to be washed. On Sunday or Monday I took off a pair of dirty boots which I had, and left them in my room. When counsel for the prosecution asked me the question, I thought he meant clothes for the wash. Mr. PiERREPO.NT. I asked about clothes for the wash, and nothing else. Q. While you were in Carroll prison, did you not state in the presence of two other persons that the reason you had no clean clothes there, or was short of clean clothes, was that you had left your clothes at Mrs. Surratt's to go into the wash ? A. No, sir. Q. You did not say that to Mr. Ford and Mr. Carland ? A. No, sir ; not that I remember. I had been two weeks in Canada, and by the time I got back the clothes I had on were pretty dirty. I had clean clothes at Mrs. Surratt's house, but was not permitted to go and get them. Q. Did you not state that you had left your clothes there to go into the wash ? A. No, sir. I always put my clothes out to wash by Monday. Q. You say that Mr. Surratt went to New York and saw Mr. Booth. Give us the date of that visit. A. In the early part of February, 1865. Q. What date ? A. I do not remember the date. In the early part ; between the 1st and 22d. Mr. Bradley. There are only 28 or 29 days in February. Can't you fix the time any nearer than you have done ? A. I remember it was before the 22d. Q. You cannot fix it any nearer than some time within twenty-one days ? A. I remember, too, it was in the early part of 1865 that Surratt went to New York, while a man by the name of Howell was in the house; and he was there in the early part of 1865. Q. I ask you if you can fix the time when Surratt said he went to New York and said he saw Booth ? A. I cannot fix the date positively. Q. Can you fix it within ten days ? A. No, sir. I merely remember that he went to New York, and that it was in the early part of February, 1865. Q. You can't fix it within ten days 1 A. No, sir. Q. The first ten days of February 1 418 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. No, sir. If there was any peculiar circumstance to recall it to my mind, I could recall it by that circumstance. Q. Did he go to New York twice in the month of February ? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Did he go to New York once in the month of January and once in the month of February ? A. Not that I remember of. Q. Don't you know he did not 1 A. He told me that he went to New York, and to the best of my recol- lection he went to New York in the early part of February, 1865. Q. Didn't he tell you what he went for ? A. No, sir. Q. Don't you know what he went for ? A. No, sir. Q. Didn't he tell you he went there to see a lady and to bring her back home with him, and did he not bring her back home with him ? A. A lady did come back with him Q. Did not he tell you that he went there for that purpose ] A. Not that I remember. Q. Dill not he tell you he was going, and when he came back did he not tell you, in the presence of others, that he had been to New York, and where he met that lady 1 A. Not that I remember. Q. You do not remember that? A, No, sir ; I do not remember that particular circumstance. Q. Where was it he told you that he had seen Booth, and that Booth had an elegant house there ? A. In his own house. Q. When? A. After he got back. Q. How long ? A. A few days. Q. How many days ? A. That I do not know. Q. Ten days or a week ? A I do not know the day, hour, and minute of everything. Mr. Bradley. You have testified to so many dates, and with such particu- larity, that I want to see how much you remember about others. It is not my suggestion ; it is yours. Q. At the same time that he told you he had been to New York, and had seen Booth, and that Booth lived in an elegant house, and so on, did he or not tell you then that he had brought a lady back with him 1 A. He told me that he had brought a lady back with him. Q. Did he not tell you that he went on after that lady to bring her on to Washington 1 A. I do not remember ; he may have said so. Q. And you do not remember of his telling where he met her ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember of his telling you that he met her on the ferry-boat ? A. Not that I remember. Q. How long was he gone 1 A. But a few days. Q. What is a few days in your calendar ? A. Two or three days. Q. Was it more than three days ? A. I do not think it was. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 419 Q. Was it more than two days and nights ? A. About that. Q. AVas it more than one day and two nights ? A. That I do not remember. Q. You do not remember, then, of his leaving here in the evening, going to New York, and coming back by the next night, and bringing this lady with him ? A. I remember his bringing a lady. Q. What time in the day did she arrive ? A. In the afternoon. Q. How long did she stay ? A. She did not come into the house at all; not that I saw. Q. Which way did she go ? A. I was not inside ; but Miss Anna Surratt told me Mr. Bradley. Never mind what she told you. Witness. Then I can't state. I did not see her go away from the house at all. Q. How did she come to the house ? A. That I do not remember. Q. Where did you see her ? A. I did not see her on that occasion, but some time afterwards. Q. On that occasion, when John Sun-att went to New Yoi-k and brought a lady back, you did not see her at all ? A. No, sir. Q. Did she arrive in the afternoon 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. How do you know if you didn't see her at all? A. Well, I know it from circumstances. Q. In what way did John H. Surratt come to speak to you of meeting Booth at this elegant mansion in Ncav York? A. His sister asked him whether he had seen Booth when he was in New York, and he said "yes," and described the furniture in the house, &:c. Q. Did not he tell you ? A. He told me in the presence of his sister. He told it to both of us. Q. I thought you said in your examination in chief that he told you he had been to New York and had seen Booth, and mentioned what an elegant house he had, and so on. Now you say he mentioned this to his sister ? A. He told me and he told her. Q. Did you ask him anything about it ? A. No, sir. His sister put the question, I believe. Q. You did not make any inquiry about it at all ? A. I may have done so. Q. I want to know if, in your communication with any officer of the govern- ment, you have been told that if you did not testify to more than you had stated, they would hang you too 1 A. No, sir, I will say just here that before the trial in 1865 I detailed my evidence to Mr. Stanton, and Mr. Pitman took it down in short-hand. Mr. PiERREPOXT. (To the witness.) Now you may stop. The question has been answered, but if your honor pleases it was an improper question, and I hope no more such will be asked. I do not suppose they can inquire of the ■witness what the officer of the government asked him. The Court. They may inquire of the witness whether he has not made to some officer of the government a different statement than that which he has made here in giving his testimony. I do not appi-ehend that they can go into every conversation that he has ever had during his lifetime with any and everybody. Mr. PiERRRPONT. I do not ask that this question be stricken out. I only ask that such questions be not continued by counsel. 420 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. Mr. Bradley. I now pi-opose to ask the witness whether, in the presence of Mr. Maddox and others, an officer of the government did not tell him that, unless he testified to more than he had stated, they would hang him too. Mr. PiKRREPONT. I object. The Court. Is the question, unless he testified to more here than he had stated to somebody else 1 Mr. PiERREPONT. I do not object if it relates to this trial. If it relates te evidence that was to have been given on some former trial, then, I conceive, the question is not a proper one. Mr. Bradley. I do not know, sir, to what trial it relates. I expect to show, however, that this witness is testifying, and testifying here, under threats. Mr. PiERREPONT. Testifying here under threats'? Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. Mr. Pierrepont. Then I withdraw my objection. Mr. Bradley. Now I will repeat the question: "I ask you if an officer of the government did not tell you that unless you testified to more than you had already stated they would hang you too ? " Witness. At this trial ? Mr. Bradley. I ask you if he did not in the presence of Mr, Maddox and gome others ? A. I do not remember to have ever heard it. It is news to me. I never had any fear of hanging. Q. Do you know Mr. John A. Bingham 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did any such thing pass from him to you? Mr. Pierrepont. I object. The Court, I thought you waived your objection 1 Mr. Pierrepont. I did in relation to the other; but now he brings in per- sons and asks if Mr. Bingham The Court. Mr. Bingham was an officer of the government. Mr. Merrick. He is now. Mr, Pierrepont. I did not know it. He is a member of Congress. Mr. Bradley. I thought he was conducting the preliminary examination of witnesses in this case. Mr, Pierrepont. I did not know it. Mr. Bradley. We expect to show that he has been examining witnesses pre- liminary to the trial of this case. Mr. Pierrepont. I do not know what the counsel may expect to show. Whenever that question comes up, then will be the proper time to discuss it. But now, as I understand it, the question is as to what Mr. Bingham said in re- lation to some other trial. Mr. Bradley. The question is asked the witness with regard to what was said to him in reference to his testimony. We do not say at what particular trial, f ir we may not know. We expect to find out what passed. After some further discussion — The Court said: I ruled the other day that no inquiry could be made of a witness in reference to any promise made, or threat held out, to induce him to give or to withhold testimony before the military commission, but that evidence of any promise or threat held out to him to influence the character of the testimony to be given on this trial was proper, and would be allowed to go to the jury, Mr, Merrick. Suppose, you honor, those promises or threats were made with a view of affecting the testimony of witness wi*^h regard to John H. Surratt, would it be proper in that case to give evidence of them 1 The Court. Yes, sir; in reference to the trial of John H. Surratt for the murder of Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Merrick. Then, under that riiling of your honor, I submit we have a TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 421 right to the evidence, for John H. Siirratt was inchided in the indictment under which the other parties were tried before the military commission. The Court. I do not know that. Mr. PrERREPONT. He was not tried there. Mr. Merrick. Your honor knows it as a matter connected with the judicial history of the country. The Court. I know he was not on his trial there. Mr. Merrick. He was included in the indictment. The Court. You know, Mr. Merrick, as well as the court does, that that was no trial of John H. Surratt. Mr. PiRRREPONT. Gentlemen on the other side found out he was not on trial. Mr. Merrick. Not until after they had gotten together the testimony. They expected to have him before them Avhen they were preparing the testimony. The Court. That court tried only such persons as they had before them ; and it is a well known fact that John H. Surratt was not before them. Mr. Merrick. That is all very true, but the testimony was prepared with a view to all of them. The District Attorney. He is not mentioned in the charges and specifi- cations. Mr. Merrick. I beg your pardon, I think he is. Mr. PiERREPOXT. It does not make any difference whether he is or is not. Mr. Bradley reserved an exception to the ruling of the court. Q. Do you know George T. Jarboe ? A. I do not know that I can say I know George T. Jarboe, but I had the pleasure of being in the Old Capitol, or Carroll prison, and met there a man by the name of Jarboe. I do not know whether his name is '' George T." or not. There were two Jarboes there, father and son. Q. I think you stated here to-day that on the morning after the assassination of the President you went before the government officers ? A. Not exactly government officers ; city government officers. Mr. Bradley. You did, I believe, correct it, and said to Mr. Richards — that you went to Mr. Richards and made a disclosure of all you knew about it. Witness. I did not see Mr. Richards that morning. I said I went to Mr. Richards's office, and saw two men who were employed by Mr. Richards, Messrs. Clarvoe and McDevitt. Mr. Bradley. I understood you to say that you Avent to Mr. Richards and made a disclosure of all you knew about it. A. I did not say I made a disclosure of all I knew about it, because I knew nothing at all of the assassination. I had my suspicions, and stated substan- tially the facts, giving a description of John Surratt and Booth. Q. While you were confined in Carroll prison did you tell Mr. Jarboe that the next morning, Avhile you were going to your place of business, you were arrested by one of Baker's detectives, and carried before Mr. Stanton and sev- eral other officers. A. That is perfect news to me. Q. Your memory is very good about that ? A. 1 went to Mr. Richards's office. Mr. Bradley. I am asking you in regard to what you stated to Mr. Jarboe, in Carroll prison. A. I never said anything of the kind. Q. Neither to him nor to any one else in prison 1 A. No, sir. None of Baker's detectives ever arrested me. Q. I want to know what you told Jarboe ? A. I have stated to you that the expression is perfectly new to me — like new music. Q. Were you or not carried before Mr. Stanton ? 422 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. I was not carried before Mr. Stanton. Q. Did you go before Mr. Stanton in the custody of anybody ? A. No, sir. Q. Who went with you 1 A. On one Sunday morning, the 30th of April, as I was walking down the street very leisurely, smoking a cigar, I met Mr. Burnett. He invited me to his office and told me to be seated. He did not arrest me. He told me Mr. Stanton would like to see me. I did go before Mr. Stanton. That was the first and only time I ever had an interview with Edwin M. Stanton. Q. You did not tell this young man in prison that when Baker's detectives had carried you before Secretary Stanton and several other officers, they of course asked you if you knew anything of the parties engaged in the plot to murder the President; and that you said, " 1 do not?" A. I did not know whether these parties were or were not engaged in this conspiracy. Q. I ask you if you did not tell Jarboe, and some one else in Carroll prison, that being taken before Mr. Stanton, and interrogated as to what you knew, if you knew anything of the parties engaged in the plot to murder the President, you did not say you did not know anything about it? A. No, sir ; I do not remember that. Q. Do you say you did not tell them 1 A. I gave Mr. Stanton all the information that was in my possession at that time. Q. What did you tell the persons in prison in regard to it ? A. I do not remember of having said anything of the kind to Jarboe at all. Q. Do you say you did not ? A. I say it is news to me. Q. Is not your memory as distinct about that as anything else ? A. How can I tell ? 1 say I do not remember to have said so. Mr. Bradley. I have a right to an affirmative or a negative answer. Mr. PiERREPONT. Yes, sir; if he can give one. The Court. If he says he cannot possibly remember, then, of course, there is an end of it. The counsel, however, has the right to test his memory on the point, and to endeavor, if possible, to get a positive answer. Mr. Bradley, I will repeat the question, Q. Can you state whether you did or did not state what I have repeated, to the parties mentioned? A. I do not remember to have said so. To the best of my recollection I did not say so. I never heard of it until to-day. By a Ji'ROR. Who is Mr. Burnett? A. He was the assistant judge advocate on the trial. He was conducting the preliminary examination. Q. Did you tell Mr. Jarboe, or any one else there, that you thought some- thing was going on, because you met so many rebels at Mrs. Surratt's house ? A. I do not remember that conversation. Q, Did you tell him that you wanted to go south, and could not go, because John Surratt could not get you employment there ? A. No, sir; I did not. AH these things astonish me, I never heard of them before. Q. That John Surratt could not make any arrangement to get you across the river ? A. I never asked John Surratt to get me across the river. Q. Did you not tell Jarboe, and these other people that you did ; that you could not go because he c juld not make an arrangement to get you across the river? A. No, sir. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 423 Q. What was your position under the government? A. I was a clerk in the office of the Commi:?sary General of Prisoners, a branch office of the War Department. Q. Did that bring you into such a position that you could see what the move- ments of the armies were ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you or not from time to time take some trouble to ascertain the move- ments of the army, and what was going on in the opex-atious of war ? A. No, sir. The bureau I was in had charge of specific matters appertaining to prisoners. I had charge of the funds of rebel prisoners of war. Q. Did you have charge in that bureau also of the business that related to the locality where the prisoners were, and the number of prisoners at eacb point ? A. The names of the various prisons were kept in a book, but not the names of the different prisoners. Q. Was the number of prisoners in each prison kept there ? A. No, sir. Q. Had you access to the number of prisoners in each prison ? A. No, sir. I could only arrive at an approximate idea of the number of prisoners by calculating in this way : By finding so many thousand prisoners to have received so many thousand rations a month, and then proceed to add or multiply as the case might be in order to ascertain the whole number of prison- ers. It was at best, however, only an approximate estimate. Q. Did you ever make an approximate estimate in that Avay ? A. I did for the office several times. Q. Did you ever take any such estimate out of the office with you ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever furnish information to anybody outside of the office of the movements of the army ? A. I did not know them myself. I was not in a position to give that inform- ation. Q. I ask if you ever furnished it ? A. No, sir. Q. You never furnished to any person whom you met at Mrs. Surratt's house information in regard to the movements of the army, the force in the field, the locality of prisoners, or the number of prisoners ? A. I said something to Howell on the subject, when he was reading one evening from the Evening Star the number of rebel prisoners. The number of rebel prisoners being exchanged was mentioned in the Star from time to time, and on this occasion he was reading what was published. Q. What Howell is that ? A. Howell was a blockade runner, introduced to me by John H. Surratt. Q. And that is the only time at Mrs. Surratt's house that you ever furnished information, or stated anything in regard to the number of prisoners at any one point, or where the locality was, or of the movements of the army ? Mr. riEUREPONT. 1 object to the question as irrelevant. The Court. I cannot at the present time see the relevancy of it. Mr. PiERRKPO.NT. I object to it, unless counsel can show how it is at all relevant. Mr. Bradley. I think, before we are done, the gentleman will see that it has some relevaiicy. Mr. PlERREPOXT. If you say we will, I will withdraw my objection. The CoLRT. Counsel will proceed with the examination. Witness. I could state precisely the amount of business that John Surratt ever did at our office. Mr. Bradley. 1 don't want you to state anything more than what I ask you 424 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. to state. I will ask you questions on such points as I desire informal ion upon, and yon can go to counsel on the other side for anything else. I will ask you a question, however, in regard to that ; whether you did not during the recess go to counsel and suggest a further examination as to matters upon which you had been examined. A. No, sir. Q. You did not tell them they had omitted to ask you about some things 1 A. Yes, sir ; but I did not suggest anything. Q. When you were brought back to the stand were you not interrogated in regard to the very matters to which you had called the attention of counsel ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You told us yesterday, I believe, that you reside in Philadelphia ] A. Yes, sir. Q. What are you engaged in 1 A. Nothing now. Q. What have you been engaged in lately ? A. The custom-house, Philadelphia. Q. When did you leave it ? A. Last fall. Q. Under what circumstances ? A. I was told I was not wanted any longer ; that I had voted the radical re- publican ticket. Q. Is that all ? A. That is all I remember. Q. You say now that all that was alleged against you, and which led to your resignation, dismissal, or whatever it was, was that you voted the radical repub- lican ticket 1 A. I don't care what was alleged against me ; that is none of my business. Mr. Bradley. I asked what was alleged against you as the cause of your removal from office ; now I ask you if you were not removed from that office for opening drawers with keys without authority ? A. I did not know that I was. I have heard of that thing before. I was employed in a room where I had access to everything ; I was a clerk in that room, and it Avas my duty to have access to eveiything. Q. Was it your duty to open drawers to which you had not the proper keys ? A. I was privileged at any time to go either Q. Was that not one of the grounds, if not the ground, upon which you were removed from office ? A. I do not know that it was. Q. Was that not stated to you ? A. No, sir. Q. Who is the collector there ? A. William F. Johnson was collector at that time. Q. Who is the principal clerk in charge of the branch office where you were ? A. ]\[r. Berchey. The court here took a recess until to-morrow at 10 o'clock a. m. Saturday, June 29, 1867. The court met at 10 a. m. Cross-examination of Louis J. Weichmann continued : By Mr, Bradley : Q. I asked you yesterday to fix as accurately as you could the date of your introduction to Dr. Mudd and Booth. If I understand you correctly, it was aa early as the 2 2d of December, 1864 ? A. I did not fix the 22d of December ; I fixed the time as being before the time when Surratt was employed by the Adams Express Company, or as being be- TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT ' 425 fore his visit to Port Tobacco, which was early in January, 1865. These two circumstances were not in my memory at the time of the trial of the assassins; if they had been, I might have fixed the dates more positively. Q, Can you state whether it Avas before or after Surratt went with the Adams Express Company ? A. I am not positive about that ; I think it was before he went there ; I am positive as to the room Booth occupied at that time Q. I as^k you to confine yourself to the question I put. On your examination before the military commission, did you not state that you made your first ac- quaintance with Dr. Mudd about the 15th of January, 18G5 ? A. I said so yesterday — that was the best of my recollection at that time. If the government had permitted me to see the register of the National Hotel to identify the room I could have fixed it positively. Q. Did you not state that you were sure it was after the 1st of January ? A. As far as my recollection went at that time, I did, Q, In answer to the question, '' Why are you sure ? " did you not say " From a letter I received at that time — about the 16th of January — and from a visit to Baltimore, and certain events which took place about that time "1 A. I said that, sir. I have that letter in my possession. I find that the let- ter that I received was of a later date, the 19th of January, 1865, which called me to Baltimore. Q. In what way is that letter or that date connected with your first introduc- tion to Dr. Mudd and Mr. Booth ? A. Merely because at the time of the trial of the assassins I was impressed that I received this letter about the same time. Q. Is that still your impression ? A. No, sir. The letter I received on the 19th of January called me to Balti- more. Q. Then when you were examined, if I am correct as to the date, on the 12th of May, less than a month after the assassination, and at that time you fixed this first acquaintance about the middle of January ; now, after a lapse of two years, what has passed that enables you to fix it with greater certainty ? A. I have seen nothing except the room at the National Hotel. I made it my business to go to that room to find out positively about what I was testifying. Q. Have you found out by the date at which Booth registered himself at the National Hotel ? A. I looked for Booth's name and found it had been cut out. Q. My question is, did you find out by looking at the National Hotel register when that room was occupied by Booth ? A. I lookf'd at the National Hotel register of the 22d of December, 1864, and Booth's name was not there. I went to the room before I looked at the register. Q. I am not asking you about the room. You will please answer my ques- tion. A. I knew that room was assigned to him on the 22d of December before the trial of the assassins, because the date is in the book there. Q. The 15th of January? A. No, sir. The 22d of December, 1864. Q Have you ascertained from the National Hotel register, or otherwise,, when Booth loft or gave up room 84 ? A. No, sir. Q. You have not ascertained from that book how long he occupied it ? A. No, sir, because Booth's name does not appear on the National Hotel register at all. Q. Was it cut out before you looked at that book ? 28 426 TRIAL OF JOHN H SURRATT. A. It was. Q. Who cut it out ? A. That I do not know. Q. You do not know, then, at all that that room was assigned to Booth, except from the fact that you saw him in it ? A. By that, and I know by reading the testimony on the trial of the assas- sins. Q. I am not asking you about the testimony on that trial ; I 'am asking you now about Avhat you saw at the National Hotel. A. I do not know, from my own knowledge, that Booth occupied room 84 on the 22d of December, 1864. I know that that interview was in that room 84. Q. I want to ascertain from you, if I can — you who have spoken of so many dates — how you fix the date of that first introduction to Booth 1 A. I have not fixed it positively. Q. Can you fix it within ten days 1 A. I fixed it within seven days yesterday. Yes, sir. Q. I thought you fixed it within less than seven days ? A. Five or seven days. Q. That was five or seven days after the 22d of December 1 A. No ; before Surratt's employment by the Adams Express Company. Q. I ask you if you did not fix it after the 22d of December? A. I fixed it within five or seven days of the employment of Surratt by the Adams Express Company. Question repeated. A. Not that I remember. Q. Did you or not fix a day before Surratt went to the Adams Express office, or after he went there ? A. I said before. Q. Did not you say on your examination before the military commission that it was during the recess of Congress ? A. I do not know positively whether Congress was in recess or not. The room had been previously occupied by a member of Congress. From what Booth said it was my impression that Congress was in session at that time. Q. In your examination before the military commission did you not state that it was during the recess of Congress, and that the recess lasted only a Aveek or ten days, or words to that effect, and did not you refer to the recess of Con- gress as a means of fixing the date when you were introduced to these parties ? A. The whole matter of that recess was this : Booth told me the room had been previously occupied by a congressman. Q. I ask you whether you did not, on the trial of the conspirators, state the recess of Congress as one of the means of fixing the date of your introduction to these parties 1 A. Yes, sir, Q. You are certain that it was after the congressional holiday vacation ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recollect testifying that 1 A. To the best of my knowledge, I was certain at that time. Q. Was this question and answer given on that trial : " Q. Have you any means of knowing that it was after Christmas ? A. Merely by the fact of its being after the congressional holidays, and this member had not returned. The other congressmen had nearly all returned, and he was one whose return had been delayed for some time, it appears" 1 A. Yes, sir. Booth told me that himself. Q. Now, sir, do you not know that the congressional holidays occurred about the 22d of December and lasted about ten days ? A. It generally lasted about ten days or two weeks. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 427 Q. "Would that carry it dowu to the loth of January ? A. No, sir. Q. Could your introduction then have occurred within five or seven days after the 22d of December ? A. It might have been possible. Q. Was it not important on that trial to fix your first introduction to Dr. Mudd about the middle of January ? A. I do not know whether it Avas or not. I testified to the best of my knowledge. Q. Have you fixed it differently by connecting it with other circumstances ? A. No, sir. After I testified, I went with Colonel Burnett down to the National Hotel. I went to room 84 and at that time positively identified it as the one occupied by Booth on this occasion. I asked Colonel Burnett to recall me and allow me to state that room 84 was the one occupied by Booth on that occasion. He said it was not necessary. Q. Did you not go down to the Pennsylvania Hotel to ascertain when Dr. Mudd was registered there ? AViTNESS. With Colonel Burnett? Mr. Bradley. I do not know. With Colonel Burnett or somebody. A. No, sir. Q. Or alone 1 A. No, sir. On the evening of the 15th I went to the Pennsylvania House with Mr. Hollahan. Q. I am not asking about the loth at all. I am asking whether you did not go to that house to see when Dr. Mudd was registered ? A. 1 never looked at the register of the Pennsylvania House to see whether Dr. Mudd's name was registered there or not. Q. You said you met Payne at Mrs. Surratt's. How often did you meet him there ? A. Twice, to the best of my recollection ; I mean I met him on two occa- sions. When he was living in the house of course he was there regularly, and I saw him at bi'eakfast and at dinner ; he was treated like any member of the family ; when, therefore, 1 say I met him twice I mean on two different occasions. Q. Can you fix the date when he first came ? A. I never did fix the date and cannot now ; it was in the latter part of February, I860. Q. On your examination before the military commission, in your answer to that question, did you or not say that it was about eight weeks before the assas- sination 1 A. Yes; and I do say that it would be nearly eight weeks, as near as I can remember. Q. Now state as well as you can recollect, after you had received Payne at the door what passed dowu to his seeing Mrs. Surratt. A. I went to the door ; I met a man there with black hair and black eyes ; I did not ask him what his name was ; he said, " Is Mr. Surratt at home?" 1 said he was not ; he said, " Is Mrs. Surratt at home?" I said she was ; he expressed a desire to see Mrs. Surratt ; I went into the parlor and said to Mrs. Surratt that a gentleman by the name of Wood was at the door, and would like to see her ; she requested me to bring him in and introduce him. Q. Did you state on your examination before the military commission, after you had said Mr. Surratt was not at home, that you said Mrs. Surratt was at home, and you would introduce him to the family if he desired it? A. He did desire it. Q. I ask you if you did not say you would introduce him to the fomily if he desired it ? ■ A. He expressed the desire before I said I would introduce him. 428 TEIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Question repeated. A. Yes, sir. Q. But you say that be expressed a desire before you said you would intro- duce bim ? A. Yes, sir ; because I would bave politeness enougb about me not to intro- duce a perfect stranger to Mrs. Surratt or any otber lady witbout first asking ber consent. Etiquette would teacb me tbat. Q. I do not know tbe rules of etiquette ; but wben you stated tbat wben a gentleman inquired for Mrs. Surratt you said you would introduce bim to tbe family if be desired it, I took it for granted tbat you stated tbat before be said be desired it. A. No, sir ; I said I did not. Q. He expressed a desire to see Mrs. Surratt? A. Yes, sir. Q. He bad expressed a desire to see Mrs. Surratt before you bad told bim you would introdixce bim 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. And furtbermore be first gave his name as Wood ; is tbat so ? A. He bad given bis name as Wood. Q. I will tbank you furtber to state wbetber on tbat trial you did o? did not say tbat Mrs. Surratt received bim and spoke to bim as an old acquaintance ? Witness. At tbe first visit? Mr. Bradlev. I ask you wbetber tbese interrogatories were put and tbe an- swers given as bere written down: " Q. You say tbat Payne paid a visit to tbe Surralts, and stopped only over nigbt during bis first visit? A. Yes, sir. Q. Witb wbom did be seem to bave business? A. He inquired for Mr. Surratt; bis business appeared to be witb Mr. Sm-ratt. On tbe occasion of bis first visit I was in tbe parlor during tbe wbole time. Q. He did not appear to have any- thing to say to Mrs. Surratt ? A. He asked Mrs. Surratt to play on tbe piano for bim, and be raised the piano cover." A. I did not say Mrs. Surratt, I said Miss Sun-att ; Mrs. Sun-att did not play. Q. Was there any effort there to conceal something ? A, He had no false disguise tbe first occasion. Q. Have you described his having tbe moustache on the second visit? A. Yes, sir ; 1 said I found a false moustache. Q. I am not asking what you found in your room — I ask whether any of tbese three days be wore a false moustache ? A. No, sir. Q. Then he had no disguise ? (Reading from report of military commission : " Q. Was be treated by 5lr. Surratt as an intimate friend ? A, He appeared to be treated kindly by Mr. Surratt, as if be was an old acquaintance. On tbe occasion of bis second visit to tbe house Mr. Surratt, wben meeting him, recog- nized him as though be bad known bim.") Do you recollect what you stated as to when Payne came tbe second time, on tbe trial of tbe conspirators ; how long after tbe first visit ? A. I did not fix it at first precisely ; I said it was after the fourth of March ; that he expressed some regret at not being bere tbe fourth of March. After- wards I fixed, I believe, the thirteenth of March as the evening be came, and I said he was there about three days. Q. Did not you state that he came about three weeks after his first visit ? A. If you will take tbe latter part of February for his first visit you will have just about three weeks by the thirteenth of Slarcb. Question repeated. A. I did, I believe. Q. On this trial do you recollect what day you stated be came ? A. 1 stated he came on tbe evening of the thirteenth of March. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 429 Q. Now, will you state how you fix that date? A. As being the second evening before the fifteenth; T said so yesterday. Q. How did you fix the fifteenth ? A. By the play of Jane Shore, which occui-red at that time, Q. Were you not under the impression, and did you not swear at the con- spiracy trial, that Jane Shore was played a different night? A. I do not recollect. Q. Did not you ask Carlin, and learn from him 1 A. I said yesterday I asked Carlin, but the 15th of March was in my mind before I asked him. Q. Did you tell the commission then that Payne's second visit was two days before the performance of Jane Shore ? A. It was two days before. Q. Did you tell them that ? A. I do not remember. Q. On the former trial of the conspirators, did you state at what time Surratt returned, after Payne's second visit ? A. No, sir ; not to my knowledge. Q. Did you state that on the occasion of his second visit Mr. Surratt met him, and recognized him, as though he had known him ? A. I do not remember that I stated so. Surratt was in bed at the time he came. Q. Did you state, on the occasion of his second visit to the house, Mr. Sur- ratt, when meeting him, recognized him as though he had known him? Witness. Do I state that there ? Mr. Bradley. I do not know. I read from a report of the trial. A. It seems to me, I did ; yes, sir. Q. On this occasion, did you not state that the following day, that is, the day after Payne's amval, "Surratt had come back; I was sitting Avriting ; Payne came in and asked, was that Surratt ; I said yes. Then Payne said he wanted to see Surratt in private?" A. I said that; but there was a sort of recognition between the two ; I be- lieve that Surratt knew Payne before he ever came to the house. Q. I do not ask you for your belief ; at present confine yourself to your answers to the questions put, if you please. Do you recollect your statement of the finding of that moustache, when you were examined before that commission ? I merely read to you now for the purpose of refreshing your memory : " Did you observe any traces of disguise about him, or attempted prepara- tions for disguise 1 " A. I would say, that one day, returning from my ofiice, I found a false moustache on the table in my room. I took the moustache, and threw it into a little toilet-box I had on the table. This man Payne searched around the table, and inquired for his moustache. I was sitting on the chair, and did not say anything. I have retained the moustache since, and it was found in my baggage ; it wtis among a box of paints that I had in my trunk." A. Yes, sir ; I made that statement. Q. Have you stated here that Payne made any inquiry about that moustaches? A. No, sir ; at the time when I found the folse moustache of Payne's up stairs in the third story room, when Payne inquired for the moustache, I do not recol- lect whether it was before dinner or after; I was sitting in my room. He felt round for it. I did not think anything about that moustache. Q. Did you state then that you put on the false moustache, with a pair of spectacles, and went to the office. A. I did not state that ; I said that I put on my glasses ; that I had Payne's moustache Avith me, and that I put it on at the office. Q, Did you state before the commission that you put them on at the office ? 430 TRIAL OF JOHN H SUKRATT. A. The following morning. Q. Did you state that to the commission ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recollect whether that was on your direct examination, or on your cross-examination ? I have looked for it, and have failed to find it. A. It was on the cross-examination of Mr. Johnson ; he brought that out. If you like, I will bring witnesses who saw me have it on. Q. I am not asking you what you can prove, but about the testimony you gave at the trial of the conspirators. I find on your cross-examination, this : " Q.- What did you intend to do with it ? " A. I did not intend to do anything with it ; I took it, and exhibited it to some of the clerks in the office the day afterward, and was fooling with it ; I put oil a pair of spectacles and the moustache, and was making fun of it." Now, can you give any reason why you concealed that moustache from Payne when he was inquiring for it — why you kept it, and keep it to this time, as I understand ? A. I did not think much about it, at all. I merely intended to have a little fun about it. Q. But you did not return it afterward. A. No, sir ; he did not ask for it afterward. Q. Were there any suspicions aroused in your mind by finding that mous- tache ? A. No, not at that time ; I had no particular suspicions. I thought it rather queer that a Baptist minister should wear a false moustache. I said that, and say now that it did look queer ; but I did not know that it was intended to be used for anything. Q. Then your only purpose in taking charge of it was a little fun and mis- chief ? A. That was all. Q. And you have kept it ever since? A. 0, no ; I have not. The War Department has got it now. Q. Did not you on that trial say, " I thought it rather queer that a Baptist preacher should use a moustache ; I did not care about having false moustaches lying around on my table"? A. I said that. Q. Was that your particular reason for not returning it? A. O, no; if he had asked for it the next day he would have got it. Q. Was this your testimony on the conspiracy trial : "Did he not ask for the moustache? Yes, sir ; he said where is my moustache." And again : '' When he came home, as I understand you, he seemed to be feeling for something — said he had lost something — did he not ask for the moustache," to which you replied, " Yes, sir." A. Yes ; I know he asked for something ; that was after dinner ; after he came up into my room. Q. You say he asked, "where is ray moustache" ? A. He felt round with his hand for it. Q. He felt round with his hand, and said, " where is my moustache" ? A. Yes ; the box was open all the time — he could have seen it there. Q. You were asked whether he had any preparations for disguise. Was he concealing that, or disguising it in any way ? A. It was lying on the table there. Q. He asked for it, and called it his ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long had he been in the house then ? A. That was the second day — the fifteenth, I think. Q. Did you meet except at meal times ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 431 A. I met him iu the morning before going to my office. I met liim several times. I met liira iu my roorfi, and I met him at dinner. Q. And in the evening in the parlor 1 A. Yes, sir ; on one or two occasions. Q. I mean before the finding of this moustache i A. 0, yes ; I met him in the parlor on the evening of the 13th. Q. Was it on the 14th when that moustache was lost? A. I think it was the 15th — the same day they went to the theatre — the same day Payne borrowed my cloak, Q. Speaking of that cloak — did you ever loan it to anybody else in the house ? A. I may have loaned it to Surratt. Q. Have you not loaned it to Atzerodt ? A. No, sir. Q. Positively ? A. Not that I remember. I am positive of that. Q, Can't you speak positively about that ? A. I speak positively of that — I never loaned it to Atzerodt, Surratt, himself, borrowed it from Pa3me. Q. You state distinctly that during the time Atzerodt visited this house you never loaned that cloak to him ? A. To the best of my knowledge I never loaned that cloak to Atzerodt. Q. Did he ever wear your hat and cloak both 1 A. Not that I remember. Now about that hat story — he did take my hat one day and put it on. My hat was very large. When he p^it it on it came down over his eyes, and Surratt and he had a good laugh over it. That is all about the hat story. Q. That is positively all that occurred about the hat ? A. That is all about the hat stoiy. Atzerodt wore a slouch hat — I wore a high hat. On another occasion, on the avenue, he took off my hat and cloak and put them on himself. I am willing to state everything that occurred. Q. I do not ask you to volunteer anything at all. It will take us long time enough to get out what we want. You state that on one occasion, in coming by the post office, Surratt called for a letter addressed to James Sturdy, opened it and read it, and that the letter was signed Wood ; when was that ? A That was before the 27th of March. I stated on the trial of the conspir- ators that it was about the 20th of March. Q. I want you to fix it when it was. A. It was before Payne returned, as I have sai'l, on the 27th of March. I stated on the trial of the conspirators that it was about the 20th of March. Q. You say Payne returned to this city on the 27th of March ? • A. So I understood from an interview Surratt had at Mrs. Murray's house ; I had that impression. Q. When was it that Surratt got that letter at the post' office 1 A. I do not remember the date. I stated that it was about the 20th of March, and before the 27t:h. Q. Is there any circumstance that recalls it to your mind 1 A. The fact of its being before the 27th. Q. When was it you saw Surratt and Payne fencing with bowie knives on the bed ? A. The 15th — the same day they went to the theatre. Q. How long after that was it that this letter from James Sturdy was taken from the post office ? A. A few days. Q. What do you mean by a few days ? * 432 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. A. Payne left Surratt's house on the 16th ; Surratt said he had gone to Baltimore for a few days. After that I saw this letter signed Wood. Q. What do you mean by a few days 1 A. Well, say five or six days. Q. On trial of the conspirators did you or not state that that letter was re- ceived some two weeks after the incident of the fencing with the bowie knives ? A. Yes; and I fixed the 20th of March. Q. Did you not say, "Some two weeks after, Surratt, when passing the post office, went to the post office, and inquired for a letter that was sent to hira under the name of James Sturdy, and I asked him why a letter was sent to him under a false name, and he said he had particular reasons for it ?" What day was that ? A. It must have been about two weeks after that affair. Q, The latter end of March 1 A. Yes, sir ; it must have been before the 20th of March. The letter was signed Wood. Q. Now, if that fencing took place on the 15th of March, how could you make out that it was two weeks afterwards ? A. I was mistaken in the time at first, but I fixed the time, and I fixed the time of the horseback ride in front of Mrs. Surratt's house, the 20th of March. I think you will find I fixed it at that date. Q. In regard to that horseback ride — did you state on the other trial, "I will state that as near as I can recollect it was after the 4th of March ; it was the second time that Payne visited the house ; I returned from my office one day at half past four o'clock," &;c. ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then you gave an account of these parties coming to your room, and state, " Some two weeks after, Surratt went to the post office and got a letter ad- dressed to James Sturdy; " did you state that? A Yes ; I afterwards fixed the date of that horseback ride, in answer to the question of Mr. Cox, on the 20th of March. You will find it in the second volume. Q. Then you have examined carefully the testimony that you gave down there ? A. I have studied over it for the last two years. You do not suppose that such an incident as that is an every-day incident in my life, and that I have not been thinking of it. Q. Is there anything else you have been doing ? Have you been writing it down ? A. I have written it down. I have written about it frequently. Q. Hive you not within the last few months 1 A. Yes ; I have within the last few months. Q. Have you not written out a very full statement within the last few months 1 A. Yes, sir ; I thought it was my duty. Q. Have you not read over and studied that statement very carefully 1 A. Yes, sir ; I have read it over Q. Have you not read it over more than once 1 A. Yes, sir ; I have read it over several times. Q. Was not that written statement carefully prepared after you had studied your examination before the military commission, with the assistance of the report of that trial ] A. My written statement was not made out from the report you have. I then had Pitman's book. I referred to that book because 1 wanted to state the facts seriatim. Q. After you made your written statement from Pitman's report, did you not examine those two volumes and correct your statement from them ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 433 This examination objected to by Mr. Pierrepont a? not in the nature of a cross- examination, and improper. Mr. Bradley said he hoped he should not be suspected of getting in anything illegitimate. It was perfectly competent to ask the witness whether he had not prepared his evidence. Objection overruled, Q. You will now answer the question whether you made or had prepared a written statement of what y< u knew, or what you could testify to in this case, or whether you did not have two volumes of the Boston report, and did not revise your statement by that report. A. No, sir ; I do not recollect. Q. Do you deny that you did not make or have made a written statement, and correct that written statement after going over these two volumes ] A. I do not believe I did. Q. Have you not done it within the four months past 1 A. I have not had these two volumes until within the last two weeks. Q. I do not care abou tthat. I ask you to answer the question. I ask you again, if you did not prepare a written statement before you Avent before the grand jury in this case. A. I wrote out a statement two years ago, Q. Did you not wiite out a statement after Surratt was captured, and have that written statement in your possession at the time you were examined before the grand jury? A. Not that I remember. Q. Where was it ? A. I left it with the assistant district attorney. Q. Did not you present it to the grand jury ? Question objected to by the district attorney. It was not proper to disclose what took place before the grand jury. Mr. BitADLEY said a witness could be asked what he swore to before the grand jury ; Avhether a grand juror could be called to contradict him was an- other question. The Court ruled that witness could be asked whether he made a written statement. Witness. I had a written statement with me in the city at that time, but I think I left it with the assistant district attorney. I did not read that state- ment to the grand jury, and to the best of my knowledge' I did not have it with me. Q. Did you not see that statement lying on the table before the grand jury ? A. No, sir; if it was there it is news to me. Mr. Bradley said he would not at this time, in the condition of health of the court, argue the question as to the propriety of asking the witness whether he did not testify from a written statement before the grand jury. The Court stated that there was no secrecy enjoined upon witnesses before the grand jury, aud in his judgment a communication made to them would not be privileged. The District Attorney believed it was not proper to require a witness to disclose his testimony before the grand inquest, and desired to present authori- ties to that point before the question should be definitely decided. Mr. Bradley said that rather than have an argument in the condition of the health of the court, he would waive the question. Q I now ask you whether, at the time of your examination before the grand jury, there was not a copy of your written statement lying on the table of the clerk of the grand jury 1 A. Not to my knowledge. Q. And can you state whether you were or not examined from a parcel of 434 TEIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT. papers lying before them, and which were turned over in the progress of your examination 1 A. This is all news to me ; I never heard of such a thing before. Mr. PiERREPONT said he understood the examination on this point was not to be pressed. Mr Bradley said he would not press it further. Q I now come down to Atzerodt, and want to know when you first met hira? A. I met him in the latter part of January, 1865. Q. Can you come any nearer to it than that ? A. No, sir; it was about three or four weeks after my first introduction to Booth. Q. If your first introduction to Booth was the 15th of January, then you met Atzerodt about the second or third week in February ? A. I met Atzerodt several days after Surratt's return from Port Tobacco. Q. I ask you now in reference to your introduction to Booth ; you met Atzerodt how many weeks afterwards ? A. I stated on the trial of the conspirators some three weeks. Q. What do you say now 1 A. I say from three to four weeks after my introduction to Booth. Atzerodt came to the house about a week after Surratt's return from Port Tobacco. Q. How often did you see him at the house 1 A. I saw him very frequently; Surratt introduced me to him, as he did to every one of iLe party. Mr. Bradley. Will you be good enough to answer my questions, and not show your spirit to Surratt as you are doing constantly. The District Attorney said he was not aware that the witness had shown any improper spirit towards the prisoner. Mr. Bradley replied that he had, and this was the fourth time this morning. The Court cautioned the witness to answer the questions put to him and there stop. Q. How often did you see liim there ? A. Very frequently. Q. When was the last time you saw him there ? A. I met him the second of April, when he had an interview with Mrs. SuiTatt. Q. Then, between the time you first saw him, which was some time in February Witness. No, the latter part of January. Q. You now say in the latter part of January ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did not you say on the other trial that your introduction to Booth was on the 15th of January ] A. I said about the 15th of January, to the best of my recollection at that time. Q. Did not you fix the date, by certain outside incidents, as the 15th of January ; and did not you say you met Atzerodt four weeks after your intro- duction to Booth ? A. Yes, sir; I said so. Q. And I now ask whether you have changed the time of your introduction to Booth 1 A. Yes, sir; I have changed the time of my introduction to Booth. I should have changed the time while the trial of the conspirators was going on if I had been permitted to do so. Q. During that time you say you frequently saw Atzerodt in the house ; did you not on the trial of the conspirators say you had seen him as many as twenty times ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. 435 A. I think I said as many as ten or fifteen times. Q. Did you not say on that trial you had seen him at that house as many as twenty times ? A. I did not count his visits. Q. Did you ever see him there when Booth was there ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you not say that you saw Booth there almost every day ? A. Every day when he was in the city. Q. Atzerodt was there ten, fifteen, or twenty times, and Booth was there every day, and yet you say you never saw them together ? A. I do not remember seeing him in Mrs. Surratt's house with Booth; I have seen him at other places with Booth. Q. I ask you wJiat you said on that subject in the trial of the conspirators ? A. I said that I had never seen him in company with Booth at Mrs. Surr/vtt's house, and I say so now. Q. You spoke of Mrs. Slater being at that house; when did you first see her there ? A. I saw her, I believe, some time in the latter part of March ; I cannot remember the precise date when I saw her ; I saw her the 25th of March, when she was in the buggy with John Surratt and his mother. Q. Will you describe how she was dressed at the time she first came ? A. I do not know how she was dressed at the time I first saw her; I know she had one of these small veils over her face, which came down to the chin. Q. When was that 1 A. That was some time in March. Q. Did you not testify before tlic military commission as follows : " Q. How did you iearn anything with reference to the antecedent of Mrs. Slater ? "A. It was told to me by Mrs. Surratt herself. " Q. AVhat did Mrs. Surratt tell you ? "A. Mrs. Surratt told me that she came to the house in company with this man Howell; that she was a North Carolinian, I believe, and that she spoke French ; and that she was a blockade runner or bearer of despatches. " Q. Where were you at the time Mrs. Surratt told you this ? " A. I was in the house, in the dining-room. " Q. Are you certain, beyond all doubt, that Mrs. Surratt ever told you Mrs. Slater was a blockade runner ? " A. Yes, sir. *' Q. Had you ever seen Mrs. Slater at the house of Mrs. Surratt before that time ] " A. I, myself, saw Mrs. Slater at the house only once. I learned she had been to the house twice. " Q. You never saw her but once ? " A I saw her only once. " Q. How long was she there 1 " A. She remained there one night. " Q. Did you have any conversation with her yourself? " A. She drove up to the door in a buggy, the bell rang, and there was a young man in the buggy with hei*. Mrs. Surratt tol ' me to go out and take her trunk. That is all the conversation I had with her. She had a mask down ; one of the short masks ladies wear. They call them masks, I believe; they are not veils." Q. Did you then describe this as a mask ? A. I did not call it a mask. Q. One of the members of the commission called it a mask, and did not you say "it was what ladies call a mask? " 436 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. I do not remember saying so; I may have rlone so. What I intended to say now was that Mrs. Slater did not wear any disguise. I imderstood yon to have reference to something to conceal the face. I remember I did use the word " mask." Q. I will now proceed with the examination. Did you on that trial testify as follows : " Q. At the time you say she told you she was a blockade runner, did she tell yoLi of her being a North Carolinian, and speaking French ? " A. Yes, sir. " Q, Were you in the house at that time ? " A. I was in the house at that time. " Q- Was any one present besides yourself? " A. Not that I remember. ".Q. What day was that? " A. It was some time in the month of February." A. I do not remember that Howell was in tlie house in the early part of February, 1865. I understood this Mrs. Slater was at the door, and went away with Mr. Howell in a buggy. I never saw her until the latter part of March. The District Attorney stated that he observed the court was exceedingly unwell ; that he himself was quite able to go on, but as the heat was oppressive, and this was Saturday, he would suggest that the court now take recess until Monday. Mr. Bradley said he had suggested, knowing in the morning the health of the court, that the cross-examination of this witness proceed until twelve o'clock ; but he saw that his honor was not able to proceed, and he was quite willing that the proceedings should stop now. The court thereupon took a recess till Monday next, at 10 a. m. Monday, July 1, 1867. The court was opened at 10 o'clock. By agreement of counsel the cross-examination of Louis J. Weichmann was temporarily suspended, in order to admit of the examination of Mr. Charles C. Dunn. Charles C. Dunn sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q, What was your occupation and where were you employed or engaged in December, 1864? A. In this city as the agent for Adams's Express Company. Q. You have charge of that company's business here ? A. I had. Q. In the latter part of December, state what occurred between you and the prisoner in relation to his being employed there. A. He made application to me for employment. Q. What did he say in the application ? A. As nigh as I can remember he said that he had been out of employment for some time, and was exceedingly anxious to have a position. After asking him a question or two about his antecedents and his references, the answers be- ing satisfactory and the references equally so, his answers being prompt and businesslike, I assigned him to a position in my freight department. Q. What day did he take his place ? .A. I believe upon the 30th of December, 1864. Q. When did you pay your employes ? A. All employes upon monthly salaries draw their pay upon the last day of the month. TRIAL OF JOHN H SURRATT. 437 Q. Then for how many clays clid you pay him ? A. I take it for granted that he was paid for the two days' services; though I do not know, for I was not cashier. By Mr. Bradley : Q. You have no knowledge of the facts 1 A. I have no absolute knowledge, but it was customary for the office to pay on the last day of the month. Mr. Bradley. But you did not make the payment? A. No, sir ; the cashier made the payments. Mr. PiERREPONT. The cashier has been upon the stand, and testified to it. Q. Will you state what occuiTcd on or about the 13th of January following? A. I did not fix the dale ; I only say that he was in our service in that office close in the neighborhood of two weeks. It won't vary more than a day or two of that, one way or the other. Q. Tell the jury what occurred at the end of two weeks. A. He came into my office, and applied to me for a leave of absence. Q. What did he say ? A. I expressed my astonishment that he should apply so soon after taking his position, and lie gave as a reason that his mother was going down to Prince George's, and he wanted to accompany her as her protector. Q. What did you say as to his going with his mother to Prince George's, as her protector 1 A. I told him that I could not consent to give him the leave of absence he wanted ; that he had been there but a short time. Q. What then occurred 1 A. He left the office, and went back to his work. The next morning a lady called in the office. She introduced herself as Mrs. Surratt, the mother of the young man of that nf^me in my employ. Q. What did she say ? A. She asked that he might have a leave of absence to accompany her to Prince George's county, where she had urgent business. Q. What did you say to that ? A. That I had no reason to change my mind ; I had answered her son's appli- cation the day before, and I could not give my consent. She still urged her ap- plication, and I told her that it was impossible for me to yield ; that her son could go without my consent, if she and he so determined ; but if he did, he could not return to that office. Q. What then occurred 1 A. She bade me good morning, and left the office. Q. What did he do ? A. He left the office the same day. Q. Did he ever come back ? A. No, sir. Q. Did he ever come back for his money ? A. No, sir. Louis J. Weichmann — Cross-examination resumed. By Mr. Bradley : Q. On Saturday we were speaking about your acquaintance with Atzerodt- Do you recollect having introduced him to anybody about that time as one of your personal friends ? Witness. About what time ? Mr. Bradley. While he was living at Mrs. Surratt's, and while you were living there. A. On the 2d of April I rode down to St. Aloysius church ; I then introduced 438 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SITRRATT. him to Mr. Bropliy ; I do not remember whether I said " my particular friend or not. Q. Didn't you say " particular friend of mine," or words to that effect ? A. I do not remember to have said so. Q. That was on the 2d of April ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How do yon fix that date ? A. As being after the 1st of April, and as being before the 3d of April. Mr. Bradley. That is usually the case with the "2d of April." Q. How do you fix the intit)duction ? A. I fix that date by another circumstance. On the evening of the 1st of April Mr. Jenkins returned from the country with Mrs. Surratt; that evening General Augur's office, at the corner of Seventeenth and I streets, was burned down, and Mr. Jenkins and I went to see the fire. The next day Mr. Jenkins wanted a horse, or one of John's horses, with which to return to the country. I fix that date as the 2d of April, because he wanted the horse the very same day that I introduced Atzerodt to Brophy. Q. That was the last time you saw him? A. That was the last time I saw him at Mrs. Surratt's house. Q. Where did you see him after that ? A. I saw him on the afternoon of the 14th of April, at Howard's stable. Q. When you met him at Howard's stable, on that day, state what passed there. A. He wanted to procure a horse. I asked him what he Avanted with one. He said he wanted to send Payne off, and also said that he was going to have a ride into the country. Q. Were you examined to that point by the military commission ? A. I was. Q. Did you state then that he told you he wanted to get a horse to send Payne off on 1 A. Yes, sir. You will find it there in the cross-examination, Q. Did you so state in the examination in chief? A. I do not think I did. But I said so in the cross-examination. Mr. Bradley. Let me read from the report of your evidence on that trial : " I remember that I asked Atzerodt where he was going, and he said that he was going to ride in the country. He said he was going to get a horse and send for Payne." Witness. I did not use the word "for," but "off." Q. Then this is not correctly reported ? A. No, sir. There are several mistakes in that book. The book states that I met "Mr. Boyd." I did not say I met Mr. Boyd, but "Mr. Lloyd." There are several mistakes of that kind there. Q. You are quite sure that is the case? A. I am positive that I used the word "off." Q. You say you corrected that in your cross-examination. Do you refer to your first examination, or when you were recalled. A. I stated that in the cross-examination. I believe it was in my first ex- amination. Q. What I have just read to you was in your cross-examination ? A. I believe it was, as near as I can remember — after I was cross-examined by Mr. Johnson on that point. Q. You now say that was a mistake. You did not say that he was going to send " for" Payne ? A. No, sir. I always had the word "off" in my mind. It was a mistake. There are several mistakes of that kind in the book. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 439 Q. Do you remember meeting Atzerodt at Mrs. Surratt's, and in your room, on one occasion? A. Yes, sir. He was there several times with John Surratt. Q. Was he there on one occasion when there was some drinking going on ? A. That was iu the early part of February. lS6o, when Howell was here. There was a bottle of whiskey in the room, and everybody took a drink all round. I took a drink along with the others. Q. On that occasion did Mr. Howell give you some money to go and purchase more whiskey with 1 A. I do not remember. • Q. You do not remember of his giving you a dollar and a half to go out and get some whiskey with 1 A. No, sir. I remember that I went out and bought a bottle of whiskey, but I do not remember that Howell gave me the money to buy the whiskey with. I remember distinctly about buying the whiskey. He may possibly have given me the money, but I do not remember it. Q. Do you remember taking the bottle under your military cape ? A. Yes, sir. It was winter time, and I put it under my cloak. I have done that more than once. Q While Atzerodt was there 1 A. No, sir. I did it in Philadelphia. Q. How long was Atzerodt there at that time? A. I believe Atzerodt stopped in the house all night on that occasion. Q. No longer than that 1 A. No, sir. He stopped in the house only one night to my positive recol- lection. Q. In your examination here you have spoken of going to the post office with Surratt when he obtained a letter fi om the post office addressed to James Sturdy. Can you state when that was ? A. That was about or before the 20th of March, as I stated on Saturday. Q. That is your best recollection now, is it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember being examined in regard to that subject before the military commission ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember the date that you fixed there ? A. I remember that I said that Payne came to the house a short time after the 4th of March. It was my impression at the time I testified in 1865 that Payne did come a very short time after the 4th of March ; and then I fixed this circumstance of receiving this letter addressed to James Sturdy about two weeks after that. But by looking at the farther cross-examination you will find in that book the date of Payne's coming to the house, on the evening of the 13th of March, fixed from other circumstances which came to my mind. Q. I ask how you fix the date when you called with Surratt for that letter ? A. I have just stated, as being before the time Surratt left for Richmond on the 25th of March. Q. Is that the way you fixed it before the commission ? A. Not as to the last point, as to its being received before the 25th of March. I may have said to the commission before the 27th of March. I do not now remember, the examination was so lengthy. Q. What was the date at which you saw John Sun-att fencing with bowie knives ? A. On the 15th. Q. State whether this report of your testimony before the commission is cor- rect : " A. On SuiTatt returning home I asked him where he had left his friend 440 TRIIL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Payne. He said Payne had gone to Baltimore. I asked him where John Wilkes Booth had gone. He said Booth had gone to New York. This is all that I remember of that circumstance ; and some two weeks after, Surratt, when passing the post office, went to the post office and inquired for a letter that was sent to him under the name of James Sturdy ; and I asked him why a letter was sent to him under a false name, and he said he had particular reasons for it. " Q. What day was that 1 " A. It must have been about two weeks after that affair." Mr. Bradley. That " affair" refers to the horseback ride. Witness. Yes, sir. • Mr. Bradley. Which occurred when? A. On the 16th of March. Mr. Bradley. Then it was about two weeks after that affair ? A. You remember that I testified on my first examination that Payne came to the house a short time after the 4th of March, and I testified then that it was two weeks, a short time after the 4th of March. I say now I made a mistake as to the date. Mr. Bradley. I will read on : "Yes, sir; it must have been before the 20th of March." Witness. Do I not say about the 20th of March ? Ml*. Bradley. No, sir; "before." Witness. It was about two weeks. I gave you the wrong reference as to the fencing with knives — two weeks. Q. Now how do you reconcile the change in that date ? A. I have just stated. I have stated that it seemed to me when I first tes- tified that Payne's visit was a few days after the 4th of March, about the 6th or 7th, and then I said it was two weeks after that. The reason I thought it was so soon after the 4th of March was because Payne, when he came there, said that he was sorry he had not got here on the 4th ; that it was his intention to have been here at that time. Q. On your examination, at what time did you fix that ride when John came in, and when there was all this excitement that you have described ? A. I fixed the 16th of March. Q. At that time 1 A. Not the second time when I was recalled, but the last time, in reply to a question of Mr. Cox ; you will find it in the second volume of that book. Q. During that examination, then, you fixed that as the 1 6th of March, and at the same time say that this Sturdy letter must have been about two weeks after that affair, and that it must have been before the 20lh of March. How do you reconcile that ? A. I have just told you how I reconcile it. Q. That is all the answer you have to make 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. I understand you that Atzerodt was at the house when or while Howell was there 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. What date do you fix that at ? A. That was in the early part of February, 1865. Howell was there only once. Q. Who was Howell ? A. A blockade runner. Q. How do you know ? A. John Surratt told me so. Q. Were you intimate with him while you were there ? A. 1 treated him kindly. Q. Is that all ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT 441 A, I did not consider that I was intimate. I treated everybody kindly tliat Snrratt introduced me to. Q. Did you have any conversation with him about the condition, &c., of the federal forces ? A. No, sir, because I was not posted on that myself I had some conversa- tion with him with reference to prisoners of war. The exchange was going on at that time, and I remember that I used to sit there nearly every afternoon and read from the Evening Star the number of prisoners that were exchanged. I believe, on one occasion, the number of prisoners on hand at the various camps, or the total number of prisoners, Avas stated. Q. You knew he was a blockade runner ? A. Yes, six*. Q. And you had a conversation with him with regard to the number of pris- oners and so on. Did he not teach you a secret cipher used by the signal corps of the confederate forces ? A. No, sir. He taught me a cipher. I was not aware that it was used by the secret service of the South. Howell himself says he learned it in a magician's book. Q. Did he teach you how to read this cipher ? A. Yes, sir. I have made a dozen copies of it since. Q. Did he so teach it to you that you could use it ? A. Yes, sir. Q Have you ever used it? A. Before the assassination of Mr. Lincoln, the only use I ever made of it was to write the first two sentences of Longfellow's poem on Mr. Bradlev. Then you have used it? That is the question I put to you. A. Yes, sir ; but that is the only way in which I used it. I cannot say tuat I was very familiar with it. Q Do you know a gentleman in this city, residing here at that time, named i\Ir. Rocoford ? Witness. What was he — a clergyman? Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. Witness. I do. Q. Did you ever tell him that yon were employed to furnish information ? A. No, sir. I never had any conversation with Mr. Ilocoford except at his feet in the tribunal of penance. Q. That is in the confession 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. You never had any conversation with him except in the confession ? A. No, sir, except on one occasion, and that was after I was released from Carroll prison, meeting him on the steps outside St. Aloysius church. I ask(_J him a single question, whether he would hear my confession that evening. He replied " not that evening." That is the only conversation I ever had with him. Q About that your memory is quite distinct ? A. I remember that very distinctly. Q. I think in your examination in chief you stated that you were not arrested on the morning after the assassination of the President ; am I correct ? A. On the morning after the assassination of the President I met Mr. Hoi ban on the corner of Q. Can you answer that question ? A. 1 never considered myself arrested. Q. Were you put in charge of anybody 1 A. I never considered myself so. Q, You say you were not put in charge of anybody? A. Not that morning. (^. Were you not put in charge of a detective ? 29 442 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. The following^ Sunday morning Mr. McDevitt said, "You will go with me; you are under my charge." Q. Were you not on Saturday put under the charge of a police officer of this city? A. Not that I remember. Q. You were examined on that point at the conspiracy trials. In the report of your evidence I find the following : " Q. Were you arrested*? " A. I surrendered myself on Saturday morning at eight o'clock to Superin- tendent Kichards, of the Metropolitan Police force. I stated to him "what I knew of Payne, Atzerodt, and Herold visiting the house. I stated also what I knew of John Surratt ; that I saw these men in private conversation. " Q. What was your object in being so swift to give all this information ? "A. My object was to assist the government. ''Q. Were any threats ever made to you by any officer of the government in case you did not divulge 1 " A. No, sir ; no threats at all. " Q. Any inducements ? " A. No, sir ; no inducements at all. I read in the papers that morning the description of the assassin of Secretary Seward. He was described as a man who wore a long gray coat. I had seen Atzerodt wear a long gray coat. I went to a stable on G street and told the man there I thought it was Atzerodt. We went down towards Tenth street, and met a gentleman by the name of Hol- ahan, and he also communicated his suspicions to me. The gentleman and I returned to breakfast, and took breakfast ; but, at half-past eight o'clock we gave ourselves up to Superintendent Richards, of the Metropolitan Police force. I told officer McDevitt about this man Payne, and where he had been stopping. I also told him of Atzerodt, and I also told of Herold. Officer McDevitt put me in his charge and said, ' You will go with me.' We then went to General Rucker's office, and General Rucker" Witness. 1 wish to correct that. It was not to Sixperintendent Richards, but to the men under him. I made that mistake several times. Mr. Bradlev, continuing the reading : " I told officer McDevitt about this man Pa^me, and where he had been stop- ping. I also told him of Atzerodt, and I also told of Herold. Officer Mc- Devitt put me in his charge and said, ' You will go with me.' " WiT.N'ESS. I did not consider that an arrest. I considered it more as a protec- tion. Q. Were you released from this arrest until after you had visited Montreal i A. I was with those gentlemen all the time. Q. You stated on your examination in chief that you did not go back to Mrs. Surratt's. Was not that the reason why you did not go back, that you were under arrest, and in the custody of these officers 1 A. They did not want me to go back. I could have run way when I was in Canada just as easy as that (snapping his fingers) if I had desired to. Mr. Bradley. I ask you, and desire you to state "yes," or "no," whether when you stated tliat you did not go back to Mrs. Surratt's and put your clothes in wash, it was not because you Avere under arrest all tliat time '( A. I never considered myself under arrest. I considered myself as much of a detective as McDevitt was on that occasion. In the pass 1 received from the War Department at that time I was called "special officer, Louis J. Weicli- mann." Mr. Bradlev. Where is that paper? I would like to see it before you speak of its contents. Mr. PiERREPoXT. Here it is. TRIAL OF JOIIX 11. SURRATT. 443 The paper was tlien read as follows : Headquarters Departiment of Wasiii.xgton, Office of Provost Marshal General, Washington, D. C, Ajn-il 16, 1865. [Special Orders No. 68.— Extract. ] Special officers James A. McDevitti George Hollahan, and Lewis J. Wfichmann are hereby ordered to proceed to New York city on important gov ernmeut business, and after executing their private orders, to return to this city and report at these headquarters. The quartermaster's department will furnish the necessary transportation. By command of Major General Augur : T. INGRAHAM, Colonel and Pro. Mar. General, defences north of the Potomac. Official : G. B. RUSSELL, Captain and Asst. Pro. Mar General defences north of the Potomac [Indorsement.] Office Pro. Mar. General, Defences North of the Potomac. Washington, D. C, April 16, 1865. Respectfully referred to L. J, "Weichmanu, for his information. G. B. RUSSELL, Captain and Asst. Pro. Mar. General. Q. "Was that anything other than an order to furnish transportation to M'e- Devitt and tlie two men with him ? A. Why, I am called "special officer" in it. Mr. Bradlev. I know that. I ask you whether you were out of the sight of some one of the police officers of this place at any time after the morning of' the 15th of April until you returned from Canada ? A. I was. Q. When ? A. I was out of sight of the detective for a half day. I went to see a clergy- man of my own faith there for the purpose of stating to him my position. I stated to him that the government would probably make me a witness on this trial ; and that no matter what might come, I was determined to go back and do my duty to the government. Q. Have you not said in substance, if not in words, that you would not have come back from Montreal if you had not been forced to come ? A. No, sir. A des])atch was sent to me by Secretary Stanton, and I came back just as voluntarily as I could. There was only one regret that I had in coming back. Q. On your examination here, if I recollect aright, you stated that on the 14th of April, when yon av{ re about starting after a buggy to take !Mrs. Sur- ratt to Surrattsville, in passing out of the door you saw Mr. Booth in conversa- tion with her in the parlor ? A. I wish to have it distinctly understood that I first met Mr. Booth as I was passing out of the door, at which time I shook hands with him. He said to me, " How are you, ^Ir. Weichmann 1" That is all that passed. Q. At Avhat time was that ? A. Between twenty-five minutes after two and twenty-five minutes before three. Q. You went after the buggy ? A. Yes, sir. When I went into the house and went up to my room, as I was going past the parlor I saw Booth inside. He was standing there renting 444 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. his arm on tlie mantel-piece and engaged in conversation with Mrs. Surratt, who was standing with her back toward him. Q. How long were you absent after that buggy ? A. It does not take more than three or four minutes to harness up a horse and buggy. I suppose I was gone not more than seven or eight minutes. Q. It would take more than seven or eight minutes to walk from Mrs. Sur- ratt's round to HoAvard's stable and get the buggy fixed up and then drive back again, wouldn't it ? A. No, sir. Howard's stable was only a half square from Mrs. Surratt's. All you had to do was to turn up a little alley and you could reach there in thirty seconds. Q. Did you go through the alley ? A. Yes, sir. Going along H street towards Seventh there is a little alley, and I turned off down that alley. I did not go around on Seventh street. Q. You went around by the soap chandler's ? A. I do not know whether there is any soap chandler there or not. After I went to the stable to get the buggy I went and dropped my letter in the post office. When I got back the buggy was hitched up ; I then came back right away. Q. Then you did go to the post office while they were hitching up the buggy? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you mean to say that you could go to Howard's stable, order a buggy, go to the post office and deposit a letter, return to the stable, get the buggy, and drive back to Mrs. Surratt's in six or seven minutes? A. I could do the Avhole thing in ten minutes. Q, I misunderstood you in your examination in chief. I understood you to say then that you drove around to the post office in the buggy. A. No, sir ; I did not drive around to the post office in the buggy. Mr. Bradlky. I misunderstood you then. Q. On your examination before the military commission, did you state those incidents in that order of succession — that when you went out you shook hands with Booth, and he went into the parlor ; and that going up to your room after this you saw him and Mrs. Surratt in the position you have described f A. No, sir. I remember these circumstances more clearly now than I did at that time. I had then been in prison for some time, and was laboring under a great deal of excitement, and under a great deal of nervousness, which would not have been the case had I bten in my ordinary frame of mind. Q. Then your memory is much more distinct now, two years after the event, than it was at the time ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you tell us in what order of succession you stated the facts at that trial f A. I believe I stated that I went around and hired the buggy. I do not know whether it was before I returned with the buggy or afterwards that I saw Booth. I do not remember how I stated it then. Q. How do you know that you did not state it in the way you state it now? A. I have read the book, and I have seen that I did not state it in that way. Q. When did you read the book ? A. I have read it within the last two years, and within the last four months. Q. Have you read it withiu the last two days ? A. I read it yesterday. , Q. And although you read it yesterday, you cannot recollect how you stated it on that trial ? A. I did not notice that point particularly. Mr. Bradley. So I supposed. Let me recall it to your mind. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 445 Q. Did jon state anything on tliat trial about your having seen Mr. Booth when you were going after the buggy ? A. I do not remember. I stated that I saw Booth in the parlor with Mrs, Surratt ; whether it w.is before or after I reiturued with the buggy I do not now remember. Q. Didn't you state that you went and got the buggy, and when you came baclc and went to your room, in coming down you saw Mr. Booth in the parlor with Mrs. Surratt, and it could not have been over five minutes that they were together. A. I do not remember. Mr. Braplkv. Suppose I turn to the report of your testimony on that point and get you to tell me whether it is correct. While Mr. Bradley was looking for this portion of the witness's testimony the witness said : I think you will also find in that book that I said in the cross-examination that when Payne made his first visit to the house he asked to see Mrs. Surratt. Mr. Bradley. I think I will find it stated three different ways. In regard to that I will say that I find this stated here, ♦' Payne asked you to introduce him to Mrs. Surratt, and that you did introduce him." WiTiXESs. I remember you read that, but I remember the cross-examination, now, too. Mr. Bradley. Since yesterday you have examined it 1 Witness. Yes, sir. Mr. Bradley. I have found what I was looking for. I will now read it to you: " Q. Will you state whether on the afternoon of the 14th of April, the day of the assassination, Mr. Booth did not call and have a private iutervie-w with Mrs Surratt, at her house ? " A. I will state that about half past two o'clock, when I was going to the door, I saw iMr. Booth. He was in the parlor, and Mrs. Surratt was speaking with him. " Q. Were they alone ? " A. Yes, sir. They were alone in the parlor. " Q. How long was it after that before you drove to the country with Mrs. Surratt ? " A. Ho. did not remain in the parlor more than three or four minutes. " Q. And was it immediately after that you and Mrs. Surratt set out for the country ? " A. Yes, sir." Q. Is that the way you stated it ? A. I stated it in that way. The time I saw Booth in the parlor was when I came down from my room On the first occasion I saw him while I was passing out ; and I then shook hands with him. Q. You say that on that day, as you were ^oing out to Surrattsville, with Mrs. Surratt in the buggy, you met John M. Lloyd just beyond the little village of Uniontown, and had a convei'sation ? A. Not on that day. Mr. Bradley. No, the Tuesday previous ; you are right. Q. Do you recollect whether you were interrogated as to that before the commission. A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you state in regard to that conversation ; as to the tone of voice? A. 1 said it appeared to me as if it were in a whisper; that Mrs. Surratt leaned sideways out of the buggy and talked to Mr. Lloyd, while I leaned back and sat upright. Q. That you think is the statement ? 446 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Yes, sir. Mr. Bradley. Now, let me read you tlie report of your testimony on that point, and you can tell me whether it is a correct report or not : " Q. Did you hear any of the conversation that passed at the time hetween him and Mrs. Surratt ? " A. No, sir; I leaned back in my buggy, and Mrs. Surratt leaned sideways in the buggy and whispered, as it were, in Mr. Lloyd's ear." Witness. I stated that. Q. Is that the same statement you have made here? A. Almost the same. I have stated that I did not hear that conversation. Q. Haven't you stated here that it was in such a low tone that although you could hear the voices, you could not distinguish the words ? A. Neither could I hear their voices. Q. Do you mean to say a whisper or a tone of voice ? Witness. Is not a whisper a tone of voice ? Mr. Bradley. No, sir; not in the ordinary, common acceptation. We make a distinction. Witness. True, it is not so in the ordinary acceptation ; but a whisper is nevertheless a tone of voice produced by the vocal organs. Q. You desire to have the jury understand, then, that by *' whisper" and "low tone of voice," you mean the same thing] A. Yes, sir. Q. You say you were not arrested. Didn't you state on the trial, before the military commission, that you surrendered yourself to the government ? A. Yes, sir. I surrendered myself to Messrs. McDevitt and Clarvoe. Q. Did you not, on that trial, state that you were arrested by the govern- ment 1- A. I do not remember. Q. Your language is, I believe, " arrested by Mr Stanton." A. I say that now. After I got back from Canada I was at large for a day. Then I had an interview with Mr. Stanton. He thought it would be safer for me Q. Did jon surrender yourself then to the government ? A. Yes, sir. I told Mr. Stanton I was at the disposal of the government in tliis thing, and that he could do with me what he pleased. Q. Then Mr. Stanton did not have you arrested 1 A. Mr. Stanton first said to me : " Mr. Weichmann, for your safety in this thing, you will have to go to Carroll prison." Says I, "Mr. Stanton, I am at the disposal of the government. You can do with me what you please. I want this thing investigated." Mr. Stanton knows this is what I said. Q. On the trial before that commission, did you state, " when I surrendered myself to the government I surrendered myself because I thought it was my duty"? A. Yes, sir ; it was my duty. Q. Did you state that ? A. I did. Q. Then when you say you surrendered yourself, you mean that you only went there and told them what you knew ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you mean by " surrendering," to put yourself in the custody of the government ? A. Yes, sir ; to let the government do with me what they pleased in the matter. I was not afraid of any investigation, but asked for it. Q. Do you say that you were after that in custody or not ? A. I was in custody for thirty days. Q. The first time you reported yourself to Mr. Richards ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 447 A. Not to "Sh. Richards, Tint at ^Ir. Ricliard-s's office. Q. You think you were not iu custody at all ; is that it? A. I thought I was uot, because I was a special officer. Q. You were not a special officer until the 16th, I suppose? A. Not until the 16th. Q. Between the morning of the 1 5th and the ti ne tliat the order was given by xVfr. Stanton, were you in custody ? A. I never considered myself so. I rode round on horseback witli Messrs. McDevitt and Clarvoe, and was with them all the time . Q. Did you ride with any one else besides an officer ? A. I rode with Mr. Holahan ; he was just as much in custody as T was. Q. Did you ride with any one when you had not a police officer with you ? A. From the time I gave myself up on the morning of the 15th to the time I went to Canada I was in charge of a police officer all the time ; but I never considered myself under arrest. Mr. Bradlky. I don't ask what you considered; I ask you if you were under the charge of a police officer all the time ? A. 1 was. Q. You say that on the morning of the 14'h of April, at Mrs. Surratt's instance, you procured a buggy ? A. Not on the morning of the 14th. Q. At noon of that day I A. Afternoon. Q. Had you had dinner ? A. No, sir; I had had lunch between 2 and 3 o'clock. Q. At her instance — I won't be particular as to the time — you procured a horse and buggy to drive her to Surratsville, and when she came down stairs and was about to get in she said, " Wait a moment, until I go up stairs and get Mr. Booth's things;" and that she did go, bringing something down, and pat it in the bottom of the buggy, and told you it was glass ? A. Yes, sir; she used the word "glass," and she said it was brittle. Q. Did you take it and fix it in the buggy ? A. I do not remember whether I took it or not. It was put in there. One side of the buggy was wet, and she was afraid of it getting wet. Q. Didn't you handle it and fix it ? A. 1 believe I did put it in the bottom of the buggy. Q. Have you told the jury what that was ? A. I stated in 1865 that it felt to me like three or four saucers wrapped up together ; like a glass dessert dish ; that was my impression at the time. I did not know what was in the package at all. Q. You then stated on your examination in chief that you thought it vras some saucers. Wliy did you not st ite that here the other day ? A. I described the diamet(!r of the package as 5 or 6 inches, and thai it was wrapped up in brown paper, with a string around it. Mr. Bradi,k.v. 1 don't think you stated anything of the sort I understand you to say that you did uot get out of the buggy at SurrattsviUe that day, but drove up and down the road until Mrs. Suriatt came up ? A. I do not think I said that. I said that a part of the time I drove up and down the road. 3Irs. Surratt got down about half-past 4, and left about half- past 6. I was out of the buggy. Q. In the house ? A. Yes, sir. I told you that I wrote a letter in ]\[rs. Surratt's parlor, and certainly it was necessary to get out of the buggy to write that letter. Q. When you went out and got into the buggy, after writing that letter, had Mr. Lloyd returned ? 448 TRIAL OF JOHN H SURRATT. A. T cin not know precisely at what time I got into tbe buggj again, but I know just as we were about to drive off I saw Mr. Lloyd, and be recognized me. Q,. Was Mrs. Surratt with you all tbe time after you wrote tbat letter until you got into tbe buggy ? A I do not remember tbat sbe was. Q. Did sbe go out witb you to get into tbe buggy 1 A. I do not remember tbat sbe did. My impression is tbat sbe came out on tbe road-side and I belped ber in. Q. You didn't get into tbe buggy, tben, before sbe came 1 A. I believe tbat I was seated in tbe buggy, but wben sbe came up I got out and belped put ber in. Q. Can you state bow long after you wrote tbat letter and resumed your seat in the buggy it was before Mrs. Surratt came to get in ? A. It is impossible for me to remember that now. Q. Where was tbe buggy standing? A. Right in front of ilr. Lloyd's house on tbe road ; right along tbe fence. I believe there was a fencing facing towards iMr. Gwynn's place. Q. And your impression is tbat you sat there after you wrote tbat letter until Mrs Surratt and Mr. Lloyd came out ? A. I did not see Mr. Lloyd come out of any place at all ; I only saw Mr. Lloyd when he came by the buggy. Q. You were out in front of the house, or in the bouse, all tbe while from tbe time you wrote tbat letter 1 A. I cannot say, positively, that I was out in front of tbe house all tbe time, or tbat I was in tbe house all tbe time after I wrote tbe letter. I might have ridden up and down the road. Q. You did not see Mr. Lloyd come there in a buggy ? A No, sir; I do not remember to have seen him All I saw of Mr. Lloyd was in front of our own buggy when he recognized me. Q. As to when he came or bow he came, you know nothing? A. No, sir ; I saw one buggy driving up there, but Mr. Gwynn was seated in that buggy. I believe there were two horses in it. Q. Do you remember a conversation witb Mr. Lloyd on tbe subject of the interview between himself and Mrs. Surratt, at Uniontown, or near Unioutown ? A. No, sir; I had some conversation Avith him in 1865. He then felt astonished and angry on learning that I had not overheard the conversation between him.self and Mrs. Surratt I could not help that, however. Q. Did you tell him you had sworn to the whisper? A. He knew that ; be had read it in the papers, and I think I told him. Mr. Bradley. I want to know what you said to him. Didn't you tell Mr. Lloyd on your examination below that you had sworn to a whisper ? A. I do not remember ; I may have told him so ; I believe that I did. Q. Do you remember Avbat his reply was ? A. No, sir. Q. You were both in prison at tbat time ? A. Yes, sir ; but in different rooms. Q. Did not Mr. Lloyd tell you there, that if you had sworn to a whisper, you bad sworn to what Avas not true ? A. I cannot remember what Mr. Lloyd said. I do not recall anything of tbat kind that be said. I am judge of my own conscience and Mr. Lloyd is not. 1 know what I heard, and he knows what he beard. Q. I wish to know whether you have stated, at any time, that in your first interview with the Secretary of War you told him where John Surratt was ? A. No, sir ; I never told the Secretary of War that, because I did not know. Mr. Bradley. 1 did not ask whether you bad told the Secretary of War that. 1 want to know Avhether you did not tell Mr. John T. Ford that you I TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 449 bad told tlie Secretary of War where Joliu Surratt was at the time of the as- sassination ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you repeat to him what passed at the interview with the Secretary of War? A. I may have done so. Q. If you did, you say you did not tell him that you had told the Secretary of War whore John Surratt was at the time of the assassination ? A. I never said anything of the kind, because I did not know where he was. I told Mr. Ford that I bad had an interview with the Secretary of War, and I believe I did state to him what passed at that interview. Q. Did not you state to him that you bad told the Secretary of War that Jolm Surratt bad left hereVi considerable time before the assassination, and that, from a letter which you had seen, he must have been in Montreal at that time ? A I may have said that ; I may have said that I had not seen John Surratt for a considerable lime before the assassination, and that I had seen a letter from him dated April 12 ; but I did not state to the Secretary or to Mr. Ford that I knew where John Surratt was when the blow was struck, because I did not know. Mr. Bradley. I do not know whether you knew or not ; that is not the question. I ask you if you did not tell Mr. John T. Ford that you had had an interview with the Secretary of War, and had told him all you knew about that affair, and of John Surratt's whereabouts at the time of the assassination, and that you had not seen John Surratt for ten days or two weeks before, and that you had seen a letter which satisfied you that John Surratt was in Canada at the time? A. I believe I have told Mr. John T. Ford that ; I have told it on the stand here ; but I did not tell Mr. Ford that I knew where John Surratt was when the assassination took jdace. Q. I ask you again, if you did not tell Mr. Ford, also, of the cipher which had been given to you, and explained to him how it was? A. I do not remember. Q. I ask you whether you did not tell Mr. Maddox and j\Ir. Gifford that you were told by Mr. Bingham that if you did not state more fully than you had done, all you knew, you would be treated as one of the conspirators — not hi those precise words, but the substance 1 (Mr. Pierrepont objected. Objection withdrawn.) A. No, sir ; I do not remember to have said anything of the kind. Q. Do you say you did not? A. I never heard Mr, Bingham make a remark of that kind. Mr. Bradley. That is not an answer to my question. A. I gave you my answer. I do not remember to have said anything of the kind. Q. Do you say that you did not tell them of any interview with Mr. Bingham, in which Mr. Bingham had used that language to you ? A. I may have spoken of an interview with Mr. Bingham, but I never told them that Mr. Bingham used threatening language, because Mr. Bingham did not use threatening language. Q. I want to know whether you have not said since you have been here as a witness that your character was at stake in this issue, and that you intended to do all you could to aid the prosecution 1 Witness. Whether 1 made that statement on the stand here? Mr. Bradley. No, sir; in the passage there, before you came upon the staud. A. I may have said so. Q. 1 ask you whether you have not stated to Mr. Rocoford, in substance, 450 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. that the appointment given to you in Philadelphia was the fulfilment of a prom- ise that you should have an office under the government for the testimony you had given in this matter, and that the government would protect you 1 (Objected to by Mr. Pierrepont. Objection sustained. Exception reserved.) Q. You stated on Saturday that you were removed from the customhouse ia Philadelphia because you had voted the radical republican ticket. I ask you whether you have not stated that you were a thorough Johnson man, and as such held your position in that office ? (Objected to by Mr. Pierrepont. Objection sustained. Exception reserved.) Q. I understood you, in your examination in chief, to state that on your re- turn from a visit to Surrattsville with Mrs. Surratt, you got on the high ground southeast of Washington, and made some pleasant remark as to the beauty of the scenery and position of the country, and that she replied to you, " I am afraid all this rejoicing will be turned into mourning, and all this ghidness into sor- row." Did you say anything of that kind before the commission ? A. I did not. Q. You say that after the police officers were gone, on the night of the 14th, Miss Anna Surratt remarked : ''0, ma, just think of this man having been here an hour before the assassination — meaninsr John Wilkes Booth. I think all this thing will bring suspicion on the house." I want to know why you say she meant J. Wilkes Booth. A. I believe I have already stated that when the detectives and myself went down stairs we announced that Mr. Lincoln had been murdered by John Wilkes Booth, and that Mr. Seward had been assassinated, but 1 believe I said, out of respect to Mrs. Surratt's feelings, that the name of her son had not been mentioned at all as being suspected of the thing. Q. So that your remark had reference to Booth, and you understood Miss Anna Surratt as i-eplying to it 1 A. Yes, sir; the conversation at the time was about Booth. Q. What did Mrs. Surratt reply ? A. She says, " Come what will, I am resigned, I think J. Wilkes Booth was an instrument iu the hands of the Almighty to punish this proud and licen- tious nation." Q. Then she understood her daughter to reply in that way also ? A. Yes, sir ; I presume so. Q. Did you give one word of this testimony before thg military commission ? A. I did not, simply because the facts were not as clear iu my mind then as now. Q. You say Mrs. Surratt asked you to pray for her intentions ? A. Yes, sir. Q. After this exclamation to which you have referred ? A. No, sir; on the 14th of April. Q. And before the assassination occurred ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you stated this matter before to anybody ? A. (No response.) Q. Have you written it down 1 A. No, sir; I did not tvrite it. Q. Have you ever written it down ? A. I have written it all down here within the last five or six months. I pre- pared a statement for the prosecuting attorney. Q. Do you recollect whether, when you first wrote it down, you did not write that this exclamation of hers, or application to pray for her intentions, was after she had made that remark in reply to her daughter ? A No, sir; I am positive I never wrote that down as happening after the as- sassination. She asked me to pray for her intentions before the assassination ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 451 Q. Didn't jou tell us, on your examination here the other day, that she was walking up and down the room, with beads in her hands, and very nervous and excited when she asked you to pray for her intentions, after the detectives had gone away ? A. No, sir. Q. Plave you not in a verbal or a written statement, or both, said that after the detectives had gone away, and after the remark of Miss Anna Surratt and the reply of her mother, she, Mrs. Surratt, while walking up and down the room with beads in her hands, and in a state of agitation, asked you to pray for her intentions, to which you replied, " I do not know what your intentions are, and I cannot pray f )r them," when she answered " pray for them anyhow ]" A. I am positive all that occurred before the assassination. Q. I am not asking you what you are positive about, but I am asking you whether you have not written down, and have not stated, that that thing oc- curred after the detectives lad gone? A. No. sir ; I do not remember to have done anything of the kind. Q. When did it occur 1 A. Directly after I got up from supper, while I was sitting on the sofa with Anna Surratt, Miss Fitzpatrick, and others. Q. That same evening 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. How was this matter introduced ? A. Well, I was sitting there, and she appeared to be very nervous. I asked her what was the matter. She said she did not feel well ; and then she asked me which way the torch-light procession was going on the avenue. I told her that it was the arsenal employes, and that they were going up to serenade the President. After walking up and down awhile, she asked me the question to which you have referred. Q. These three ladies you have named were in the room at the time ? A Yes, sir. Q. She said it loud enough for them to hear. A. I heard it. Q. It was said while you were sitting on the sofa with them ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did she come up and whisper it ? A No, sir ; she said it right out. Q. Loud enough for them to hear 1 A. They might not have paid attention. Q. Did not she say it loud enough for them to hear ? A. Yes, sir ; I heard it. Q. You replied, and her answer was in the same audible tone ? A. Yes, sir. Q. I want to know what time in the evening it was you heard those footsteps up stairs on the 14th of April 1 A. I was at supper. Q. What time in the evening ? A. About nine o'clock, or ten minutes past. After I returned from taking the buggy back, I went directly to the supper room. Q. How long were you at supper ? A. Perhaps ten minutes. Q. During that time you heard footsteps coming up the steps ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You say Mrs. Surratt went to the door ] A. Yes, sir. Q. And about that you are positive ? A. Yes, sir ; I testified to that in 1S65, and so testify now. 452 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT. Q. How soon after she went up did you follow her? A. As soon as I got through supper. Q. How long was the person there ? A. No more than from three to five minutes. Q. And you went up immediately after the person went out? A. It must have been almost immediately. Q. Where did you find her ? A. She was in the parlor. Q. What was she doing then ? A. Walking up and down the room. Q. How soon after you went up, did the young ladies follow you ? A. That I do not remember ; they may have come up with me. Q. Did she leave the room again before you left it 1 A. That I do not remember. Q. Have not you given us to understand that she said, while you all were amusing yourselves, that you were making too much noise ? A. I believe she was in the room all the time we were in there. Q. I want to know if there was any time that evening after she went up stairs, when she could have gone down into the supper room to get supper for another person ? A. She could, after I went to bed. Q. What time did you go to bed 1 A. A few minutes before ten — perhaps ten o'clock. Q. Up to the time you went to bed, could she have gone down there to get supper for anybody else without your knowing it? A. Yes, sir ; she could have gone. Q. Although she was in the room all the time until you went to bed ? A. She could have gone down there without my knowing it, and have fur- nished supper. She could not have gone down without my knowing it, but she could have furnished supper without my knowing it. Q. How furnish supper without your knowing it ? A. She need not have told me what she went down stairs for ? Q. Did she go down stairs? A. Not that I remember. Q. Was she absent from that room long enough to go down stairs ? A. It is my impression she was in the room all the time I was there. I did not see h(!r leave the room. Q. Are you quite sure that person ran up the steps, and ran down again? A. I heard footsteps ; I was sure in '65, and I am sure now. Q. Did you hear anybody come in the basement door after that? A. No, sir. Q. Was there more than one person who went up those steps? A. No, sir. Q. None went into the basement door that you know of? A. No, sir. Q. Now, I go back to the night of the 3d of April. Had Mrs. Surratt been absent during the day of the 3d of April ? A. That I do not remember. Q. At what time in the evening did you see John Surratt ? A. About half past six or seven o'clock. Q. Where? A. I was sitting in the parlor, as was also his mother, when he walked into the room. Q. Before or after supper? A. That I do not remember. C^. He took supper with you? TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 453 A. We only took two meals a clay. "We did not take supper. Q. How came you to have supper Friday ? A. Simply for the reason that I ate no dinner that day, and I was conse- quently pretty hungry ; I had to eat something when I came home. Q. You were all down in the dining-room on the evening of the assassination ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Had not any of them had anything to eat that day? A. I suppose they had; they took some lunch with me at one o'clock, I had not anything to eat from one o'clock until I got home, and I felt very hungry. Q. I ask you if you were not in the dining-room at Mrs. Surratt's on the even- ing of the 3d of April with John Surratt? A. No, sir. Q. About half past six or seven you say he came 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Do I understand you to say that he did not leave the room then until he came out with you? A. I do not remember whether Surratt went down stairs to get his supper or not. Q. Don't you remember that he did] Have not you said so? A. No, sir ; I have not a distinct recollection, and I have not said so. Q. You have not said that John Surratt came in and sat there for a few mo- ments, and then went down to the dining-room to get his supper? A. No, sir; I have not said so, because I am not positive of that fact. He may have taken supper there. Q. On the evening of the 3d of April did not the ladies go down there into the supper room, and was not John Surratt there? A. No, sir; because I had my dinner at three o'clock, I did not want nny supper. I am positive that I took no supper on the third of April. Q. You did not go down into the dining-room when tea was made that even- ing, and have not said you did ? A. Not that 1 remember. Q. If I understood you rightly, your impression is that the person who came up the steps on the night of the fourteenth of April came into the parlor. Can you say whether he came into the parlor, or only into the vestibiile or hall ? A. 1 am positive I heard his footsteps going into the parlor. Q. And you are positive that when the door bell rang. Mrs. Surratt went up, opened the door, and let him in ? A, Yes, sir. Q. Did not Miss Anna Surratt do that? A. Not tliat I remember, Q. Was the ring loud enough to attract the attention of everybody there ? A. Yes, sir; the bell was a very loud one; it was the loudest of any I have ever heard in the city for a door bell. Q. You have stated that the morning after the assassination you met Mr. Holahan ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you meet him? A. At the corner of Seventh and F streets, right in front of the post office. He was coming from the direction of Tenth and F streets, Q. Do you recollect what passed betvv^een you and him at that time ? A, We talked together. I told him of my suspicions and everything else. He told me he thought it was Atzerodt who had assassinated the Secretary of State. We then went round to breakfast. Q. Is that all that passed, as well as you can recollect ? A. That is all I recollect. 454 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Then when yon went to breakfast, you said you intended to go out and disclose all you knew about it 1 A. I said I intended to tell all I knew, but I did not say I intended to dis- close anything, because I did not know anything of this murder. Q. You are confident you said at the breakfast table what you have stated here you did ? A. Yes, sir ; and Mrs. Holahan and Mrs. Surratt heard me. Q. Mrs. Hollahan, Mr. Holahan, Miss Jenkins, and Miss Dean were all there? A. I do not know whether Miss Dean was there or not; I know Anna Sur- ratt was there, and I know very well, too, what remark was made there. Mr. Bradley. Bolt it out. Witness. That the death of Abraham Lincoln was no more than the death of a negro in the army. Q. Did you tell that down at the commission trial 1 A. No, sir. Mrs. Surratt did not say that ; somebody else said it. Some- body at the table said it in her presence. Q. I thought you said Miss Anna Surratt said it ? A. I know very well what she said. Q. Who said ? A. Miss Anna Surratt. I know very well what was said ; (after a slight pause,) she, Miss Anna Surratt, did say it. Q. You never thought to tell that before ? A. No, sir ; because I had too much sympathy for the poor girl. Q. Why do you tell it now ? A. Because you bring it out. Q. Did I bring out your " voluntary " statement ? A. I have told it because I have been hunted down and persecuted on ac- count of these very people. Q. Isn't it your impression that if John Surratt is acquitted you will be hunted down a little harder ? A. O, I am not afraid of being hunted down. Q. Do you know Mr. Lewis Garland ? A. Slightly. Q. Do you recollect of having a conversation with him on the subject of your testimony, and your knowledge in regard to this alleged conspiracy 'I A. I had several talks with him. Q. Where? A. In the city here, on the street. Q, Do you I'emember a conversation with him when Mr. John Brophy was present ? A. Yes, sir; right in front of his house. I remember that I saw Mr. Brophy, and Mr. Garland was in my company at the time, but I do not remember what passed. Q. Do you recollect of stating in that conversation, or in any other with Mr. Garland or ]\tr. Brophy, that if Captain Gleason had not betrayed you, you never would have said a word about this matter ? A. No, sir. Q. Have you seen an affidavit made by Mr, Bropliy, before Mr. Gallan ? A. Yes, sir; I saw it two years ago. Mr. Gleason never went to the War Department until about ten days after I had first given the information. Q. About three, perhaps four, weeks before the assassination — at all events after this horseback ride of which you have spoken — I want to know what you said to Mr. Garland or to Mr. Brophy ? A. I will just tell you what I did say. Mr. Bradley. I do not want you to go back and tell the fiicts in your way, but what you said. TRIAL OP JOHN H. SURRATT. 455 A. I. do not remember. Q. I thought you said you would tell me what you did say. Cau you tell me what you did say ? Witness. To whom ? Mr. Bradley. To Mr. Brophy or to Mr. Garland, or to both. "Witness. I was just going to tell the narrative. Mr. Bradley. I do not want the narrative, but only what you stated. A. I cannot tell it in any other way. Q. You cannot state what you said to either of them ? A. I cannot say that I said that Mr. Gleason betrayed me, because Mr. Glea- son never did betray me. Q. I do not ask you that, but I ask what you did say to either or both of them ? A. I do not remember saving anything of the kind. Q. l)id you state to either of them that you were not willing to return from Canada, but the detectives had you in charge, and you were compelled to come back? A. Not that I remember. Q. Are you positive you did not tell Mr. Lewis Garland so ? A. I am. Q. Or Mr. Brophy ? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Bradley, that is simply an absurdity, and before you get through with this trial you will be satisfied it is an absurdity. Mr. Bradley. Suppose you let counsel on the. other side take care of that. At present we want the facts. Q. Did you tell Mr. Brophy or Mr. Garland, or either of them, that on one occasion Mrs. Surratt called her son aside, in your presence, and said to him, " John, I am afraid there is something going on. Why do these men come here 1 Now, John, I do not feel easy about this, and you must tell me what you are about." A. Yes, sir; I told them shortly after Booth and Atzerodt commenced coming to the house, tliat Mrs. Surratt was very much exercised about their coming there. I did hear her say, " John, what are these men doing here ? What business have they with you V or something to that effect. And she stated to me that she would know what John had to do with it, and she took John into the parlor and closed the door. Whether John disclosed his business or not I do not know. I afterwards asked her what business John was engaged in, and she said he told her he was engaged in cotton speculations. Q. Didn't they ask you if John told her, and didn't you reply that he did not and would not tell her ? A. No, sir; 1 do not remember to have made that reply. Q. Was anything said between you and Howell, the blockade runner, about your going to Richmond 1 A. I said I would like to go to Richmond for the purpose of continuing my theological studies. 1 would have crossed the river for that purpose. Q. Is there any college there? A. No, sir ; it was not necessary to have a college there ; I could have studied in a bishop's house. I was so anxious ever since leaving college to go on with my studies that I would, as I have before stated, have crossed the river for the purpose. Even for that purpose I sent two letters by a flag of truce boat to Bishop McGill during the war, and I received an answer to one of them January 15, 18G5. Q. You were very anxious to go to Richmond ? A. Yes, sir, for that purpose. Q. And you were at the same time talking with Ilowell about how you could get across. Didn't you tell him all your sympathies were with the South 1 456 TEIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. 0, I have talked secesh very often in my life for buncombe, especially with such men as Mr. Howell. Q. And associated with him, Atzerodt, Booth, John Surratt 1 I believe you say you scarcely knew Payne 1 A. I never had much to say to Payne ; I have detailed here all the conversa- tion I ever had with him ; I never visited him at the Herndon House. Any- body, before the assassination, would have been glad to have associated with Mr. Booth. Q. Why ? A. Because he was in such respectable society ; he was such an elegant and polished gentleman. Q. What do you mean by " such respectable society ? " A. Well, members of Congress. Q. You have not put him with anybody except these people ? A. 0, yes, sir ; I have seen him in company with John McCullough and members of Congress. Q. McCullough is an actor also, isn't he ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who else did you ever see him associating with ? Did you ever see him in the society of ladies outside of Mrs. Surratt's house ? A. No, sir, not that I remember of ; I knew he was courting a lady here. Mr. PiEKREPoNT. I submit to your honor that this is not right in any shape ; that it is neither legal nor proper. The Court. I do not see that there is any relevancy in the testimony. I would be very glad, Mr. Bradley, if you could shorten these examinations as much as possible. Mr. Bradley. I shall endeavor to shorten the examination, sir, as much as possible ; but the great extent of ground covered by this witness in his two ex- aminations renders it necessary for me to travel over rather a wide range. I have sought, up to this moment, to confine myself to questions strictly relevant and proper. The Court. Proceed with the examination. Q. Weie you confined in the Old Capitol with Mr. Holahan, or any one else ? A. I was confined in Carroll prison, with about thirty or forty bounty jumpers. Q. Was Mr. Holahan one of them ? A. Xo, sir ; 1 did not say he was ; but he was a bounty broker. Q. I will ask you whether you were with him ? A. Part of the time I was, and part of the time I was not. When I was first there he was put in solitary confinement. Q. I ask you whether you were confined in the same room with him ? A. At first I was not confined in the same room. Q. Were you confined with him at all in Carroll prison ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long were you confined with him there ? A. I was confined there thirty days ; I think he got out before I did. The court here took a recess of half an hour. AFTERNOON SESSIO.N. Louis J. Weichmaxx — examination resumed : By Mr. Bradley : Q. When the court took a recess I had just asked you some questions about Mr. Carland and ]Mr. Brophy. I want you to state whether, after the conspir- acy trials, you had a conversation with Mr. Carland in reference to testimony you had given on that trial? TRIAL OF JOHN H SURRATT. 457 A I had several conversation s wifli liira. Q. Do you remember going willi him one evening to St. Aloysius church, and sitting on the steps of the church, and having a conversation with him in refer- ence to the testimony you had given. A. I do not remember any particular evening ; as I said, we had several con- versations, and talked this whole thing over. Q Since the court took a recess have you seen Mr. Garland ? A I merely shook hands with him. Q Is that all that passed ? A. I remarked to him, " Old fellow, I see you are going to be a witness against me. Go ahead." He tohl me he could not help it; it was his duty. (^. Do you recollect going with him to Dubaut's saloon on one of these oc- casions ? A. I do not know where Dubant's saloon is. Q. Did you ever go with him to a saloon on the corner of Sixth street and Pennsylvania avenue ? A. Not that I remember. Q. Did you ever take a walk witli him and Mr. Brophy? A. No, sir. I once met him at Mr. Brophy's house. Q. Do you remember stating to Mr. Garland, in the course of your interviews with him about that time, that your conscience was greatly troubled about the testimony you had given on that trial ? A. No, sir ; I do not remember anything of the kind. Q. J^ither in substance or effect? A. No, sir. Q. You do not remember saying to him that you were going to confession to relieve you conscience ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember of his saying to you, " That's not the right way, Mr. Weichmann ;" you had better go to a magistrate and make a statement under oath ? A. I do not remember that. Q. Do you remember replying to him, " I would take that course if I were nut afraid of being indicted for perjury ?" A. Not at all Q. Do you remember stating to him that the testimony you had given was prepared for you, written out for you, and that when you awoke in the morning you were told that you must swear to the substance of that paper ? A. Pshaw ! No, sir. Q. You do not remember of his telling you then that you ought to go to a magistrate and make a statement of the facts as they really occurred ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember telling him that you were obliged to swear to that statement or you would be threatened with prosecution for perjury, or threat- ened to be charged as one of the conspirators ? A. No, sir. Q. Nothing of the kind ever occurred? A. No, sir. I did want to go to confession at that time. Mr. Br.xdlev. Never mind what you wanted to do at that time. I want to know what was said. WiTNKSS. I do not remember anything of the kind. These questions look so silly to me that 1 almost hate to answer them ; I never heard of such things be- fore. Mr. Bradley. We will see about that. I do not want to enter into a discus- sion just now. 30 458 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Do you remember about a man being in your room with you at Carroll pri:?on, and Lis stating to you that you had made these confessions or statements in your sleep, and that he had written them down 1 A. No, sir ; nothing of the kind ever occurred. Q. You know Mr. Lewis Garland ? A. Slightly. Q. And had talks with him ? ' A. Two or three times. Q. Had conversations with him about that time, after the conspiracy trial ? A. Yes, sir ; but I do not remember anything of the conversatiim that you have stated, and 1 swear positively, on my solemn oath, that 1 never said any- thing of the kind. I Avill put my word against the whole world in the matter. Q. Did you not state to him that you would have given very different testi- mony if it had not been for that which was written down for you ? A. No. sir. Q. Did you not tell him that you could have given an explanation of Mrs. Sunatt's visit to Surrattsville on the 14th of April which would have been greatly in her favor, if you had been allowed to 'I A. No, sir ; 1 said nothing of the kind. Q,. Do you remember or not that on the day you visited Mr. John Brophy's, or any other day, you met Father Wiget at St. Aioysius church, when you were Avith Mr. Garland ? A. I met him several times. Q. I mean when with Mr. Lewis Carland 1 A. No, sir ; 1 do not remember that I saw Father Wiget when with Mr. Gar- land at any time. Q. You do not remember then, when you were walking with Mr. Garland, of stopping some time on the steps of St. Aloysius cliurcli, and Father Wiget coming up and saying to you that he had been on an excursion of the Sabbath school, and that one of the children had fallen overboard, but had been rescued by a man jumping in after him 1 A. No, sir ; I do not remember of ever having seen Mr. Carland and Father Wiget together. Q. Then, as I understand you, you do not recollect any walk with ^Ir. Car- land in which you spoke of the testimony you had given on the trial of the con- spirators 1 A. I spoke about my testimony, because that was uppermost in my mind. Q. Do you remember saying anything about suicide i A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember reciting portions of Hamlet ? A. 0, I have done that. Q. I am talking now of what was said and done in your conversations with Mr. Carland at that time. A. No, sir ; I do not remember, on any such occasion of reciting portions of Hamlet. Q. In regard to suicide or self-destruction 1 Witness. What, " To be, or not to be V Mr. Bradley. I do not ask what it was. I ask you whether you had a talk on the subject of suicide with Mr. Carland. A. O, 1 might have had ; 1 do not care whether 1 did or not. Q Do you remember of more than once; taking out a revolver and showing it to him, and talking about self-destruction ? A. is^o, sir; I do not remember anything of the kind. It is the first time I have heard of it. Q. Do you say now positively that on one of these occasions when you were telling Mr. Carland about your testimony, you did not recite to him passages from Hamlet on self-murder? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 459 A. I do not say tbat I did not. I say I do not remember of doing so. I have recited that s:\me ]);is!5age over two hundred times, and I might have taken out a revolver, and might have also looked down its barrels. Q. "When you were with him? A. T miffht have done so. I carried a revolver at that time. Q. But not with a view of self-destruction? A. No, sir ; I am too much of a coward for that. Q. Now I understand you to say positively that you never did tell Mr. Garland that you were going to confession to ease your conscience about the testimony that you had given on that trial at the arsenal. A. I will tell you all about that confession matter. j\[r. Braoi.p^y. You know the question I asked ? A. I do not remember to have said anything to ^Ir. Garland about confession at all. Q. You deny stating to ^Ir. Garland that your testimony before the commission would have been very different if it had not been written down for you ? A Yes, sir. Q. You deny that Mr. Garland advised you to go tfo the magistrate 1 A. I denied all that once before, and I deny it over again. Mr. Bradlkv. My colleagues think it is important for me to follow this mat- ter one step further. Q. I wit^h to ask you if you did not state to Mr. Garland that, on the 14th of April, 1865, before Mrs. Surratt went to Surrattsville, when she spoke to you about getting a buggy, you did not advise her to send to Booth, and if she did not reply that she did not know that Booth was in town 1 A. No, sir. Q. I wish to ask you further whether you did not tell Mr. Garland, when you reached Surrattsville, of Mrs. Surratt having informed you that she was going to see ^[r. Nothey on business, having received a letter from Mr. Galvert re([nir- ing immediate attention ; that when you found Mr. Nothey was not there that you met Mr. Jenkins ; that you and Mrs. Surratt turned round to come home and then the spring of the buggy was broken ? A. No, sir. 1 believe I did meet Mr. Jenkins on the road toward home — I do not know whether we met him at Surrattsville — and that Mrs. Siuratt said, "AVhat do you think of our army now 1 Our army has surrendered" — mean- ing the Union army. Q. You told 31 r. Garland that, did you ? A. I do not know that I did ? Q. I want to know what you told Mr. Garland ? A. I told Mr. Garland nothing at all about breaking the spring of the buggy. Q. Did you tell him what 1 stated ? A. I deny that I said so. By Mr. Pikrrepo.vt: Q. Just as the court adjourned, you spoke of having been thirty days in GarroU prison, about which you have been asked several times ; what did that mean ? A. .1 was there as a government witness. Q, Were you there for any crime / A. No, sir. Q. Was that all you were there for? A. Y"es, sir ; that was all. Q. Will you look at this order and see if it is the order under which you were appointed one of the special officers to go in pursuit of the assassins ? (Order shown to witne.^s.) A. Y^es, sir; that is a copy of the official order which was sent to me. The 460 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. original order is iu ^fcDeAntt's possession. This copy is certified to by Cap- tain Russell and others. The order, after being exhibited to court and counsel, was read and placed in evidence, as follows : [Special Orders No. 68. — Extract.] Headquarters Department of Washington, Office Provost Marshal, Department North of Potomac, A]>ril 16, 1865. Special Officers James A. McDevitt, George Hollahan, and Louis J. Weich- mann, are hereby ordered to proceed to New York city on important government business, and after executing their private orders, return to this city and report at these headquarters. The quartermaster's department will furnish the necessary transportation. By command of Major General Augur: T. INGRAHAM, Colonel and Provost Marshal General, Department north of Potomac, Official : G. B. RUSSELL, Captain and Assistant Provost Marshal General. Q. You said on your cross-examination that at some time — you have not given the time — Miss Sun-att said in the presence of Mrs. Surratt, that the death of Lincoln was of no more importance than that of any nigger in the army. Will you state the time ? Question objected to by Mr. Bradley on the ground the witness had already stated the precise time. Mr. Pierrepont did not so understand it. The Court said the witness had already stated the time, but if counsel had not understood Ijim to state it, they were entitled again to have the question answered. Witness. It was on the 15th of April, and in the presence of Mr. Hollahan, Mrs. Hollahan, myself, and Miss Fitzpatrick, that she said the death of Abraham Lincoln was no more than the death of any nigger in the army, Mr. Bradley desired an exception noted to the reception of this evidence. Q. Will you state what there is aboi;t this confession you have been asked about. Question objected to by Mr. Bradley, as not having been called for by any- thing on cross-examination. The Court said he understood the confession to have been stated in the con- versation with Mr. Garland wliich was brought out on cross-examination. The witness could be asked to state that entire conversation. Witness. 1 never spoke to Mr. Garland at all about the confession. Q, Then I will ask you about Brophy. Was there anything in your conversa- tion with him connected with this confession ? A. No, sir. Q. Was there anything about this confession in what was said by you to either of thesp men ? (Question objected to by Mr. Merrick. Objection overruled.) A. Nothing at all. I deny that I ever said anything to them about confession at all. I did not go to confession eithei-. The examination of the witness here closed. Mrs. Mary Benson recalled and examined by the district attorney. Q, I omitted to ask one question in your examination ; be good enough to TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 461 examine this plioto2;i'aph, (photograph of B loth exhibited,) and state to the jury whctlier it resembles the person you saw ou the Third avenue car on the occasion to which you referred 1 A. There is a resemblance both in the face and head. Q. That person was disguised you say in the manner you have described ? A. Yes, sir. Cross-examined by Mr. Bradlev. Q. Be good enough to state, for I may have misunderstood you in reference to the hand of that person, whether your attention was in any way directed to that ? A. It was. Q. Describe to the jury what was the particular thing that attracted your attention ? A. He had a very small white hand. Q. (Contrasting at all with his complexion ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Much lighter ? A. Yes, sir ; much lighter than the front of his face which was apparently stained. Q. His hands attracted your attention ; did they look, as if they had been used in labor at all ? A. They did not. Q. Was it so small, delicate a hand as to particularly attract your attention ? A. It was the hand of a gentleman ; a very small white hand. I suppose I noticed him particularly, seeing that he was disguised. Q. And was that delicate hand what led you tirst to notice the other features ? A. I noticed the disguise first and then I noticed him more particularly. Q. Do you recollect if he wore gloves at all? A. He had a gauntlet glove on the other hand. Q. AYhich hand was exposed ? A. The right hand. Q. A I'emarkably small, delicate hand ? A. Yes, sir. The district attorney stated that he desired to call Dr. McMillan as the next witness. Mr. Bradley said they had sent a subpoena duces tecum, to the Secretary of State, to which no response had been made. A response had been I'eceived from Mr. Frederick Seward. He desired the original document before proceed- ing to the cross-examination of this witness. Mr. PibRRKPONT stated that the Secretary of State had been otit of town ; that he had received a printed leaf from the Assistant Secretary of State, the Assistant Secretary stating that it was in response to a communication from the counsel. Mr. Bradley said they were entitled to a return to be made by the Secre- tary to the court. Mr. PiERREP iNT said the examination of the witness in chief would not be concluded to-day, and proposed therefore to proceed. Lewis J. A. McMilla.n, surgeon, sworn and examined. By Mr. PiEKREPO.NT : Q. In what service are you ? A. I am out of service now. I was in the Montreal ocean steamship service two years ago. Q. What ship were you connected with ? A. From April till October, 1865, I was surgeon of the steamship Peruvian. 462 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. When did you make your first autumn voyage from Montreal to Liver- pool in that year 1 A. I left Quebec on the 16th of S 'ptember, 1865, for Liverpool. Q. Do you remember whetlier you stopped at Ireland 1 A. We did. Q. Can you give the date when you reached Ireland, and the date when you reached Liverpool 1 A. We left, as I said before, Quebec on the 16th, which was Saturday. On Sunday week we arrived at Londonderry, Ireland, and the next day, Mon- day, about 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening, at Liverpool. Q. At what time in the day or night did you land at Londonderry, Ireland ? A. It was between 12 o'clock Sunday night and one o'clock Monday morning. Q. Do you know this prisoner at the bar ? A. I do. Q. Did he cross with you on that voyage to Londonderry ? A. He did. Q. Will you tell us when, where, and how you tirst saw the prisoner ? Re- late to the jury just what happened. A. I first saw the prisoner on the mail steamer Montreal, running from Mon- treal to Quebec, on the 15th of September, 1865. Q. How did he happen to come to you? What occurred that brought him 1 A. About a week or ten days previous, I had met in one of the streets of the city of Montreal — Mr. Bradley interrupting witness, objected to his stating what any one else said. Mr. PiERREPONT said that was precisely what he proposed to prove, and that, ill consequence, the prisoner was brought to witness. The Court decided witness might state that in consequence of information received from a third party the prisoner was bi'ought to witness. Q. I understand you that a week or ten days previous, somebody came to you. AVho was that somebody? A. His name is La Pierre. Q. What or who is he? A. He is a priest. Q. Where does he live? A. I do not know where he lives now. He lived in Montreal then. I under- stand he has left the city. Q. Did he say anything about Surratt? A. Yes, sir, he said Mr. Bradley. You need not state what he said. Mr. PiERREPONT. Well, he said something in relation to somebody ? A. Yes; that somebody was going. I was going on the 15th of September to join ray ship. On the steamer Montreal I met this Mr. La Pierre again, by agreement. He said to me that he would give me an introduction to his friend. Q. Did he introduce him? A. He brought me up to a state room, of which he had the key. Q. Who had the key? A... La Pierre. Q. State whether it was locked. A. It was. He unlocked the door, and in the room I found the prisoner at the bar. Q. Was that the first time you had seen him, when the door was unlocked ? A. The first time. Q. What did he say, in the presence of the prisoner? A. He introduced the prisoner to me under the nam(i of jMcCarty, the friend to whom he had referred before. 1 never suspected who the gentleman was, I TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 463 and consequontly I pn^^cfl the evening and most of the niglit with bim and a third party hesides the priest. Q. Will you tell the jury, when you went into that room and found the pris- oner, what was ihe condition of his hair? A. His hair was then short. Q. What was its color? A. A dark brown, I should say. Q. Was it dyed, or natural ? A. 1 did not perceive that night that it was dyed. I afterwards found it out. Q. What was the conversation about that evening ? A. I do not remember ; it was a general conversation. Q. I'id La Pierre go on with you down to Quebec? A. He caiue all the way down to Quebec. Q. When did you reach Quebec? A. I should say between five and six o'clock, Saturday morning. Q. Do you know ^,'hether La Pierre slept in this same room? A. I could not say. Q. Do you know whether the prisoner went out of the room that night ?_ A. 1 b(dieve we went down once to the bar-room. Q. At what time in the niglit ? A. I do not know ; I suppose ten or eleven o'clock. I could not tell you the time. Q. When you got to Quebec what happened? A. I believe we had breakfast on board the steamer in the morning, probably at seven or eight o'clock. Between nine and ten the company sent a tug to take the passengers and their luggage on board the steamer Peruvian. We all went on board. Q. What occurred about the room; how was it arranged on the steamer for the prisoner? A. Afler we arrived on board, La Pierre says to me The CoiRT. Was it in the presence of Surratt? AViT\fc:ss. I believe so, sir. He said he wished me to let the prisoner remain in my room until the steamer had left. 1 did so; 1 got the key of my room, let him in, and went with him. Q. Did he occuny it until the steamer bad left? A. He did. Q When did the steamer leave? A. Within a very few minutes; perhaps twenty minutes or half an hour. Q. Where did La Pierre go then? A. He went back on shore'. Q. Did you see any more of the prisoner that night? A. Yes, I saw him again. Q. Where did you si^e him? Li your room? A. I may have seeu him in my room, but I do not recollect. I remember that while there, after lunch or after dinner, (lunch was at twelve and dinner at four.) the prisoner came to me, and pointing to one of the passengers, asked me if I knew who the gentleman was. I told him I did not; that I supposed he was a passenger as be was iiiraself ; that that was all I knew about the man. He then said he thought the man was an American detective, and that he thought he was after himself. I said I did not believe anything of the kind, and that I did not see why he should be afraid of an American detective. I said to him, " What have you done that you should be afraid of an American detec- tive?" He said that he had done more things than I was aware of, and that very likely, if I knew, it would make me stare, or something to that effect. Q. Li this connection, what act did he do, if any ? A. I said that he need not be afraid of an American detective; that he was on 46-1 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. board a British sliip, iu British waters, and that if an American detective had been after him, he would have ti'ied to arrest him before he left port. He said that he did not care whether he was or not; that if he tried to arrest him this would settle him — and in saying that, he put his hand into his waistcoat pocket, and drew a small four-barrelled revolver. Q. Did any other parties go down on that boat before you took the steamer? A. There were a great many; I could not tell you how many. Q. Were there any whose names were given to you ? A. Yes. Mr. Bradley. That was on the steamer Montreal. Witness. That was on the tug from the steamer Montreal to the steamer Peruvian. Mr. Bradley said that, without explanation, his testimony did not seem to be relevant. The Court said it was not relevant, unless the parties named were connected with the prisoner at the bar. Mr. PiERREPONT said he proposed to show that Beverley Tucker and General Ripley were among these gentlemen; that he supposed he had the right to show every person on board this tug going with Surratt to the steamer that morning. Mr. Bradley said the parties named were not known to the court or jury in connection with this conspiracy ; that the evidence in chief must be pertinent to the issue, and he submitted that this was not admissible. Mr. PlERREPOiXT said he had the right to .show who these men were who were talking to Surratt, or anybody else who was on the steamer with the prisoner. The Court decided that the witness might be asked in relation to any con- versation of any party with the prisoner. Mr. Bradley said he had no objection to that. Q. Now state what men on board that tug you saw speak with Surratt. A. On the tug I saw nobody talk to the prisoner. Q. On any of the boats 1 A. During the passage I saw the prisoner a kw times in conversation with General Ripley. By Mr. Bradley : Q. What passage ? A. The passage from Quebec to Liverpool. By Mr. Pierrep()i\t : Q. Do you know who General Ripley was ? A. I suppose I can say what he said he was. Mr. Bradley objected that it was not a competent mode of showing who the witness was. The Court decided that if it could be brought to the knowledge of Surratt that Surratt knew who he was that would be evidence. Mr. Pierrepont said that was what he was trying to do, to show who this gentleman told Surratt he was. Witness. The prisoner at the bar told me afterwards that General Ripley was a general in the rebel army. Mr. Bradley. That you have not been asked about. Mr. Pierrepont. It would have been the next question. Mr. Bradley. Now take the question the witness has put into your mouth. Mr. Pierrepont said he would take his own question. Q. Do you know who General Ripley was ] Mr. Bradley. Of your own knowledge? WiT.NESS. Of my own knowledge, I do not know who the prisoner was. The District Attorney. Or from what the prisoner told you 1 Witness. The prisoner told me he was General Ripley, of South Carolina. TRIAL OF JOHN II. SUKRATT. 4G5 By Mr. PfERRKPoxT : Q. Now, sir, did the prisoner tell you who any of the other men were ? A. No. I believe he knew nol)ody else on board. Q. Did you know any other man ? ]\Ir. Merrick. Of your own kno w ledge ? A. Yes. AFr. Bradley. Any one who was in conversation with Surratt? "Witness. O, I cannot say who may have been in conversation with him during that ten days. He may have been in conversation with all on board the ship. Mr. Bradley. You did not see him converse with any one else? Witness. I suppose I may state that 1 knew one man personally. Mr. PiERREPONT. Yes. Mr. Bradley objected. i\Ir. I'lERREPONT said it was competent to prove the name of every passenger on board the ship in which the prisoner was. Objection overruled. Witness. There was among the passengers William Cornell Jewett. Mr. Merrick. Otherwise known as "Colorado " ] Witness. Yes, sir; the very man. Q Who else? A. There was also a colored man who had been in the service of Jefferson Davis. Mr. Merrick. How do you know that 1 Witness. He told me so himself. By the District Attorney : Q. Did you hear the prisoner speak of him ? A. No, sir ; the prisoner did not know any one else. This man told me so himself. By Mr. PiERREPONT: Q. Did you know Beverley Tucker ? A. Only from having been introduced to him on that morning of the 16th of September. Mr. Bradley inquired if it was proposed to connect him with the prisoner. Mr. PiERREPONT. That is just what I am trying to bring about. (To witness:) Who introduced you to Beverley Tucker 1 (Question objected to unless iJeverley Tucker is connected with the prisoner. Objection sustained.) Q. Will you tell us where you saw Beverley Tucker on that day ? Question objected to by Mr. Bradley. Objection overruled. A. I met him on the tug going from the steamer Montreal to the steamer Pe- ruvian. Q. Will you state whether he went on board the Peruvian ? A. He did go on the Peruvian, but not to cross. Q. 1 believe you stated that the prisoner went by the name of McCarty ? A. McCarty ; yes, sir. Q. When did you sail ? A. 1 should think about ten in the morning ; T cannot say positively. I know the steamers were in the habit of sailing between nine and ten. Q. When morning came did you notice more particularly the prisoner's mous- tache and hair ? A. After I got on board the steamer I perceived that his hair had been dyed. Q. How about his moustache ? 466 TRIAL OF JOHN n surratt. A. And also his moustacLe ; it was very thin. By the District Attorney : Q. What color 1 A. Dark brown. By Mr. PlERREPONT : Q. What did he wear, if anything, upon his eyes? A. He wore a pair of spectacles. Q. What did he tell you about the spectacles he wore and about his hair ? A. I do not remember that he said anything about his hair. I remember his saying that he did not wear spectacles because he was short-sighted, but because they aided in disguising him a little. Q. Did you have any conversation with him after you got on the steamer behind the wheel-house ? A. I had conversations with him every day from the 16th until we arrived at Londonderry ; that was about nine days. Q. Where did these conversations take place ? A. If I remember right, mostly on what is called the quarter-deck, sometimes behind the wheel-house. Q. Will you tell the jury whether you tried to get to him or whether he seemed to seek you 1 Question objected to by Mr. Merrick as leading and improper. The Court said Avituess could be asked how the conversations came to take place. Q. How did it come to pass ? D;d you seek to go to him or did he seek to come to you ? Question objected to by Mr. Merrick for same reason as last. Objection overruled. Q. Will you state what he said to you about the beginning in relation to a trip to Richmond 1 As I cannot give it all at once, I will ask you to begin with that. Mr. Bradley asked that the witness should be required to go on in narrative form, and state what he knew in relation to the matter. The Court said that was the regular course, but witness was interrupted to wait for counsel to write down the testimony, and it was sometimes necessary to enable him to take up the thread of his narrative to interpose questions. Mr. PiERREPONT remarked that it was also necessary from the fact that the general question called for conversations running through nine successive days ; it was necessary to refer to particular subjects. The Court decided that counsel might proceed, being careful not to put lead- ing questions. Question repeated. A. I remember his saying to me that he had been in the habit for some time during the rebellion of going to Richmond with despatches, and bringing des- patches back to this city, and also to Montreal. Q. Did he tell you what male or female went with him ? Question objected to by Mr. Merrick. The only regular proceeding was to allow the witness to go on and give in narrative form what was said, and not be interrupted by questions. The Court said he would so direct if counsel did not themselves interrupt witness, to enable them to write down his testimony. Q. AVill you tell us what he said about a male or female who went with him 1 Question objected to as leading. Objection sustained by the court. Mr. Pierrepont. I have no objection to the witness being allowed to go on in narrative form, if the counsel will not cut it up by interruptions. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 467 "Witness. I remembor his statiiij^ that he at one time was tohl in ^Montreal that he woukl meet a lady in New York. Counsel for defence again asked witness to suspend to enable him to write down what he had said. The Coi;rt said that counsel must take either one course or the other. They must not interrupt the narrative for this purpose, or they must allow the wit- ness to be directed by questions after each interruption. "Witness proceeded — that he met the woman in New York ; he came on to Washington with her; from AYasIiingtoii he started on the way to Richniond with her and four or five others ; that after a great deal of trouble they man- aged to cross the Potomac ; that after they got south of Fredericksburg they were driven on a platform-car drawn, or pushed, by negroes. As they were drawn along they saw some men coming towards them — five or six if I recol- lect right. They ascertained that these men were Union prisoners, or Union soldiers escaped from southern prisons ; they were, he said, nearly starved to death ; that this woman who was with them said, " Let's shoot the damned Yan- kee soldiers." She had hardly said the word when they all drew their revolvers and shot them, and went right along, paying no more attention to them. By the District Attor.xey : Q. How many ? A. Five or six ; I could not say certainly ; it was not more than six. By Mr. PiERREPO.\T : Q. Did he say what they did with the dead bodies ? A. No ; he said they went along. Q. Did he tell you the name of this woman ? A. He did, but I forget at this distance of time. I could not positively state who she was. Q. Would you know the name if you were to hear it ? A. I would not like to say now what name it was. Q. Do you know the letter of the alphabet it commenced with ? A. I could not say. Q. AVas the name Mrs. Slater ? A. It sounds like it, but I would not be positive that it is. The woman's name was very conspicuous in Montreal during the trial of the St. Albans raid- ers. Q. Conspicuous as what? A. As one of those who went to Richmond to help the raiders in their trial. Q. What did he say to you about whether these men had or had not any arms ? Question objected to by Mr. Bradley as irrelevant and as leading. Objection overruled. Mr. Bradley desired an exception to the ruling to be noted. (4. What further did he say about the condition of these men ? A. I understood him to say they were in a very miserable way ; that they had been obliged to hide themselves in swamps and other places, and 1 under- stood him to say they were almost dead. Q,. What as to arms 1 A. 1 do not recollect whether he said anything as to wliether they were armed or not. (4. Was there anything said about money in this connection? A. Yes. Q. What Avas that ? A. He told me he had received money in Richmond from the Secretary of State, Benjamin, several times. 468 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Did he tell you how much 1 A. I remember two amouuts, 830,000 and 870,000. I do not remember at what times he received them ; he stated particular times. I remember these amounts. Q. Did he tell you the dates when he reached Montreal from Richmond 1 A. I do not remember that he did. All I remember about that is that he was in Richmond a few days previous to its fall ; that is to say, in the week imme- diately previous. Q. Did he give you any account of crossing the Potomac at that time ? If so, state it. Mr. Bradlky desired it to be noted that all this testimony came in subject to his exception. "\VeTi\ess, continuing. I remember his stating one day that there were several of them crossing the Potomac in a boat — it was in the evening, I believe — when they were perceived by a gunboat and hailed. They were ordered to surrender, or else they would be fired upon. They immediately said they would surrender. The gunboat sent a small boat to them ; that they waited until the.gunboat came immediately alongside of them, then fired right into them, and escaped to the shore. Mr. Merrick. The gunboat fired into them, or they fired into the gunboat 1 Witness said he would tell the counsel, and, if he was not deaf, he could Lear, and repeated his answer, adding that Mr. Merrick had insulted witnesses the other day, and that it was the act of a coward and sneak. The Court cautioned the witness that such language was not becoming, but also remarked that it was not becoming in counsel to try to worry witnesses into a bad temper. Witness stated that Mr. Merrick had remarked the other day that all the wit- nesses in the adjoining room ought to goto the penitentiary, or something to that effect ; that he was just as good as Mr. Merrick. Q. What do you know about a telegraph communication down there discov- ered by these parties ? A. I remember one day he said that he v.'as with a regiment of rebel soldiers one evening; that after sunset he and some others went into an orchard or gar- den, close by, to pick some fruit ; that whi'e sitting on the ground tliey heard the ticking of a telegraph, or what they supposed to be a telegraphic machine ; that they went down to the headquarters of the regiment and reported the fact ; that the party in command ordered some soldiers to go to the house connected with the orchard and search it ; that in the garret of the house, in a closet, they found a Union soldier ; that they found he had an underground wire, and was working a telegraph. They took him down, and shot him or hung him, 1 forget which. Q. In passing between Richmond, Washington, and Montreal, did he state anything of the names he took ? and if so, give them. A. I remember he travelled under the names of Harrison, Sherman, and some others I forget. Q. You have named two specific sums. What fui'ther did he say in regard to his having received money from Richmond ? A. He told me so many things that I cannot recollect, at this distance of time, everything he said. All I can eay is he repeatedly told me he received money from Richmond. The only two sums I remember of are thirty thousand and seventy thousand dollars. Q. Will you give us his conversation in reference to landing in England, as connected with our government in any way ? A. I remember the last day he was on board, which was Sunday afternoon, after tea he came to me on the quarter-deck, and said he wished to speak to me. I went with him behind the wheel-house. He repeated to me many things he had already said before, parts of which I have stated here, and the others I do TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT. 469 not recollect. After talking a long time in t\m way, lie sairl, pointing to the coast of Ireland, in sight of which we were then sailing, " Here is a foreign land at last. Then," said he, " I hope I shall be able to retnrn to my country in two years. I hope to God," at the same time holding a revolver in his hand, " I shall live to see the time when I can serve Andrew Johnson as Abraham Lincoln has been served." Q. Did he say anything about what he would do if an English officer, at the request of the United States, should take him in England? A. One day, in talking of the mere possibility of his being arrested in Eng- land, he said he would shoot the first officer who would lay his hand on him. 1 remarked tliat if he did so, he would be shown very little leniency in P^ngland. Said he, " I know it, and for that very reason I would do it, because 1 would rather be hung by an English hangman than by a Yankee one, for I know very well if I go back to the United States I shall swing." The court took a recess until to-morrow at ten a. m. Tuesday, JuJij 2, 1867. The court was opened at 10 o'clock. Mr. Bradley. If your honor please, before wc proceed with the trial of this case, I beg leave to call the attention of the court to an incident which occurred just bc^fore the adjournment yesterday, and to ask that the notes of the reporter may be read. Your honor was very much occupied at the time, and I desire that the record may be read in order that you may see what passed, and what led to the attack made by the witness upon the stand upon the counsel with whom 1 am associated. Your honor, without having heard what passed at that time, if not in precise words yet in substance, censured the counsel to whom these observations were addressed. I think, in looking at it, your honor will see that there was no provocation given ; and that if there was, it is due to the dig- nity of this cnurt, and to the protection of the members of the bar, to which they are entitled at the hands of the court, that some notice should be taken of what then passed. So much of the report of yesterday's proceedings as related to the matter re- ferred to by Mr. Bradley was then read; after which, The Court said : I did not hear what was said yesterday by the witness in regard to the gunboats for the reason that I was at the time occupied in preparing some passes for a friend. When my attention was called to the remark made \ise of by the witness towards the counsel, I was under the impression tliat he had been provoked to it by something that had been said by the counsel. I cannot, however, ))erceive in the record which has been read anything which ought to have called forth, or which justifies, the expression of the wilness. I will say now to the witness, that although Mr. Merrick did say a few days ago, in regard to the witnesses who were in the adjoining room, (which Mr. Bradley had called a penitentiary,) that they (the witnesses) would soon be in another penitentiary, or words to that effect, it is not the privilege of a witness to take exception in the way he did to any remarks made in the court-room, lie may appeal to the court to protect him if he is aggrieved. [Turning to the witness.] You must not hereafter, in your examination, make use of any expres-ions towards counsel which are at all insulting in their character, however much you may feel yourself aggrieved by remarks which they may have made in n-ference to witnesses generally, or in reference to yourself before your examination. lu this connection it may not be improper to observe that I have never, in all my judici;il experience, seen a case in which there has been so much trouble with regard to the examination of witnesses, and so much bitterness of feeling dis- played. It may be all right, but I confess I see no reason why it should be so; 1 cannot, of course, enter into the feelings of counsel, and it is possible they may feel themselves aggrieved, and therefore regard themselves as justified in ex- 470 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. LiLiting this 8i)irit. I will say, further, that I have never seen witnesses cross- examincd with so much asperity as I have in the case now pending. It does not appear to me, therefore, as at all strange that witnesses should be worried into such remarks as this witness has uttered, especially when intimations are pub- licly thrown out hy counsel as to their fitness for the penitentiary, and that, too, when some of the most respectable persons in the land, such, for instance, as Gen- eral Grant and Assistant Secretary Seward, are among the number. And not even Was the effect of the n mark allowed to stop with this intimation, but when attention was called to it by the district attorney, in the hope, I presume, that it would be recalled, it was repeated, and with the additional observation that the propriety of the remark could be shown. When such things occur it is not at all surprising that witnesses should come here prepared to avenge themselves by making insulting replies to counsel. 1 deeply deplore it, and will endeavor, by most carefully observing all that transpires, to prevent a similar recurrence on the part of cither counsel or witness ; but, however watchful the court may be, such things will occasionally break forth at times and under circumstances when, from not expecting, it is impossible for the court to check them. [Again addressing himself to the witness J Dr. Mc^Millan, you are highly reprehensible for having made any such remark as that to which exception has been taken. It was altogether out of place. If you felt yourself aggrieved by any re- mark, you should have called on the court for protection. You will now proceed to give your evidence, and in a manner respectful to the counsel. If the counsel on either side shall treat you with what you conceive to be dis- respect, you will appeal to the court, and the court will intervene for your pro- tection. I would, however, suggest to gentlemen on both sides that in the exami- nation of witnesses, if they will consult Quintilian and Allison in regard to their duty in this respect, (and no doubt they have read the remarks of both of these authors on the subject,) they will find that those writers say nothing is to be gained by a bitterness of manner toward witnesses either on examination in chief or cross- examination, but that everything may possibly be gained by kindness and con- ciliatory manners ; and I think it would be a decided improvement in this case if their suggestions were accepted. In the course of the five years that I was engaged in prosecuting criminal cases, I do not recollect ever to have had an unkind word with a witness on the one side or the other.and never in a civil case except upon one occasion, when a witness of my own turned against me. 'I hen I was led away by a natural quickness of temper. I advise that we should all, to the best of our ability, endeavor to control our tempers in conducting this case ; and then there will be no fear of a repetition of the unpleasant occu.ireuces that have happened during its progress. Mr. JMerkkk. I feel it incumbent upon me to say, after what has fallen from the court, especially as your honor seems to have the impression that 1 intended my remark to ajjply to all the witnesses, including Secretary Seward and Gene- ral Grant, that while your honor misunderstood me in this regard, I do not believe I was misunderstood by some others outside in supposing I intended to embrace all the witnesses in that remark. I will here say that I have the greatest re- spect for General Grant and Mr. Seward, and I apprehend that among the wit- nesses in the case it is perfectly well understood to whom the remark referred, and to whom it did not refer. I apprehend that no sane man can suppose that I meant any such reference to General Grant, Mr. Seward, and Mrs. Seward, and that class of witnesses, I will only say in conclusion, that I think, with- out any further explanation, or more direct pointing of the remark at present, it is perfectly well understood among witnesses to whom the remark referred. The CoLRT. I do not know whether it is understood or not. I cannot under- stand it, because I am bound not to know the witnesses, either as regards their own private character, or the character of their testimony, and I enter into the trial of TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRA.TT. 471 tliisca.«e knowing nothing, as it were, about eitlier, scarcely ever Inning glanced at the testimony, and, of cour.ir. Q. Have you been examined anywhere 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you live in the spring of 1865 ? A. At T. B. Q. What were you doing there 1 A. I was keeping a hotel there. Q. What was the name of it 1 A. The " T. B. Hotel." Q. Do you remember anything that happened there at thut time connected with Herold? A. Yes, sir. Q. Tell us what it was. A. Herold came there some time in March ; I do not know what time it was in March, 1865. Q. What uid he bring with him ? A. A sword, a couple of carbines, and a couple of double-barrel guns, Q. Anything else ? A. I remember nothing except a revolver. Q. Nothing else? A. Nothing else that I know of. Q. Who came with him] A. Nobody, at all. Q. What did he come in? A. He came in a buggy. Q. What did he do with those arms ? A. He put them in the bar-room until the next morning. Q. What did he tell you ? A. He told me he was going down on the Patuxent river shooting ducks. Q. Did lie tell you he expected anybody there that night ? A. Yes, sir ; he said he ex])ected John Surratt there. Q. What did he do in the night? A. Nothing, at all. He came there about 8 o'clock ; our supper was over, 516 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. and ordered supper. Thej had supper prepared for liim, and he afterwards went to bed. Q. Did Surratt come there that night 1 A. No, sir. Q. What happened the next morning ? A. The next morning, he got up, took his guns, and came back towards "Wash- ington. Q. Do you know which road he took ; the roads fork this side of your place, do they not ? A. I do not know which way he took. Q. Does one road go to Surrattsville ? A. One road goes to Surrattsville, and the other to Piscataway. Q. You do not know which road he took ? A. I do not. Q. Did anybody go away with him 1 A. Not a soul. Q. Did you know Atzerodt ? A. I knew him. Q. When did you see him there 1 A. The last of February or first of March, 1865 ; I do not recollect which. Q. When did you see Surratt there ? A. I never saw him there, in INIarch, that I know of. Q. When did you see him there 1 A. He passed my nlace the 3d of April. Q. Did he stop ? A. He stopped while the stage was changing horses. Q. Did you speak with him ? A. I may have spoken to him. Do not recollect distinctly. I think I did speak to him. Q Did you see Atzerodt there that day ? A. No, sir. Q. Did Atzerodt stop there, at any time, at your house ? A. No, sir ; he never staid over night at my house. Q. How long did he stay there ? A. The last time he was there, he staid, I suppose, a half hour, or three- quarters of an hour. Q. What time was that ? A. I do not recollect the date. It was some time in March. Q. After the 3d of April you did not see him there ? A. No, sir ; I do not think I did ; I have no recollection that I did. Q. On the 25ih of 3Iarch, do you remember anything that occurred 1 A. No, sir ; I do not. Q. Did you see Surratt that day in a buggy ? A. No, sir ; I do not recollect that I did. Q, On the 26th did you ? A. 1 do not recollect. Q. When did you see him ? A. On the 3d of April. Q. Which way was he going 1 A. He was going towards Washington. Q. Did you know from what point he came 1 A. I did not. Q. Did he tell you anything about it? A. Not a word. Q. Do you know how long he stopped at that time ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. 517 A. Long enough to change horses and the passengers to get their dinner. I suppose half an liour. Q. What coach was it ? A. The mail coach — coach belonging to me. Q. AVhere did the coach come from ? A. The coach came from Charlotte Hall. The mail came from Leonard town that morning. Q. Where from the Potomac was that ? A. It leaves Briton's bay. Q. That bay runs into the Potomac ? A. Yes, sir; it connects with the Potomac. William S. Thompson recalled and examined. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. Can you give us the date at which Herold was a clerk in your store ? A. From the 1st of March, 1863, until the 4th day of July following. Q. State whether Mr. Lincoln obtained his medicines there during that time. A. Yes, sir ; he did. Q. Do you know whether Herold put up any for him ? A. I have examined my books and blotter, to ascertain, as nearly as possible, whether Herold mixed any medicines for him during that time. I find only one article charged by Herold. Q. Then you have no other means of knowing. [Mr. Bradley said he could not see the relevancy of this testimony, and de- sired it to be received subject to his objection. Mr. Pierrepont said he would endeavor to make it relevant.] A. I have no other means of knowing. Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley: Q. Does it follow because the charge was in Herold's handwriting, that he put the medicine up ? A. Not necessarily ; no, sir. Q. What is the date at which the medicine was put up ? A. June 22, 1863 — a small vial of castor-oil. Q. What other clerks had you in the store at that time ? A. I had two others — Clinton M. Sears and Charles McGlue. Q. Where is Sears at this time ? A. He is dead. Q. Where is McGlue 1 A. He is engaged in a store now on Seventh street, in this city. Q. In business for himself or as a clerk ] A. As a clerk. Q. For whom 1 A. In a drug store on Seventh street, opposite Taylor's, k(;pt I believe by a man by the name of Cassin. Andrew Kaluenbach, residence Washington, sworn and examined. By the District Attorney : Q. Do you know a place called Surrattsville, in Prince George's county, Maryland 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. How far is it from here? A. About ten miles from the Navy Yard bridge. Q. Do you know John M. Lloyd ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recollect being there some time in the spring of 1865 ? A. Yes, sir. 518 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. State if at that time you recovered any fire-arm there ; and if so, state the circumstances under which you recovered it. A. Yes, sir ; I found a fire-arm there ; I lived there then. It was ahout the 25th of April, 1865, or somewhere thereabouts. I found it in the partition be- tween the plastering. Q. What did you find 1 A. I found a carbine. It had a covering over it. Q. Describe in what part of the house it was. A. It was between the dining-room, in the main house, and the kitchen, wMch was attached to the main building. Q. Was it concealed ? A. It was right between the plastering in the partition wall. Q. Describe fully to the jury the examination you made, and what you dis- covered at that time. A. There were detectives there. I am not certain what date it was ; some- where about the 25th of April. (This examination objected to by Mr. Bradley as irrelevant, unless intended to contradict the witness, Lloyd, and the prosecution could not contradict its own witnesses. The district attorney said the witness need not state what Mr. Lloyd told Lim.) A. This detective was there on that night. He told me there was a fire-arm there, and said I must find it. This detective and myself went in search of it, and after searching for it for some time I found it. Q. Tell the jury how you found it, where it was concealed, and everything about it. A. I took a hatchet, knocked the plastering loose, and found it between the partitions. After I found it, I went for this detective before I removed it at all. He took it in his possession and carried it oflf. Q. Who was this detective 1 A. His name was George Cottingham, a government detective, at that time stationed dowu there. Q. State liow it was you happened to go to that particular place, and find it. A. It was by the direction of Mr. Lloyd. Q. Would you know that carbine if you were to see it again? A. I did not examine it particularly. It had a cover over it ; a light and a dark cover. Q. Did you take the cover off? A. Only a part of it — enough to show the breech of the gun. Q. Can you say what kind of a carbine it was 1 A. I do not know the name of it. Q. How often did it shoot 1 A. I do not know ; I did not examine it. Q. When did you receive the information from Mr. Lloyd that the gun was there ? (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley, but the objection subsequently with- drawn.) A. About the 25th of April. Q, Where were you when when you received it ? A. I was at Surrattsville, at the house. Q. In what room 1 A. I was in the dining room at that time, attending to Mr Lloyd's fiimily. They were sick at that time, and asked me to attend to them for Mr. Lloyd, iu his absence. Q. Was Mr. Lloyd there at that time? A. He came there that night. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 519 Q. Was Af r. Lloyd in the room at the time you received the information where the carbine was concealed ? A. Yes, sir ; he was in the room at that time. Q. Look at that carbine, [carbine with cover on exhibited to witness,] and state whether that is the one you found. A. That is the one we found ; or at least the cover is the one, and the rope. Q. Examine carefully, and see if you can state with certainty. A. I think it is the same one. It is the same cover, the same rope, the same washer, and a similar gun. I could not say it was the same gun. Q. As far as you now recollect making an examination, does it resemble that gun, in all resj)ects ? A. Yes, sir ; a similar gun. If it is not the one, it is one exactly like it. Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley : Q. I understand you to say a detective came there that night — the 25th of April — about that time, and said there was a gun there tliat must be found. A I was informed that it was secreted there, and he told me I was to find it. Q. Then you got the information from Mr. Lloyd where you were to look for it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And' then you broke through the partition Avith a hatchet and found the gun? A. Yes, sir. Q. Which was the same description of gun as that ? A. Yes, sir. Abra.m B. Olin, associate justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierbepo.nt : Q. Were you in Washington city on the night^of the murder of the Pres- ident ? A. I was here ; yes, sir. Q. AV^ere you at the theatre the next morning after I A. No, sir ; I was at the theatre that evening, and I was at the theatre, I think, Sunday morning. The assassination was on Friday night, according to my recollection. Q. Will you tell us what you discovered in that box where the President was murdered ? A. I perhaps might not improperly say that I saw a report tliat the President had been shot through a door, and I commenced taking preliminary examina- tions in reference to this matter. I went there personally, in company with Senator Harris and Miss Harris. Rathbone, who was with them at tlie time of the murder, was disabled by his wound from going there. I went there to ex- amine the premises personally to be able to understand as much testimony as was applicable to the particular transaction. When I got into the theatre, I ex- amined this hole in the door. If you can see this panel (illustrating by a panel of the desk,) I can represent it about as well as any other way by saying that it would correspond with a hole placed right here, right on the corner of the panel. You would scarcely notice it unless your attention was drawn to it. Placing your eye to the hole, it was about the height a person would occupy sitting in a chair inside. I saw that it was bored witli a gimlet, and that a pen- knife had been used to take off the rough surface. The shavings and chips from that hole were still on the carpet, which had not been cleaned, and could be seen as you entered the box. I saw, too, that the entrance into this box from the body of the house was closed by a bar when shut at an angle, and 520 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. some person had taken occasion to cut into the plastering of the wall a place into which the end fitted ; and with the bar placed in it and the other end against the door, any person pressing against it from the outside, the stronger he would press, the tighter the fastening would become. The plastering cut from that hole was also lying at that time on the carpet, as you went into the box of the theatre. I delivered over the preliminary examinations I had made to the War Department, and that ended my connection with the matter. Q. "What did you find in reference to the condition of the staple on the door that held the door lock 1 A. The staple of the lock to the door went into a hasp with screws at each end. The screw at one end had been loosened in such a way that if you shut tlie door and locked it — I tried the experiment once or twice — you could push it open ; you could take one of your fingei'S and push the door open although locked. One of the screws, the upper one, I think, had been screwed out in such a way that the door would open without any resistance, and without creat- ing any disturbance, if locked. Q. You tried the experiment ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would any person, when the door was thus locked, have noticed that such was the condition ot it, unless his attention was drawn to it ? A. O, no ; you saw nothing of that on the outside, and you would not see it on the inside without a careful inspection. It was just a little loosened, to that extent that the door could open when gently pressed against. Q. Then the shavings from the wall and from the hole cut out of the door were all on the carpet ? A. Yes, sir. Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley : Q. Do you recollect whether you could see inside that box without a light, whether you did not have to take a light 1 A. We had a light, but you could possibly see without it. I requested a light to be obtained in order to examine as carefully as I could. Q. Do you recollect how you got in there ? A. Yes, sir; I recollect how I got in. I do not know how you could get into the box, except by going through the body of the theatre and into the little hall, for there is a kind of hall, according to my recollection, five or ten feet in length, into which the door shuts at an angle and opens back. It is a dark passage and is not lighted anywhere except from the body of the theatre or from the box itself. Q. You were there in broad daylight ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know whether the windows were thrown open so as to let in a light from the outside when you were there 1 A. I recollect very well that although I think you could see pretty well, you could not see as well as I wanted to with the light through the passage. Walter H. Coleman, residence Washington city, sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. What is your business 1 A. I am at the head of a division in the office of the Secretary of the Trea- sury, one of the financial divisions. Q. How long have you been there 1 A. Since 1864. Q. Do you know George W. Cushing ? A. Yes, sir ; he used to be a room-mate of mine. Q. Were you with him anywhere on the day of the assassination ? TRIAL OF JOHN 11. SURRATT. 521 A. Yes, sir ; the day of the assassination, after dinner, we walked up Penn- sylvania avenne. Q. Did you know Booth before that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Huw well by sight did you know him 1 A. As well as I know any one by sight. Q. Did you see him that night 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you describe where you saw him, what he was doing, and what you saw ? A. We were on Pennsylvania avenue between Tenth and Eleventh streets, going towards Willards'. We looked around and at first we noticed a very nice little horse, and a person was standing a few feet from him in the gutter. Wo stopped first to look at the horse ; then we noticed the rider, and I said to Mr. Cushiug " Ihere is Booth, is he not 1" I looked then again and saw that it was. We remarked the pallor of his countenance. Mr. Bradley. You need not state any conversation that passed between you and Mr. Gushing. There was a little conversation. He was sitting on his horse with his face towards us, and was leaning over talking very earnestly with a man who stood on the curbstone. This was about 6 o'clock in the evening. I recollect taking out my watch to look at it. Q. What was the style of his conversation, as to earnestness or otherwise ? A. He was bendiug very low. He was sitting with their two heads very nearly together. He appeared to be talking very earnestly. Q. Did you notice anything in the expression of his face ? A. Yes, sir; his face was very pale — as pale as if he had got up from a sick bed. Q. Were any remarks made upon that subject at that time ? (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley.) Q. You need not state what the remarks were. Simply state whether the fact excited conversation an the subject. A. His paleness was such as led us to remark upon it. Q. Describe the man he was talking with ? A. He was a man of ordinary size. Q. Young or old 1 A. He appeared to be a young man. Q. How dressed 1 A. He was dressed in a suit of gray clothes, with a low-crowned hat — a black felt lint — on. Q. Have you ever seen that man since, before to-day, that you know of? A. No, sir. Q. Have you seen anybody to-day that bears any resemblance to him ? A. 1 would like the prisoner to stand up and turn side wise. (Prisoner stood up and turned round.) He certainly looks like that man. Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley : Q. Has your attention ever been drawn to the prisoner before this morning ? A. In what way? [Mr. Bradley. In any way.] A. 1 knew that he was on trial. Q. I mean as to personal observations ? A. No, sir ; not that I know of. Q. You think he is about medium height ? A. 1 think as I saw the man stand on the sidewalk, he looks about the height 34 522 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUREATT. of that man (pointiDg to the prisoner.) You will recollect the sidewalk or curb- stone Avliere he was standing was a little depressed. Q. Where were you ] A. We were on the crosswalk which crosses the avenue at Eleventh street. Q. Could you form some idea whether this man was above medium height ■when you saw the man on horseback leaning overto talk to him. A. Yes, sir. Q. And you think he was about medium height ? A. I think, so. Q. You think the prisoner is about medium height 1 A. Yes, sir; I think so. I think he is about the height of the man I saw, Q. And that is about medium height 1 A. Yes, sir ; that is what I understand. Q. Did you hear Booth and the person he was conversing with say anything? A. xso, sir ; 1 did not. Q. Did you pass them 1 A Yes, sir; they were standing still, heading towards Willards'. We passed them on the way to Willards' and stopped and looked back. Q. How near the corner ? A. It was about opposite the rubber store of Allen, Clapp & Co., who used to be there, between Tenth and Eleventh streets. Q. It was not exactly on the avenue, then, but on the street that turns up from the avenue. Blanchard & Mohun's store is on the corner is it not ? A. Yes, sir ; I think D street passes down by McGuire's store. Then there is a little triangular space between D street and the avenue proper. This was at about the poiut of the wedge where they were standing. Q. And you were on the crossing leading across D street ? A Ygs sir. Q. And they were on the sidewalk which would bring you forty or fifty feet of them ? A. Oh, no, sir; I think it would not be as far as that. Q. You did not hear any remark made by them ? A. No, sir. Q. You never saw the prisoner since then until to-day ? A. No, sir. Q. AVhen you came into court to-day did you recognize him ? A. I had some doubts and have still. I would not like to swear positively " that he is the man. Still I have a strong impression that he was. Q. Did not you ask a gentleman here which was ihe prisoner, when you came into court, in our hearing 1 A. 1 do not know whether you could hear. I certainly did ask. I did not know in what part of the room the prisoner was, Q. Did not you ask to have the prisoner pointed out to you? A. Certainly, I did. I did not know in what [m-i of the room the prisoner was sitting. 1 might ask the same question about you, not knowing in what part of the room }ou were sitting, although I kunw you. Q. After looking at the prisoner carefully, when you were here, did not you say in our hearing that you could not recognize him ? A. I did not say that loud enough lor you to bear. I said I had doubts about it. Q. And you say you still have doubts ? A. 1 would not like to swear positively that he is the man ; but after looking a second time and seeing him stand up, I think he looks very much like the man. TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 523 George "W. Cushivg, jr., residence Washington, sworn and examined. By ^Ir. PlERREPo.XT : Q. Where are you employed ? A. At the Treasury Department. Q. In what department of the Treasury ? A. Second Auditor's oliice. Q. How many years have you been there ? A. Since 1861. Q. On the day of the assassination of the President, state where you were in company , if so) with Mr. Coleman. A. After dinner on the 14th of April, 1865, we took a walk up the avenue, about 6 o'clock. When we were passing about Tenth or Eievfiilh street, Mr. Coleman turned round and began noticing a horse. I turned round. He says to me, "That is Booth, aint it? " Said I. "Yes." We stood and looked at the horse a moment and wtnit on. Q. AVhat was Booth doing i A. The horse was standing still. Booth was on horseback, and he was leaning over the horse's neck talking very earnestly to a man. He appeared to be talking very earnestly, indeed. Q. What was the look of his face? A. He looked as if he had been sick. Q. Did his looks excite remark ? A. Not from me. 1 think .Mr. Coleman noticed that he had been sick, ot something of that sort. Q. Did it excite remark by some of yon? A. 1 believe we both noticed that he was sick. Mr. Coleman made some remark to me about it. (Prisoner stood up and turned round, at the request of counsel.) Q Does he (the prisoner) look like the man yon saw talking with Booth? A. The man I saw talking with Booth was a young man. I do not know that he resembles the prisoner very much. My attention was directed to Booth at the time. Q. You state that your attention was directed particnlarly to Booth ? A. In an.-iwer to Mr. Coleman's inquiry whether that was Booths I looked at Booth, stood a moment and went on with my walk. (4. You did not give much attention to the man he was talking with? A. No, sir ; none at all. Mrs. Makv Bra.xsox, residence Baltimore, sworn and examined. By ^Ir. PlERREPONT: Q In 1865, where did you live? A. 1 lived at No 16 Eutaw street, Baltimore. Q. Did you see, while tlie trials of the conspirators were going on in Wash- ington a man called Lewis Payne 1 A. I did. Q. Will you state whether in January, 1865, and for som.e time after that, this same man Payne boarded at your house? A. He boarded at my house in Jatuuiry. Q. How long did he continue after January? A. He staid with me about six weeks. Q. Did you know wheie he went then? A. I did not. Q. Did you see anybody visit him while he Avas tliPre ? A. No, sir; no one called on him while he was-there that I know of. Q. Ue lived there quietly, did he 1 524 TRIAL 01' JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Yes ; I kept a boarding-house, and gentlemen were passing backwards and forwards in the house. George S Koontz, sworn and examined. By the Assistant Distrjct Attorney : Q. You are the general agent of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, and have been for several years ? A. Yes, sir ; I have been in the service of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, in this city, since April, 1862. Q. In what capacity ? A. As general agent of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. Q. State to the jury at what time the passenger trains for Baltimore left Washington the morning after the assassination. A. Several of them left on time, 1 believe. Q. Give the hours, if you please 1 A. The first train left at 6.15 in the morning, the next at 7.30 ; the third at 8.30, I think. I do not remember if either of the trains was started after that iu the morning. Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley : Q. State whether they went through to Baltimore or not, and what time they went through. A. They were detained on the road, at the Relay House, by order of General Tyler, who was iu command of that post at that time. Q. For how long ? A. The early trains were detained several hours. I do not know the precise number of hours. Q. State whether they had any guard on the cars when they left here, whether any detectives were on board, and what precautions were used, and what instructions you received from the military. A. I was aroused very early that morning by an officer of General Augur's staff, who directed me, by command of General Augur, not to start any train from Washington until further orders. I went back with him to the depot, and gave directions that no trains should leave. When the hour arrived for the 6.15 train to start, they concluded it might go. It was thoroughly searched by officers of General Augur's staff and by men who claimed to be detectives, and guards were placrd on each platform of each car. Q. State whether with each of these morning trains any connection was made at Baltimore with trains going north. A. They did not make regular connections. Q. At what time is the 6.15 train due in Baltimore? A. At 8 o'clock. Q. Have you official information as to what time it actually arrived there ? A. I do not remember the hour of its arrival iu Baltimore. I have the record at my office. It was several hours after time. Q. Can you state whether or not the first three trains which were delayed at the Relay House went together on to Baltimore ? A. I do not think they went together to Baltimore. They arrived shortly after each otlier. Q Did you yourself accompany and assist in the search of the train before it staitcd from Washington ? A. I did. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. You are quite sure the train which left Washington that morning did not connect with the first train from Baltimore ; it did not reach there on time, and could not have connected if that train left on time ? A. !No, sir. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 525 By Mr. Bradlky : Q. State whether any of your own family were not detained that morning, A. Yes, sir ; my chiklren were in Frederick. They came from Frederick, having been sent for. 1 telegraphed for my sister to bring them home. They were stopped at the Relay House by direction of General Tyk-r. There was a train to be started from the Relay House with soldiers, and I telegraphed to General Tj'ler requesting him to allow my children to come, as they were sick. He knew me very well and I thought he would grant tne that favor; but he declined to do so. He said his orders were positive, and he had to obey them. Q. AVhat time did they reach here ? A. My children reached here i» the course of the afternoon. Q. What time were they due ? A. They were due at 10 20 or 11.30, in the forenoon. I do not recollect with w^hich of these trains the Frederick train connected at the Relay House. Bv Mr. PiERREPONT : Q. At what time in the month — what day of the month — was it that your children reached here 1 A. The morning of the assassination — the morning I was called on by this officer. Q. That was the loth of April ? A. The 15th, sir. Q. These circumstances you have mentioned make it perfectly certain that the train that left here did not reach Baltimore in time to connect with the train for the north ? A. Yes, sir ; unless the connecting trains were held over for the arrival of our trains to Baltimore. Thomas Lincoln sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. You are a son of the late President Lincoln 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you with your father down at City Point in March, 1865 ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where were you — in a house or on a steamboat 1 A. On a steamboat. Q. Were you with him during the time he was there ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember anybody coming to the steamer and asking to speak to him. A. Yes, sir. Q. What did the man say ? A. He said he would like to see the President. (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley. Objection overruled.) Q. Did he tell you where hi' cauie from ? A. Yes ; he said from Springfield. Q. What further did he say ? A. He said he would like to see the President on particular business. Q. State the mode of his saying it : whether be urged it. A. Yes, sir; he wanted to see him " real bad." Q. State whether he tried more than once to pass in where he was. A. He tried twice, I believe. Q. State whether they would allow him to see the President. A They would not. Q. Do you see the man here who tried to see the President ? (Prisoner made to stand up.) 526 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. He looked very much like him. Q. Like the prisoner. A. Yes, sir. Mr. Bradley desired an exception to be noted to the ruling of the court ad- mitting the testimony of this witness. The court here took a recess for half an hour. AFTERNOON SESSION. Friday, July 5, 1S67. On reasseiribling after the recess, the district attorney said : I desire to state to your honor that there are only two additional items of testimony that we propose to offer to the jury — one in reference to the state of the moon on the night of the assassination, and the other a cipher letter, the translation of which is published in Pitman's report of the trial be- fore the military commission, page 42. Probably Mr. Bradley will admit it as it is there reported ; if he does we will close the case ; if not, we will have to ask the court to indulg'e us until Mr. Duell, by whom we propose to prove it, comes in. li the gentlemen think it is not evidence they can make that point before the court now in the absence of the witness just as well if he were here. Mr. Merrick. We do not feel ourselves authorized to admit anything with regard to such a transaction. Mr. Bradley. We want to see Mr. Duell. Mr. Merrick. We want to have him here in order that we may talk to him. The District Attorney. I believe it is agreed that the almanac may be handed in at any time before the defence offer their proof to show when the moon rose on the night in question, and what was its condition as to its being full or not. Mr. Merrick. I think the only satisfactory exposition of that matter would be the presence of a scientific man here, who arranges these matters for the government. Mr. Bradley. Mr. William Q. Force, from the Smithsonian, might be sum- moned. Mr. Merrick. Or Professor Henry, of that Institution, who could not only furnish reliable information regarding the condition of the moon at that time, but also as regards the state of the weather. Mr. PiERREPo.XT. I suppose any almanac published in 1805 is a proper thing to be put in evidence, provided we are able to agree upnn some particular one. I understand it to be a principle of the common law that we may read any history or almanac, because the court will take judicial notice of the move- ments of the heavenly bodies, and the manner in which they are recorded by any person who thinks proper to write on the subject. The Court. 1 will read here, for the benefit of whom it may concern, part of the 5th section, chapter II, 1st volume of Greeuleaf on evidence. Speakii7g of matters which are recognized in courts of common law jurisdiction among all civilized nations, it is said: "Neither is it necessary to prove things which must have happened according to the ordinary course of nature, nor to prove the course then of the heavenly bodies, nor the ordinary public fasts and festivals, nor the coincidence of days of the week with the day of the month." I presume that the movement of the moon is the movement of a heavenly body. That is all I know about it. Mr. PiERREPONT. I now pmpose to read from this almanac the time of the rising of the moon, and the time when it was at its full on the night of the 14th of April, 1865. Mr. Bradley objected to the reading. Objection overruled. Exception re- served. TRIAL OF JOHN II. SUERATT. 527 Mr. Merrick. I understood your honor to decide that it was not neces- sary to prove it. The Court. It is not. Mr. Merrick. Then it is not necessary to read it now. Mr. PiERRKPONT. I want to read it to the jury, in order that they raay appre- ciate the evidence on the subject. Mr. Merrick. The court says it not necessary to prove it. The Court. It woukl be better for you to refer to it in your argument. Mr. Merrick. That is the way I understand it. Mr. PiERREPo.XT. I supposed I would also have aright to read it to the jury before I came to the arjrument. The Court. No, sir. Mr. Pierrepoat. Your honor, then, will take notice of the fact that the moon on the tiight of the 14th of April, 1S65, rose in Washington at 9.59, and was then within two d&ys of its full. Mr. Bradley. I would ask your honor whether that is in evidence to the jury or not. The Court. I do not admit that book, but I will state that the court does not intend that this jury shall go from this box without knowing at what hour the moon rose. Mr. Bradley. I smply want to understand where we are now. The Court. That book I do not admit in evidence, for I do not know that it is an almanac. Mr. Merrick. Nor do I understand your honor to say that it is competent for the gentleman to slate now as a matter of fact and evidence to the jury that the moon rose at such i time. Mr. Bradley. I understand your honor, then, to rule that there is no evidence offered on that subject. That what has been stated by the gentleman is not evidence, and therefore, if counsel comment upon it, they do not do so as evidence, but as a matter of whic'i notice may be taken. Mr. PiERREPo.N'T. We will get the moon up somehow before the jury. Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir; and we will get it down. Mr. PiERREPOiVT. I now propose to call a witness with regard to this cipher letter. Frederick H. Hall, sworn and examined. By Mr. Pierrepo\t : Q. Where were you employed during the war, or towards the latter part of it? A. In the war office under either Mr. Stanton or Mr. Dana, assistant Secretary of War Q. Have you had experience in deciphering ciphers ? A. I have. Q. Will yon be kind enough to look at the cipher letter before you, and then state wh'jther you are able to decipher it, to state what the contents of the letter are, in P^nglisa ? Mr. Bradley. I object. The Court. The witness can go on and state wliat his translation of the letter is, but the letter will not be allowed to be put in evidence before the jury until it is connected with the prisoner at the bar. Mr. Perrepo.xt. We propose to show by the man who f)und this letter that it was found in North Carolina. It shows on its face that it is in cipher. We want to •ihow by the testimony of experts that this cipher is in the handwriting of one of these conspirator.-. These six conspirators form a corporate body, and their twelve hands, and their six heads, act together, and you cannot separate them. 528 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT Mr. Bradley. If the gentleman will say that he intends to prove this paper to be in the handwriting of any one of the conspirators, I withdraw all objection. Mr. PiERREPONT. I do Dot Say of the prisoner, but of one of the six con- spirators, Mr. Bradley. Precisely. With that assurance I withdraw the objection. Examination resumed by Mr. Pierrepo.\t. Q. Are you able to decipher the letter that has been handed you ? A. I am. Q. Have you translated it ? A. I have. Q. Will you read the translation ? Witness then read as follows : " Washlxgton, Ap'-il the 15, 1865. " Dear Johx : I am happy to inform you that Pet has done his work well- He is safe and Old Abe is in hell. Now, sir, all eyes are on you. You must bring Sherman. Grant is in the hands of Gray ere this. Ked Shoes showed a lack of nerve in Seward's case. But he fell back in good order. Johnson must come. Old Crook has him in charge. Mind well that brother's oath and you will have no difficulty. All well. Be safe and enjoy th^ fruits of our labor. We had a large meeting last night. All were bent on carrying out the program to the letter. The rails are laid our safe exit. Old, always behind, lost the pass at City Point. Noav I say again the lives of our brave officers and the life of the South depends upon the carrying this program into effect. No. two will give you this. Its ordered. No more letters shall be sent by mail ; when you write sign no real name, and send by some of our friends who are coning home. We want you to write us how the news was received there. We receive great encourage- ment from all quarters. I hope there will be no getting weak in the knees. I was in Baltimore yesterday. Pet had not got there yet. Your folks are well and have heard from you. Don't lose vour nerve. " O'B. NO. FIVE. Q. What is the date of that letter % A. There is no terminal date. Only, " Washington, ipril 15, 1 865." There is no punctuation to this, except in one or two cases. The sense supplies that. Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley. Q. There are no ciphers for four letters in there, I see, "Q," " Y," " X," "Z." A. No, sir. ■- Q. Did you ever see that cipher letter before to-day ? A. Yes, sir; in April, 1865. Q. Did you then make a translation of it ? A. I read it. Q. Did you make a translation of it % A. No, sir. Q. Who did translate it % A. I think Mr. Duell made the translation which was read at ihe conspiracy trials. Q. Did you dictate it ? A. No, sir. The letter was shown to me by Major Burnett, who was one of the judge advocates, and I read it, but simply for my own instruction. Q. Did Mr. Duell show you his translation ? A. No, sir. Q. Who did show it to you ? A. Nobody. Q. You never saw the translation ] A. Oh, yes, sir. I have seen it in the printed book. Q. Have you read it to-day ? i A. Yes, sir. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 529 A. Will you please arrange the alphabet of this cipher letter on this slip of paper ? A. I will. Witness did so as follows : A 1 J : S s Bb K ; • Tt C 8 L 7 U5 D + U .... V E 2 N . . . W CO F : 04 X G 9 P T Y 5 H :. Q Z I I 11 . r The court here took a recess until to-morrow (Saturday) morning, at 10 o'clock. Saturday, July 6, 1867. The court met at 10 o'clock a. m. The DisiTRiCT Attorn KY stated that he had used every exertion to procure the attendance of Mr. Duell as a witness, but that for some renson he was not in Court. He proposed therefore now to close the case on the part of the prosecu- tion, reserving the right, with the consent of counsel for the defence, to examine this witness upon a single point, if he should subsequently appear. Mr. Bradley said he did not assent to that proposition. Mr. PiKRRKPO.XT remarked that it was a matter within the discretion of the court. The CoL'RT said the regular order in presenting the case was for the prosecu- tion to present their side and conclude, and then for the other side to present theirs. The District Attorney said the chief justice of this court in certain cases had allowed persons to be called as wit;nesses for the prosecution after the other side had commenced its case. He believed it would be the exercise of a proper discretion on the part of the court to allow the same thing to be done in reference to this witness. He would not, however, make the application now, but reserving the right to make it hereafter if it should become necessary, he now closed the case on the part of the government. Mr. Bradley desired the witness Susan Ann Jackson to be recalled for fur- ther cross-examination. He understood the district attorney distinctly to assent to the recall for further cross-examination of any witnesses who might be in the city, and the notes of the reporter, who was an officer of the court, would bear him out in that statement. The agreement, however, was S])ecifically made as to Susan Ann Jackson, John Lee, and Khoads, as to whom there was no differ- ence of opinion, and who they now desired to have recalled for further cross- examination. Mr. Pierrepont said the discussion arose on the case of Lee, and that there was no such agreement as to him. At the request of ^Iv. Aferriek the reporter of the court read his short-hand notes of tlie discussion on the motion of the defence to recall certain witnesses on the morning of June 20th, for the purpose of showing that the district attor- ney on that occasion assented to the recall for further cross-examination of any witnesses in attendance, and remarked that the agreement, as the report showed, was general as to witnesses being in the city or in attendance upon court, and that the case of Susan Ann Jackson was a special application of the general consent given. 530 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. The Court said that the oflfer so made by the district attorney was not ac- cepted by the defence at the time. Mr. Merrick replied that the defence did not refuse to accept the general consent. Mr. PfERREPONT denied that any general consent was given, or that any consent at all was given, except in the case of Susan Ann Jackson, and as the district attorney subsequently informed him, in the case of llhoads. These witnesses would be recalled whenever the defence required. He stated to counsel, however, that whenever these witnesses were recalled he should further examine them in chief. Mr. Bradley moved to strike out the testimony relating to Jacob Thompson. It would be recollected that the evidence was admitted only upon the condition that Jacob Thompson should be connected by aliunde proof with this case. The prosecution had closed its testimony without making any such connection, and he therefore moved to strike out the testimony. Mr. Pierrepont said what he had stated he could prove in relation to Thomp- son v/as in connection with tlie disbursement of money, and for that purpose he desired to show who Jacob Thompson was. He had proved that the prisoner took $100,000 of this money from Richmond, and had therefore made the con- nection which he had promised. Mr. Bradley insisted that no such frhna facie case as the rule required, con- necting this party with the conspiracy, had been made. The Court ruled that the question should be held in reserve until the testi- mony had been presented on both sides. Mr. Bradley said then he understood the testimony on this point to be re- ceived subject to their exoeptiou. He wished also to call attention to the state- ments of the witness McMillan, purporting to give certain revelations made to him by the prisoner about the killing of Union soldiers, the shooting of people while crossing the Potomac river, and the killing of the telegraph operator. He understood this testimony was to be ruled out unless connected by proof aliunde with the alleged conspiracy. Mr. PiERREPONT said if he did not show it was connected with this case he did not desire the evidence. Mr. Bradley said he understood the court to make the same ruling in rela- tion to this evidence as in that in reference to Jacob Thompson. The Court assented. Mr. Bradley then called attention to the North Carolina cipher letter, and s'aid he understood it to be conceded that was not in the case. Mr. Fierrepont said it was so conceded unless further evidence was intro- duced in reference to it by the witness, to whom reference had been made. The Court said he understood the prosecution had closed their case with the understanding that it was without prejudice to their application to introduce an- other witness, if they could convince the court of the propriety of admitting such evidence after the defence had commenced its case. As regards the other evidence referred to, the question of what should be stricken out would be held for future consideration. Mr. Bradley desired an exception to the above ruling to be noted. Mr. ]\Ierri< k asked at what time in the progress of the case the question of striking out the testimony would be determined'? The Court replied — any time before the jury get possession of the case. Mr. Joseph H. Bradley, jr., then opened the case for the defence as follows : May it please your honor, and gentlemen of the jury, we have at last arrived at that stage of this case when an opportunity is afforded the prisoner for say- ing something by way of defence, not only of his own character, his own repu- tation, his life, and his honor, but also, as it shall rise incidentally in the discus- TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 63 L sion of this evidence before you, something in the way of viudicatiug the pure fame of his departed mother. i'erhaps no case has ever arisen in the annals of any country, presenting more extraordinary features than the one which you have under coa.sideration. Per- haps no jury was ever called on to discharge a higher, a more difficult, a more sacred duty than is yours. Surely, gentlemen, our confidence in you is not mis- placed in believing you will do justice, and entire justice, irrespective of rank, position, station, or of the parties interested in the issues of this case — and 1 may be permitted here to congratulate you that you are acceptable, not only to the defence, but you also have the indorsement of the learned gen- tlemen who ri-present the government. You will recollect that iu the early stage of this case it took us one week to get a jury. We were willing to take any twelve honest men iu this District ; to lay our case before them a.ul trust it in their hands — to take any twenty-six men, drawn in the ordinary way, and allow the gentlemen for the prosecution to strike off their number, we strike off ours, and empanel those who remained as the jury belorewhom we might present our case. All these propositions, however, failed. The k-arned gentle- men on the other side resisted every application of this sort, except one, which failed through no fault on our part. They would accept no proposition as a compromise, and they succeeded in satisfying the mind of his honor that it was his duty to reject the jury then summoned — men as honest as yourselves — on the ground that they were not summoned according to law, and we are therefore under the necessity of calling upon you to render your aid and wisdom iu this matter. 1 see before me represented not only the commonwealth itself, but men who represent the social interests of this District — its material wealth, its intelligence, and its honesty — men who in this case have a double duty to perforin, not only to stand between the innocent and the accuser, but also to vindicate the repu- tation of this District, whose loyalty has been so much defamed. You are also a jury who cannot be reproached with having a taint of religious or other bias in this matter — for you represent opposite opinions upon the political questions of the day. When your verdict goes out to the world sanctioned by the indorsement of the government, rendered by a jury constituted as they would have it constituted — a jury satisfactory not only to ourselves, Ijut to them — it is to be hoped that whether this verdict be for or against the prisoner, it will go far towards settling this question which has agitated this country to its very centre for two years past that the mysteries, doubts, and uncertainties which have covered the tragic event to be here considered may be dispelled, and the people may arrive at last at some intelligent opinion as to who the really guilty parties are. We come to you, gentlemen, with a profound conviction of the entire inno- cence of the accused — a conviction which is not one of sympathy, or such as counsel ordinarily feel for the parties they represent, but one at which we have arrived after a sober, careful, pains-taking investigation, extending over a period of many weeks, and covering a space of country extending from the Canadas to Mexico, by personal conferences with witnesses who we know will be believed by this jurj ; by conferences with men of unimpeachable integrity — who have no interest in this matter except to render to you the truth, and notliing but the truth ; men to whom the prisoner at the bar is a stranger, yet who, by reason of the marking hand of Providence, have been pointed out step by step as persons who could account for the absence of the prisoner, and his presence at another place when the bloody deed took place. Surely, gentlemen of the jury, we may be pardoned for having some fervor upon the subject with such couTictious upon our minds — and assuming that you will arrive at the same conclusions, all we ask at your hands is, that you will give to the prisoner the full benefit of 532 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. what we shall adduce in his behalf. The maxim of the law is, that the prisoner is innocent of all offence until he is proven to be guilty, and the law casts that burden of proof of guilt upon the government. When a man is brought into this court of Justice he is to be regarded by you as a man like yourselves, of pure character and reputation, with ail the presumptions of iimocenre around him. He stands like any other citizen upon tbat constitution which secures to every man the right of a full, fair, and free trial before a jury of his countrymen. He appeals to you as a fellow citizen, not as a criminal, not as a felon, but to ren- der to him justice as you would have justice rendered to you. What has the learned assistant district attorney, who opened this case, done ? He arraigns the prisoner at the bar in his opening speech, before a single item of evidence is offered to you, before one of their eighty odd witnesses has been put upon the stand ; not only as a man upon whom a solemn charge of a crime committed against his government rests, but as one who is a felon of the deepest dye, for whom there is no adequate punishment this side of perdition ; a man whom he will prove to be the party who was the mainspring and guider of that infamous crime He arraigns him before you and holds him up to public abhorrence at a time when, according to my conceptions of duty as a prosecuting officer, his mouth should have been sealed as to rhetorical flourishes. He holds him up to you as a spectacle to be gazed at, as a man whose heart is black beyond expression, a demon sprung from hell itself. He could not paint him to you in worse colors. He represents him to you with all this crime upon him, as a coward, Avho put other people's hands to do the dangerous work, while he secured his own ignominious safety by flight; as a man who was here on that occasion ; who calls out the fatal time twice in succession in front of the theatre ; who despatches his emissaries, desperadoes equal in wick- edness to himself, but not having the same managing minds, to do his cruel work — that work upon the head of this government — which shrouded the whole nation in mourning. He represents him as taking his flight, and tells you, gentlemen, — and I hold him to account for it — that he will trace him from station to sta- tion and from place to place in his flight ; that he will show you the man of whom he bought his disguise the very night he escaped ; he would follow him from here to Canada, leaving on his route traces of his flight which could not be mistaken ; he would prove the length of time he remained there ; that he would follow him in his fliglit further, across the water to the old country, to England, to France, and to Italy, shuddering with fear, with the consciousness that the avenger of blood was upon his track ; that he would follow him to the papal ser- vice, and show you how at last the friend of his youth, moved by the honorable consideriition of a desire to have a felon of such a caste as he brought to jus- tice, moved by those lofty considerations which would make a man sacrifice his own brother, was instrumental in bringing him in chains to this bar to be adjudged by you. What is the condition of the case now 1 Has the learned gentleman kept his pledge? I propose to show you before I take my seat that his pledge is not kept, and let him settle with his own conscience the responsibility for the course he has chosen to take. I do not propose in the discussion of this matter to enter into any debate or speech-making to you ; I have a simple duty to discharge, and I shall endeavor to do it, I liope, fearlessly, and with such a degree of intelligence as will enable me to present the case to you for your consideration, preparatory to the in- troduction of the evidence of the defence. I have no further reproaches to cast upon the other side. If the evidence reproaches them, the fault is with them and not with me. One thing I wish to say before we proceed. Heinous as this offence is, TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 533 its moral qualities in the sight of the Almighty are no worse than when the commonest vagabond in the street is slain in cold blood. I am as well aware as my learned fiiend, who is noting this proposition of the distinction drawn in Holy Writ between the head of a nation and a private individual, but in the sight of the Judge of the quick and dead the life of the humblest man is as precious and sacred to Him as the life of the K-)ftiest citizen. I am aware, also, that this was a crime struck at the very heart's core of this people, and 1 need not recall to your minds, you citizens of the city of Washington, the thrill of horror which went through this community when, on the morning of Saturday, it was an- nounced. You know as well as I do, that men's hearts stdod still for fear, lest there should be such an outburst of grief, indignation, and rage throughout this land that men would be swept away from the bounds of reason. You know how people sprang to their feet to seek out the offenders who had thus out- raged their sacred feelings. The great thing for which they prayed was ven- geance. The minister of God in his pulpit invoked the judgments of heaven upon the assassins. Even tender women became changed in their dispositions, and longed to have the off'enders brought to condign punishment. Nay, more; not only tender women but people who ought to have the attrib- utes of tender women, shouted for revenge upon them and thousands of others. You know as well as I do how all these passions swept over this whole country. You know what exerlions were made to secure the arrest of the off'enders. You know that no step was lelt untried, no means unapplied, no money spared, to secure the arrc'st of the guilty parties ; and the heart of every good American citizen could not, from its inmost depths, help approving it. Who among you would have failed to render to justice either of these parties? Does any man fear that a jury in the District of Columbia would fail to render back for punish- ment one who should be proven to have been guilty. We have no such fear, and we have no fear for the prisoner on that score, inasmuch as we, of all men now living, have had the best opportunities of testing his iimocence. There are in this as in every case, certain prominent features which it is important to keep in mind. There is a difference between us and the learned counsel on the other side in reference to the character of this indictment With these questions of law, however, I do not propose to perplex your minds at this stage, but simply to state to you that they contend there was a conspiracy to murder the pn-sident of the United States, and certain members of his cab- inet ; and our client, the prisoner at the bar, was one of the conspirators with John Wilkes Booth and others. On the other hand, we maintain that this is an indictment for murder simply, and his honor has at least allowed their theory to tlie extent of permitting them to introduce a great deal of evidence which we un- derstand is ap])licable to their legal view of theindictment. I propose, therefore, to take the ca.-e upon their view and lo treat it as a conspiracy to murder — the murder accomplished, and that this party being charged as one of the conspir- ators if proven to be guilty of conspiring, is as much guilty as the man who struck the fatal blow. For that purpose then we are obliged lo ii!(|uire into the question of who the conspirators Avere. There is no doubt that John Wilkes Booth was one of them. There is no doubt that Lewis Payne was another. As to Atzerodt or Herold, there may be some doubt. A^ to Mrs. Surratt, we hope to satisfy you that a grave error has been made in her case. As to the prisoner at tlie bar, we take issue openly before you and declare him to be innocent of the offence. Now, gentlemen, what are the circumstances upon which we rely to show this conclusion'?^ The learned gentleman who leads the prosecution, who is its head and mind, if his colleagues will pardon me tln^ expression, announced to you that he would trace back this conspiracy to 18G3. So far as any evidence has gone he has not fulfilled his promise to you and the court, except you grope outside of this case for suppositions, beliefs, apprehensions, and suspicions that 534 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. some sucli tiling existefl before 1864. So far as my memory now serves me, the only witness who tftkes it further back, is one John Tippett, a mail carrier through Sunattsville, of whom we shall have something further to say. When did the conspiracy begin is a point to which we shall direct inquiry. We shall show who were the parties to it. When did Surratl's introduction take place 1 In January, I S6o, according to the testimony' of Weicliman in Seventh street ; so that, gentlemen, I maintain that for the purposes of this case you are not at liberty to go behind January, 1865, because Wilkes Booth, the head and front of this affair, the man who you must believe from their evidence was the person who planned the thing in whole, Wilki s Booth only made the acquaintance of the prisoner at the bar in January l&6o. Under what circumstances ? The pri-oner even now only twenty-three years of age, left his college in 1863 or early in 1864, a youth just starting out into life, having no knowledge or experience of the world, leaving behind him a reputation such as any young man might envy, came to the city of Washington after the death of his father, and by that event was drawn into the position of husband for his mother and father for his sister. There were but three of them, for Isaac, the l)rother, was away in Mexico or Texas, and had been for years. He is the friend of his mothei', the son of her counsel, her man of business. They moved to the city of Washington and took the house on H ?treet, leaving what little property they had still in the State of Maryland, the rents to be collected and the farm to be looked afier. He was the man who was to be her factotum. In all the relations of life no Avitness has ever impugned him, no witness has ever intimated to you that he was otherwise than a faithful son, that he was other than diligent in looking after his mother's business, that he was faithful at all times until suspicion is cast upon him by witnesses upon the stand that something went wrong with him after he made the acquaintance of John Wilkes Booth. Who was John W'ilkes Booth ? One whose name and reputation will go down to the latest times in this country associated with the most ati-ocious assassination ever committed. Let us hope, gentlemen, at least, that at the bar of tliat offended God to which he has gone, there will be found some mitigation of his offence. Let us hope at least that his mind was unhinged from its reason, that he had become in the strictest sense such a fanatic as not to appreciate the enormity of the act which he contemplated and committed. He was a man of polished exterior, pleasing address, highly respectable in every regard ; received into the best circles of society ; his company was sought after, exceedingly bold, courteous, and con- sidered generous to a fault, a warm and liberal hearted friend, a man who had obtained a reputation upon the stage second to none of his age in this or any other country. 'J'he prisonei', perhaps of all persons the most susceptible to the influences of such a person, and he of all men whom he could meet, the most likely to ingratiate himself with him — his very reputation, his distinction as an actor was enough to draw the heart of this young man toward him. We find bim visiting at the house, we find them frequently together, complimentary tickets sent and accepted to go to the theatre, and these relations existing from time to time up to a month or five weeks before the tragedy occurred. There was nothing surely in this association calculated to bring any reproach upon the priso- ner at the bar except from subsequent events, and for these subsequent events thi-y they rely chiefly upon the testimony of Mr. Louis J. Weichmau and Mr. John M. Lloyd. Gentlemen, we propose to introduce countervailing testimony in reference to these two witnesses, and I will therefore direct your attention to some of tUe ma- terial points in which we will contradict them. Mr. John M. Lloyd is an avowed drunkard, avowedly so intoxicated on the evening of the 14th of April as not to know whether he fell down at the feet of TRIAL OF JOIIX H. SURRATT. 535 ^frs. Sunatt or stood up like a man, and conversed witli her, as not to know whether he grovelh^d like a beast or retained the attributes of manhood. Mr. Llovd tells you that on the llth of April he met Mrs. Surratt on the road, on the Tuesday preceding- the Friday of the niurdi'r, and had a conversation with her about property. She was then on her way down to his house on business connected with ht^r property ; that on the following Friday, April 14, after he had been to the cnurt-house at Marlboro' and indulged himself in drinking to excess, he returned and found her at the house. I shall not rehearse the testimony — that is the business of the gentlemen who sum up — but merely refer to the fact that he testifies to a certain package left at that house by Mrs. Surratt for him, which package when subsequently opened, contained articles which he described to you. This witness has no recollection that Mrs. Offutt, a witness summoned by the government, but not put upon the stand, was in the house. He has no recoUectinn of what transpired in the house. We will show to you that when Mrs. Surratt arrived there with Mr. AVeichman she alighted from the carriage and was received in the house by ;Mrs. Ot^'utt ; that she told Mrs. Uffutt the object of her visit to that place, and handed her at the same time a package, as anybody else would have handed casually a package to be delivered to Mr. Lloyd. Mrs, Offutt will tell you what transpired at that interview, in reference to this letter to which 3Ir. Weich- mau has testified She will tell you who else was in the room with these par- ties ; she will tell you where Mrs. Surratt met Mr. Lloyd, and what Mr. Lloyd's condition Avas if it were necessary after his own statement upon the stand ; she will tell you about how long she was there ; she will tell you wliat trans- pired as the parties went through the front door of the house and drove away. You will be able to see through the whole of it, and that her testimony is en- tirely consistent Mith the theory of the innocence of Mrs. Surratc, and absolves her of complicity in this affair. Bear in mind, gentlemen, that in the investigation of this case there is a prin- ciple running tlirongh it from begiiming to end, by which you will test the evi- dence that is produced, and to which standard the prosecution must come before you can convict; that they must not only prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt that the prisoner was guilty of the offence charged, but more than that, tliey must prove to your satisfaction that you cannot account for the evidence upon any other reasonable theory than that of guilt. The next witness in this connection is Mr. Louis J. Weichmau. But, before I pass to him 1 should state to you that ^Irs. Snrratt's circumstances at that time were very much straitened, a fact which will appear in evidence, and that her object in going to this place was to obtain money with which to provide for tlu! necessiu-y expenses of her family. "VVe will show you, moreover, that although Ml. John ]\[. Lloyd, the next morning after the affair, denied all knowledge of Booth and Herold, they had made their escape through Surratts- ville. He conversed with them. We will prove that on that morning, when adjured by every consideration by a friend, who had known him for years, to tell the truth, he caded on God to witness, he knew nothing of these men. What his inducement was, whether it was fear of his being suspected of complicity in the matter, is a consideration which is not a proper subject of iiuiuiry at present. I now proceed to consider the testimony of \V(Mchman, a clerk in the War Department, a quondam student of divinity — a gentleman who stood almost in the relation of a son to this murdered woman, a man who lived in that house and enjoyed all the hospitalities and close relations which are permitted to a person upon such familiar terms with the inmates. ]Mr. Louis J. Weichmau the principal witness for the government on that other trial, a man whose dastard heart, terrified by the position in which he found himself, led him to 536 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. sacrifice the innocent. What does he tell you upon this subject 1 ''I was with Mrs. Snrratt on the 11th of April, and we met Mr. Lloyd. Mrs. Siirratt there whispered to Mr. Lloyd ; they held a whispered conversation ; she leaned forward out of the buggy and she and Mr. Lloyd whispered together.'' Mr. Lloyd has contradicted him on that subject himself. We will contradict him by two other witnesses, present at that interview, and who witnessed the suspicious circumstances attending — if there were any — connected with this event and immediately preceding the tragedy, and introduced for that pur- pose by the learned counsel. As you will recollect they asked for the man- ner in which this was done, of this and other witnesses, whether the conversa- tion was in a natural tone of voice, or whether it was in a whisper between the parties. What next? He tells you that on the 14th of April he took her down to Surrattsville, he do( s not recollect seeing Mrs, Otfut there, nor Mrs. Jenkins, nor anybody else but Mrs. Suriatt and Mr. Lloyd. He did not even see the package delivered, but he tells you that before he left Wash- ington, when about getting into the buggy, she handed him a package which she told him she was afraid would get wet, or must not be allowed to get wet. Remember, gentlemen, he is a stranger to all these circumstances, an innocent party. He tells you that sitting at the tea table the night of the assassination, he heard the steps of a man coming up the front steps ; the door bell rang, that Mrs. Surratt went to the door. We will prove to you that is a distinct, positive falsehood ; Mrs. Surratt did not leave the table, she did not answer that bell ; she did not — as he states — go up and introduce the man into the parlor, where she had a conversation with him, but she remained seated at the table until they came up from tea when the man had gone. We will put upon the stand, if necessary, the person who answered that bell, and we will show to you the person who came to the door that night Avas not one of the conspirators, nor is he suspected of being such, but is a respectable citizen ; he was not introduced into the parlor, and his errand was of the most friendly .and proper character. Weichman's inuendo was that it was J. Wilkes Booth, or Herold, or Atzerodt, or Payne, and that Mrs. Surratt sat at the tea table with expectant ear, waiting for the man she had told him on the road she expected to see that night. That is the use they make of it. We will prove to you, further, the exclamation with which he charges Mrs. Surratt, when the officers came to the house early in the morning, was not uttered; the conversation which took place in the parlor after the detective officers left that night, in the presence of three or four ladies, exists only in the fiction of the gentleman's tongue. The parties were there together, but no such conversation ever took place ; no such statement was ever made to Mrs. Surratt by her daughter, and no such statement was ever made by her to her daughter that she believed Juhn Wilkes Booth was an instrument in the hand of God for the pun- ishment of Abraham Lincoln, or that God had sent this visitation upon this people for their pride and licentiousness. We will contradict him not by one witness only, but by several, uj)oa that point. We will further prove that on the morning of the 15th, when they sat at breakfast, his statement that he an- nounced his purpose to disclose what he knew of this affiiir, that he left the table for that purpose, and Anna Surratt remarked at that table that Abra- ham Lincoln was no more than a negro in the army, was utterly false. We will show you witnesses who were present at that breakfast table; we will bring the man who accompanied him out of the house and down to the headquarters of the police, and prove his whole account of the affair a wicked lie, I say wicked — all lies are Avicked — but this one, which struck at the lives ot his fellow creatures, the eflPect of which was to bring misery and ignominy, such as the world has rarely seen, upon the people sitting at that table, upon an inno- cent young woman, whose heart was wrapped up in her mother, was of all lies most wicked. We shall show you what circumstances trauspired at the station- TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT, 537 house ; we stall show you his pretended detail as a special detective in this search was nothing more tlian, and was intended to be nothing but, a card for his transportation in that pursuit ; that he knew all the time although the irons were not riveted upon his hands, nor chains upon his feet, yet the hand of the law was upon him. and that he could not depart. We shall show that he never returned to Mrs. Surratt's afterwards, because he was not allowed to do so ; that the officers of the law never lost sight of him ; that he was never finally discharged till he had rendered his account to the military commission. We shall show to you, on his return home before breakfast on 15th April, in company with a certain gentleman, a most remarkable declaration was made to him by this man Weichman, and the terrible trepidation which he manifested at the time. We will show there was occasion for this trepidation and this decla- ration — a man who out of his own mouth, if in no other way, is shown to have been in the habit of visiting these parties, of being on familiar terms with Atze- rodt, of lending him his hat, of lending him his coat, of being seen in the street with Booth several times, of obtaining from Booth on the veiy night preceding the assassination, or of going to him for the purpose of obtaining from him, the use of his horse and carriage. We will show to you whether he had occasion to feel himself bound up with these parties, not only on account of his living at that house, but because as a clerk in the War Department he obtained information which he furnished to persons who ran the blockade, in order to furnish that informa- tion to the South of the number of prisoners in the hands of the government. Now, gentlemen, I know nothing of this matter, but there is to me a theory which appears consistent with the innocence of all parties to which, if I do not allude now, it is simply for reasons of prudence. But there is a theory to which your attention will be directed at the proper time, that will enable you to see that all these circumstances may exist, and yet at the same time entire free- dom from any complicity in taking the life of the President, or of any other living being. These are the principal witnesses as to the conspiracy, and I think you will agree with me upon that subject. The next step is the natural one of bringing Surratt here on the night ot the assassination, and the day preceding, because the gentlemen are well acquainted with the rule of law that unless he was here aiding and abetting in that offence, in some way affording aid to these parties, or where he could furnish aid, if necessary, for the purpose of carrying out their common design, he cannot be convicted of this offence ; and therefore they find it necessary to prove that which does not exist in reality: that John Surratt was here on the day and on the night of the 14th of April, for if he were in Europe at that time it will not be contended for a moment he could be guilty of this offence. If he were in Buffalo, not acting in concert with them, it could not be contended for a moment that he was guilty. He must be near enough, if occasion should arrive for his services, to be called in to carry out the scheme. Who do they produce to establish ihat fact ? They produced, in the early part of the case, Sergeant Joseph M. Dye, an utter stranger to us, for the purpose of establishing perhaps the most material fact in the case. He was subjected to a long examination, and when dismissed, after his cross-examina- tion, he disappears like one of those phantoms which he saw in his dreams. Sergeant Dye is the man who described to you the tall man, the genteelman, the villainous man whom he saw in front of the theatre that night. Now, admitting that Sergeant Dye was sitting upon the platform watcliing these men, and saw suspicious circumstances about them, admitting that he saw the three men there he describes, we will utterly destroy his testimony by producing to you the tall man ; we will show you the genteel young man, and we will show to you further the villainous man. We will show to you, ^m moreover, the man who looked into the back of that carriage. They tell us ^H that the tali man was the prisoner at the bar; we will show you how much like 538 TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. him he looks. We will show you Sergeant Dye did not sit upon that plat- form as he says he did. We will take a step further, gentlemen, and produce the man that called the time, "ten minutes past ten," in an audible tone of voice in front of the theatre. Will you have any difficulty with that witness 1 If you still have we can show you the record of his- indictment for passing coun- terfeit money, for which he was arraigned, and for some purpose the case was procured to be continued. We will show you further, accompanying him to his native home if necessary, that men from his own native town would not believe him upon his oath. We will do more, we will follow him up H street that night and show to you by a person who was adjoining that house, sitting on the front step from half past nine till eleven o'clock, wide awake, not a soul passed Mrs. Surratt's house, and that no such conversation as he states took place with anybody at an open Avindow in that house. Nay, more, we will show to you by the records of the Smithsonian Institute, or by a record of some equally reliable scientific character, the condition of the moon at that time was such it was utterly impossible for any man to have seen what he says he saw on H street at that hour. The person who was near by will say it was so dark that at a distance of forty feet he could not tell whether a man was white or black. Who else do they produce ? David 0. Reed, a notorious gambler for twenty years. We will contradict him out of his own mouth with reference to his seeing Surratt on that day. We will produce to you the record of his in- dictment in this court for a penitentiary offence, which is yet to be answered to. We will prove to you by respectable citizens of the city of Washington, men whom you Avill believe as against him or any other man, he is unworthy of belief upon oath. Who is the next man? Sergeant Robert M. Cooper, who was with this man Dye. I think it is necessary only in reference to this matter to state his testimony is so indistinct relating to Surratt, it is unnecessary for us to pursue this inquiry further than to say that in what he says relative to these men, about whom his suspicions were aroused, he will be contradicted ; and he will be contradicted by a person who says that no such conversation as testified to took place in front of Mrs. Surratt's house on H street, and the condition of the moon was such that it could not have taken place as described. Who is the next man ? John Lee. We will contradict John Lee out of his own mouth. We will prove that he stated to more than one person he never saw John Surratt or knew him — that when he was in hot pursuit of the conspirators down in the lower counties, he stated he did not know John H. ."rurratt ; he did know Atzerodt and would recognize him if he met him. We will show that the very day before he took the stand in the witness box, he made a similar declaration in this city, and again, that he said he had already narrated all that he knew about this affair. Let me observe here, gentlemen, that I mention the names of no witnesses in these connections, for obvious reasons, but the witnesses are in Washington, and they will [»rove this man John Lee is not entitled to any credit upon his oath. Who next.' William E. Cleaver, just fresh from jail, admitted to bail since you have been sworn in this case ; committed thei'e for murder by the most foul and cruel means that could be applied, and that, too, upon the person of a young and tender girl — such a crime, as manhood would blush to mention in such a presence as this. He has had his trial ; we can show to you that he had his conviction, but after a motion for a new trial, which has been granted, he has been admitted to bail, lie is, however, still to answer to the charge of manslaugliter. He is the man who is so delicate about his honor that he did uot like to tell you where he has been for some time past, but who finally turns out the friend and companion of the most infamous of all men, Sanford TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 539 Gonover, alias Dunham. Manipulated by him in jail, brought into conference with certain dignitaries, taught his lesson, what he was to swear to, and then swears before you he saw John Surrattthat day, and gives other very important testimony, if he is to be believed. William E. Cleaver, we will show to you, has stated that he never would be brought to trial again, that there was a strong arm stretched over him for his protection, and he states to another man, that in all human probability he never will be tried again. "William E. Cleaver, we will prove to you by a host of witnesses, if necessary, taken from this community, has a reputation so bad that he is not to be believed upon his oath. Who is next? A fit man to be successor to William E. Cleaver. Benjamin W. Vanderpool, a gentleman belonging to a distinguished femily of New York, and a member of the New York bar. Heaven save the mark if he is a repre- sentative of the New York bar ! He says he is as a voluntary witness to testify against Surrfttt, and recognizes him immediately. He has a free conference with the distinguished gentleman who leads this case upon the other side, is put upon the stand, and swears positively he saw John H. Surratt on the 14th of April at a certain concert saloon which you know with me must have been the Metropolitan Hall, on the south side of Pennsylvania avenue, be- tween p]leventh and Twelfth streets, the only concert hall in that immediate neighborhood. There is none between Tenth and Eleventh. He swears he went in there on this J 4th of April, and saw Booth sitting at a round table with four others — a woman dancing at the lower end of the hall ; and next to Booth sat a man who was the prisoner at the bar. He identifies him distinctly and posi- tively. We will prove Benjamin W. Vanderpool said in the city of Wash- ington and elsewhere, he never knew Surratt or saAV him that he knew of, and when he testified that he came here spontaneously, without a summons, in- duced only by those influences which excite the heart of a good citizen, in assisting to arraign and punish the guilty, he had in fact, received a telegram from tliis gentleman (pointing to the district attorney) calling him here, and he (the district attorney) did not contradict him on the stand. We shall show you that so far from being a partner of Chauncey Shaffer, a gentl<^man of the highest reputation, he Avas simply allowed, without being turned out, to occupy a desk in that gentleman's office, and was forthwith turned away after delivering this testimony, because that distinguished gentleman knew of this telegram We will prove to you, if they will allow us, that Chauncey Shaffer, with the honor becoming a gentleman of character, addressed duplicate letters to tlie officers, representing the government, and to the counsel for the prisoner, stating these facts, and yet they would not furnish that statement to this jury when called upon by us in open court. We coald show to you Ben- jamin W. Vanderpool is utterly infamous, if we need no other proof than this. We will show to you — and pardon me if I repeat that expression so often, for it seems to be a necessity of the case — there was never a round table in Metro- politan Hall, and there was not any entertainment there on Friday afternoon, the 14th of April ; that only on one or two occasions since the establishment has been in operation, have they had entertainments on Friday afternoons. This man tells you he was thei-e on that day between the hours of one and three o'clock in the afternoon. Do you wonder, gentlemen, we have been at times betrayed into indignation, seemingly not justified, perhaps, in the eyes of those who are not ac(|uainted with the facts that exist in our knowledge 1 I think we will need no apology upon that subject after the facts arc presented to yoxi. Who was the next witness ? One who under the existing state of things in this country has been rescued from a state of degradation and exalted to the highest position. But she is to be recalled and I will pass her for the present, simply calling attention to the name because she is in this list. l"ou will have on difficulty with her testimony. We desired to recall her almost immediately 540 TRIAL OF JOHN 11. SUKRATT. after she left the stand, and his honor would have allowed us to do so, hut the government interposed an objection to having this and other witnesses recalled for the purpose of cross-examination, to lay the foundation for their contradic- tion — witnesses who Avere produced from that room (pointing to witness room) examined and dismissed before we could get an opportunity to inspect their his- tory at all. We desired a list of their names, but they M'ould not furnish them to las ; they were dismissed at once, on their leaving the stand — witnesses on whom they relied to establish their most important point in the case, a case in which a human life was at stake. What has followed within the last two or three days ? It was plainly becoming apparent our character for sincerity in this matter was pledged for the destruction of the testimony of one or more of these people, and lest when they came to you upon the summing up it should appear that their testimony was demolished, they determined to fortify it. They therefore bring in still other witnesses upon the same subject at a' late period of the trial. First we have Charles H. M. Wood, a barber. There is a certain investiga- tion proceeding which will make it apparent to you, not that Wood has sworn falsely, knowingly so, but he is clearly mistaken ; for, from the nature of things, the same person could not have been in two different places at the same time. He is, therefore, wrong in saying that J. Wilkes Booth and his party, the prisoner being among them, shaved at his barber saloon at the time men- tioned. I pass that matter now because it will be fully explained before you, merely remarking this witness says he never saw either of these parties before, except John Wilkes Booth ; two years or more have elapsed since he shaved the men, to whom he testifies, that morning, one of whom he is quite sure was the prisoner at the bar ; and, mark you, he says, " I gave him a clean shave." The next is Charles Ramsdell, brought from Massachusetts to prove what ? On the morning of the 15th, having been in town over night with a comrade, on going out of camp two miles out of town, he saw a horse. You recollect how he describes a man afterwards came up riding that same horse, who inquired if he could get through the pickets. He then recollects there was a coiu-ier coming from Washington, and the man, as soon as he saw the courier, rode off rajiidly, and said he would try it any how. He talked with the man on horseback. The prisoner is requested to rise, not to show his face to the witness, but his back, and he says, " I think I have seen that back before on the back of that horse." Frank M. Heaton is the next gentlemen, a clerk in the land office, and I dpubt not a highly respectable man. He saw no face that night when he was down in front of the theatre, that attracted his attention. There was a crowd there waiting to see the President. Last Thursday week he came into the court-room, and thinks he sees a distinct resemblance between the prisoner at the bar and a face he saw before Ford's theatre that night. Who would you bang upon that testimony 1 The next is Theodore Benjamin Rhodes, an itinerant clock-maker, &c., a jack-at-all-trades. Rhodes tells you that he visited the theater on the 14th April about mid-day. We will show you the front door of that theatre was always kept locked during the day, and nobody was allowed to go in. We will show you that from twelve o'clock till two they were occupied in rehearsal, aud if this man had been in the theatre he would have been seen by all parties. We will shoAV you — the government has shown to you — the stick which he describes as larger in the middle and bevelled down to the ends, which he says ISurratt whittled down and stuck in that hole, was not the stick found in the box. The government has produced the bar. We will show, further, this witness was not in the box with the man who arranged it. We shall put the man himself upon the stand before you to testify. Nay, more, gentlemen, you will recollect out of his own mouth he is condemned, when he tells you he sat in TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 541 the front row of the dress-circle and locates the box in which the lamented President sat that fatal night, on the left-hand side of the stage when, in fact, it is the right-hand side. He did not learn his lesson well. And there is another point. He tells you when he was standing there, looking at the stage, the person who was in this private box opened the door about six inches, closed it, and went out; he, thinking he would like to look in there, being of an inquiring mind, walked round and goes into this box, and then sees a person come in whom he supposes was the same person who went out. The man addresses some remark to him, and he declares it was the prisoner at the bar. Now, gentlemen, we prove to you by the diagram of the theatre this man could not have gone out of that box without he walked out precisely the same door through which Mr. Rhodes walked in ; there was no back staircase from that box ; there was but one door kept open, and that door leads into a little narrow passage not much wider than was sufficient to allow a person to walk; that the entrance to the box is from that pas- sage, and the passage ends with a brick wall. How could he get out except through the door where this man would meet him ? We will show you the only way of getting up into that box is by going down through the parquette, U|) behind the dress-circle through this little door, and then into the box. We want Rhodes to be recalled. 1 think, gentlemen, I have done with all the men or women who testi- fied to John Surratt being here that day. If he was not here, I appeal to the gentlemen on the other side to know if there is anything else in this case, any other testimony which can connect him with guilt iu this transaction. Here, gentlemen, comes in our part of the case. I have stated to you our conviction of this man's innocence. Pardon me if I briefly call your attention to the reason of that statement. John Surratt was in Canada in April, 1865. From that place he went to Europe, and after an absence of two years he is found in the papal service. The man, who is said to have received from the confederate government the sum of §100,000 is so driven by poverty as to take service as a common soldier, in the ranks of his Holiness the Pope. At that place he is discovered to be the man who is charged with complicity in this affair. He is followed to Egypt; he is brought iu irons to this country and at the end of nearly two years, is lodged in the common jail of this county. He is there seen and talked with by his counsel in this case. He is allowed no other connection with the outside world except through his counsel and his sorrowing sister. To us, from time to time, he imparts his story as we are enabled to get it from his own lips ; a tale, simple in itself, but which has been faithfully followed by us from that time to this. It is the chart by which his whole evidence has been discovered, directed, and shaped, and as one of those who have been interested in effecting these developments, let me say to you that never before has it been my fortune to find a simple story so corroborated by facts, over which he could have no control. Witnesses have been found who know transactions which he supposed it would be impossible to verify ; men of position and standing in their own communities, whom you cannot doubt ; who come for the simple purpose of establishing, from time to time, each one of the individual facts which he recollects. We will take him, from some time in the month of March, 1865, down to the city of Richmond, we will bring him back from there to the city of Washington on the 3d of April, when witnesses have sworn he passed through this city. He arrived in this city on the night of the 3d and went to his mother's house, from there he went down to the Metropolitan hotel, or some other hotel, and went thence by cars to the north on the 4th of April. He went direct to Mon- treal, landed there and registered himself at St. Lawrence Hall, according to their proof, and conceded on both sides, on the 6th of April. He settled his 542 TRIAL OF JOHN" H. SUREATT. bill there on the 12th of x\pril. That is also a couceded fact; from thence, he went on a certain mission. They tell ns he went in response to a letter or tele- gram received from J. Wilkes Booth, and produce Dr. McMillan to prove it, summoning him to "Washington. We shall show that he did not go near Washington, that he was not within four hundred miles from Washington at any time after he came to Montreal on the 6th of April, until he was brought here in the Swatara. We will show you, gentlemen, further, that instead of making these trips from Richmond to Washington, from Washington to Montreal, and back to WashiugtOii and Richmond, weaving his web, as would a spider, as ray distin- guished friend describes him, he never was in Richmond but twice ; once on a visit to friends, and the second occasion, the one to which I have referred. Can you complain of our feeling indignant with such representations. We shall show you where he went, who sent him, and for what purpose he went; where he was on the 13th of April, on the night of the 13th, on the 14th of April, on the night of the 14th, on the loth of April, on the 16th of April, and take him back to Montreal. I pledge myself to show to you that he was not at any time during this period within about 400 miles of the city of Washington, And he had, so far as we can ascertain, no communication with any of the parties who were charged with this offence. We shall show you that he went to a certain town where he registered his name in his usual way as John Harrison, as he did in jMontreal, his first and middle name, leaving off the Surratt ; that he remained there, discharging the commission with which he was entrusted over the 14th of April, and on the morning of the 15th first heard of this tragedy ; that he left that place and went to an adjacent town, starting in the afternoon and arriving there at night, where he remained until Sunday afternoon. Now, gentlemen, I state to you he registered at that place, but I state also that the register of that hotel, Avhere he originally put it, has most mysteriously disappeared and cannot be found, and even the proprietors and servants of that hotel are scattered in every direction. But we will bring to your view certain telling facts con- nected with his stay in that town which indelibly fix him at that point at that time, by witnesses, gentlemen of character, outride of the hotel. We will show when he left this point, he stopped at a place on one of the great arteries of travel in this country, through which thousands of persons continually pass, and in direct commmiication with Washington by telegraph. At that point, we find his name registered in the same characters in which it is at Montreal. We will follow him back to the city of Montreal, where he arrived on the 18th of April. IsTay. gentlemen, you shall not be able to tell us that he might have been con- cerned in this affair, and then only gone to these places for the purpose of eluding suspicion. We will show you certain facts and circumstances which rendered it absolutely impossible for him either to have taken the cars here, or to have taken a carriage, crossed over to Baltimore and then taken the train. We will show you such interruption of railroad travel as utterly precluded the possi- bility of reaching these points. Both interruption by the elements and by the authorities to prevent the e.-~cape of any of the desperadoes. After he arrives in Montreal, it is not material for the purposes of this case what became of him, but injustice to him let me say that he was kept concealed in that city ; he was allowed no intelligence through the newspapers or otherwise, except that the trial here was progessiug favorably in behalf of his mother ; and was driven frantic with grief when at last, on the eve of the execution, he discovered that she had been convicted and was about to be exe- cuted ; and was only prevented \>y force from returning to the city of Wash- ington to surrender himself. Flight, says the gentlemen, is evidence of guilt. Flight ! Who would not have fled in such a time as that if he had known John Wilkes Booth and had TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATt' 543 been with him at. all ! The first intimation he had of his being- cliavgod with complicity in this affair was in the city of Albany where he read it in a news- paper. He at once went to Canada from that point, not because he was a fugi- tive from justice, but you all know as I do, that justice dropped her scales when she entered that building at the other end of Four-and-a-half street. Such was the height of public excitement, such was the agitation in this country, such the grief and desire for vengeance, that no man stood safe who had a remote suspicion of any connection with these parties resting upon his skirts. 1 have said to you, gentlemen, it was not necessary to follow him beyond Montreal. It may be for some purposes. We will be able to introduce upon this stand a credible witness who has seen and conversed freely with Dr. McMil- lan upon this subject, whose memory is not at fault, inasmuch as his recollection of the conversation was reduced to writing. We will show you he made statements to that witness, directly the reverse of what he made on this stand. We will show you that St. Marie, a man whom we dismissed, to their astonish- ment, without any cross-examination, is a person utterly devoid of character, and unworthy of belief. And having thus disposed of these gentlemen, we shall leave the matter, so far as the testimony is concerned, in your hands. I would like, gentlemen, to say a word or two in reference to another point. An effort has been made in this case, I fear not very much to the honor of my country, to sacrifice justice and innocence. An effort has been made to cloud with suspicion the escape of Surratt, as they call it, to Canada, by testimony in regard to a certain handkerchief said to have been found at Burlington. We will be able to show you that handkerchief was not dropped by Surratt, but by another person, an emissary of the government in pursuit of Surratt, carrying this as one of the tokens by which he might recognize him ; a person who knew him in youth ; and the government knevt it was dropped in that ivay. I do not charge these gentlemen with it. I speak of the government as a government; but certainly they ought to be able to satisfy your minds and their own consciences, as to whether they can escape the responsibility of that knowledge. We might show you certain testimony in reference to that Lon letter, charg- ing the government with the knowledge of it's being a forgery, but I am ad- vised that it would not be evidence. Permit me, in conclusion, to ask your attention to one other fact, perhaps the most pregnant fact of all, and one which will be the most satisfactory to your minds. Independent of the declarations of Booth made in his own diary, as well as the testimony of one of the other conspirators, Payne, relieving Mrs. Surratt of all complicity in this charge, we will produce to you testimony showing the contents of articles of agreement between these men and by whom it was signed; that Mrs. Surratt's name was not there; that John II. Surratt's name was not there. We will bring you this testimony directly from the mouth of the chief assassin, immediately before the commission of the crime, but not discovered until too late to rectify it. I repeat, we will show the con- tents of that paper, Avhich had the genuine signatures of these parties attached, pledging themselves to the commission of the offence, and then, gentlemen, we may safely ask you whether you believe the prisoner to be guilty, or not guilty, of this crime. The witnesses for the defence not being in court, a recess was taken until Monday morning next, at ten o'clock, a. m, Monday, July 8, 1S67. The court met at ten o'clock, a. m. Theodore Bk.\jamin Rhodes, recalled by the government for further crosa- examination. 544 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. By Mr. Bradley : Q. When you were examined the other day, I do not think yon explained your entrance into the theatre perfectly. Please explain to the jury how you entered. A. I went into the theatre at the foot of the stairs by the door. I think there was an entrance near the ticket box. It is seldom I have been into the theatre. I was in several times while it was being built. At this time I went because I thought perhaps I might buy a ticket. Q. No matter about that ; state where you went. A. I went in at the right-hand door. I went up a small stairway to a small door, which I pushed open, and went up a flight of staii'S to the door entering where the audience is seated. Q. Then you went into the main entrance, did you ? A. I do not know. There is more than one entrance. I went in at the right hand corner, near where they sell tickets. Q. Did you see the box as you went in ? A. I do not know that I did. It is rather an impression on my mind that there was no on,e in it. Q. Then you went up a flight of stairs ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you go up more than one flight of stairs 1 A. I could not tell for a certainty. I believe there is a little winding stair- way ; I am not certain about that. I believe it goes up a small flight of stairs, and then turns in the middle to go on to the second floor ; I could not tell for a certainty. Q. The door was, open through which you entered the theatre from the out- side? A. The outside door was open. I am now speaking of another door up a flight of stairs, which was partially open. Q. Then you went into the theatre to the place where you saw a man open- ing the door ? A. Yes, sir ; I went partly down amongst the seats and looked towards the stage. Just then I heard a door open and shut, and heard some one in the box. Q. When you heard that door did you go right into the box ? A. I went right into the box ; yes, sir. Q. You did not go into a little narrow passage ? A. I believe when I saw it first it was partly open. I was then down among thg" seats. Q. When you got up there that door opened right into the box 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. When you went into it you saw a man going out of another door 1 A. I heard him retreating back. I saw the door worked backwards and for- wards ; that was the reason why I went there. When I came up there I heard steps retreating out of the box, going further back. I do not know where they went. Q. Can you give the jury any idea of the size of that box you went into ? A. I should think the front of it was about as wide as that window, (five or six feet,) but went a little catering like toward the stage. Q. As you stood there, you could see right oir the stage into the theatre ? A. Yes, sir ; there was a curtain down : I do not know what you call it. You could see a portion of the stage, perhaps five or six feet, in front of the curtain. Q. From where you stood, you could see plainly on to the stage 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. And you were there when the chair was brought up and fixed ? A. I was there when the chair was brought up. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 545 John T. Ford, residence, Baltimore city, sworn and examined. By Mr. Bradley : Q. State whether you were connected as proprietor with what is known as Ford's Theatre, in 1865 ? A. I was. Q. Was the building under your direction, or not ? A. It was under my direction and supervision. Q. Be good enough to look at that diagram (diagram shown witness) and state whether it is a correct representation ? A. It is correct, as far as it assumes to repi'eseut the dress-circle and the boxes of that tier. Q. Showing the stage where the curtain fell ? A. Yes, sir ; the dotted line shows where the curtain fell. Q. Be good enough to explain to the jury where, on that diag'ram, what was known as the President's box is situated. The theatre, as I understand, fronts on Tenth street? A. Yes, sir. Q. And therefore runs back in depth towards the east ? A. Yes, sir. Q. The stage is in the I'ear part of the theatre ? A. Yes, sir; in the farther end of the theatre, fronting towards Tenth street. Q. And the entrance to the theatre, of course, from Tenth street ? A. Yes, sir. The witness here explained to the jury, from the diagram handed him, the various positions about the stage, dress-circle, and boxes. Witness was also hand- ed another diagram showing, the sidewalk and curbstone in front of the theatre, the entrance and vestibule, the parquette, lower tier of boxes, the stage and scenery ; which he also explained to the jury. Q. I ask you whether during the day the front doors of the theatre are left open, so that any person could enter the theatre 1 A. The front door is left open, of course, to give access to the ticket office for persons who desire to purchase reserved seats or to buy tickets. The doors leading from the vestibule into the theatre are always closed. That is done in every well regulated theatre; and it was kept closed during the day in this theatre. Q. That was your rule, I understand ? A. Yes, sir ; it was an inflexible rule. Q. State the hours of the day for rehearsal ? A. The hour for rehearsal varied at different times to suit the convenience of the stars coming to the theatre, and seldom commenced before ten o'clock. (This examination objected to by Mr, Pierrepont.) Mr. Braulkv. — In order to save time, I will not press it farther. Q. Was the curtain of the theatre ever down during the daytime ? State what was the rule or practice. (Question objected to by Mr. Pierrepont — a general practice cannot be proven.) The Court said it would be proper to ask whether the curtain was down on that particular day. Mr. Bradley said the witness was not in the city on that day ; but he desired to prove from the proprietor of the theatre what was the general rule iu that respect. Objection sustained by the court. Ml. Bradlkv desired an exception to the ruling to be entered. Q. State, whether, if a person entered that theatre in the daytime, and passed 546 TKIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. round into what was called the President's box, into the first door leading into the double box, he could see the stage. (Question objected to by the district attorney, as calling for a matter of opin- ion. Objection subsequently withdrawn.) A. He certainly could not. Q. Into what room or passage did that door open ? A. It opened into a passage leading to the President's box. Q. The President's box comprises two boxes with a portable partition dividing them? A. It had been so constructed as to be easily changed into one box on state occasion, or when any large party wanted a large box. Q. Then the door opened into a narrow passage 1 A. It opened into a passage. In that passage on the side towards Pennsyl- vania avenue was a brick wall. On the other side was a door, first, which open- ed into box number seven, and another door farther on in the passage, opening into box number eight. Q. Which door was used when the president was there and entered that box? A. The door entering into the passage. Q. From what was called the President's box, is there any exit except the door you entered, and which you have described ? A. None except in front of it, or to the stage. Q. And a man, then, who came to that door, opening out into the theatre from that narrow passage, he must have seen any person who was there unless he jumped over on to the stage? A. Yes, sir. Q. State whether you were in the city on the 14th of April? A. I was not. Q. When did you reach here 1 A. I reached here on Tuesday evening after the 14th of April. Q. You were at that time, by permission of the authorities, at Richmond 1 A. I was. I was there on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. I left Richmond on Monday morning. Q. You were visiting some relatives there ? A. Yes ; my mother's brother. Q. And you returned on Tuesday. Now state, whether, by permission of the authorities, you made an accurate examination of the condition o^ the box, doors, and the other premises, in i-eference to the assassination 1 A. I did. By Mr. Pierrkpoxt : Q. What day was that ? A. It was during the trial at the Arsenal. I could not state positively the day. It was in the latter part of the month of May. By Mr. Bradley : Q. Now, sir, did you examine the condition of the door, and of the mark in the wall ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State what you discovered about the doors, and the mark in the wall ? A. I found a hole in the wall. I might state that I went there in company with a Mr. Raybold, who was employed in the theatre as an upholsterer, and with Mr. Plant. I examined the mark in the wall to see whether it had been cut or merely bruised in. I found it was merely bruised or dug out. Here was a mark round it indicating that paper had been glued over the place on the wall. I found beside this mark in the door, a little hole cut with a gimlet in the panel, cut round the edge with a knife afterwards. I found the keeper of both locks loose, especially of the door leading into box eight at the end of the passage TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 547 By a Juror ; Q. "Was the hole bored into tlie door that led into the passage marked E on the diagram, or through the door from the passage into the box ? A. It was the box door, not the passage door. By Mr. Bradlkv : Q. Look at the stick, [the bar used on the night of the assasiuation to close the door, heretofore placed in evidence,] and state whether you have seen it ; and if so, explain what you know about it ? A. I remember seeing this on the assassination trials, or the military trial. Q. That is the stick exhibited there as the stick found in that place fastening the door. A. Yes, sir. Q. Now state whether there were any such sticks used in that box? A. After my attention was called to this stick, I recognized its prior use at once before it was used for fastening the door. It is an upright of a music stand. If I may be permitted to state, on the 22d of February, the Treasury regiment — the regiment belonging to the Treasury Department — had a ball at the theatre ; and near that box in the dress-circle, the band was stationed for cotillion music. We found, late in the afternoon, that some music stands were needed, and some were hastily made. I believe this to be a part of one of those music stands. Q. Can you tell of what material that is? A. It is pine. Q. What kind of pine ? A. I believe, white pine. Q. You are certain it is not oak or North Carolina pine? A. I am not much of a judge of wood, but I would venture an opinion upon that. Q. You see that a portion of this has been sawed off. Explain how it was used ? A. A block eight or ten inches square was fastened at one end for the base, and on the bevel part of it, another board was fastened to hold the music. Q. How Avas it fastened ? A. Nailed at the bottom to the stand and on the top to the shelf. Q. Did you know Mr. John AVilkes Booth ? A. Well. Q. How long have you known him ? A I have known him from childhood up to the time of his death. I knew his father before him, and knew the family. He resided in the same city as myself. Q. Can you describe his figure, as to size, and whether there was anything remarkable about him to attract attention? A. He was a man above ordinary height, very graceful and good looking. Q. As to his vigor, state whether he cultivated great vigor, and whether there was anything peculiar about his hand ? A. He was known to the profession as one of the best gymnasts in the coun- try ; he was a man who took a great deal of exercise. He visited frequently the gymnasium of Mr. Brady. He was a very excellent swordsman, and Avas remaikable on the stage for his extraordinary feats Avith the broadsword". His hands were quite large, large enough to attract attention and to provoke remark by himself and others, they were naturally large and were distended by exer- cise. Q. Y..U cannot state then that he had a small delicate hand, which looked as if it were not used to labor ? A. He certainly had not. 548 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT. Q. Now describe the character of his face and features ? A. He had very glossy black hair ; usually woi'e a moustache, which was the only beard he wore on his face. In his face he was generally known as being remarkably handsome. His complexion was rather dark. Q. Was there anything particular about his manner of conversing 1 A. He Avas an extremely fascinating man in his manner. He was a man very fond of conversation — talked a great deal — was a very interesting man in his conversation. Q. Do you know whether he wore gloves at all ? Did you ever see hira wear gloves 1 A. That I cannot answer. I cannot i-ecollect seeing him with gloves, although he might have often worn gloves in my presence. Q. Do you know Booth's hand-writing? A. Very well. Q. Look at that original telegram [telegram before placed in evidence, dated New York, March 13, 1865,] and say whether it is in the hand-writing of Booth or not ? A. I should say it was. I believe that to be liis hand-writing. Q. Look at that [telegram heretofore placed in evidence, dated New York, March 27, 1865, exhibit No. 6.] A. That resembles his hand-writing, not so much, though, as the other. It may have been written by him. The signature is like his, although the word " Wilkes " does not seem to be perfect. Q. Examine that [Exhibit 40, telegram to Weichman, dated March 23, 1865.] A. That also looks like his writing. Q. These you think are all his writing 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Look at that [card with Booth's name on it and " Do not wish to disturb you; are you at home,'' heretofore placed in evidence.] A. That is also in his hand-writing, in my opinion. Q. How long have you been familiar with Booth's hand-writing? A. He entered my employment some eight or nine years ago. I remember seeing him write then, and from that time to the time of his death. I received letters from him, and have seen him write in my office. In fact, I have been familiar with his handwriting from his boyhood to his death. Q. Examine that paper (letter signed " Charles Selby," heretofore placed in evidence) and state whether you believe that to be in his handwriting. I do not^^mean his natural hand, but whether it is a disguised hand written by him. A. I do not think it is. Q. State the reason. A. It strikes me as being unlike his handwriting in nearly every respect. The condition of his hand would interfere somewhat with his writing in a hand of a style of this sort He had, as I stated before, a large, thick, clumsy hand. Q. Are there any letters on that paper which you can select that bear any resemblance in character to his Avriting ? A. I cannot notice anything now. If this were shown to me without any reference to him, I should think he was the last one who could have written it, even if I had been told it was disguised. (Examination of witness suspended for the present.) SuSA\ Ann Jackson (colored) recalled by the government for further cross- examination. By Mr. Bradley : Q. Do you recollect the morning after the assassination, or the night when the President was assassinated, some gentlemen coming to Mrs. Surratt's house and searching it ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 549 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see tliem 1 A. No, sir ; I did not. Q. "Were tliere any colored persons in the house besides yourself ? A. No one, but a small girl and a small boy. Q. You SRW two gentlemen ? A. No, sir ; I did not. Q. Look at that gentleman with a red moustache, (pointing to detective Mc- Devitt) and state whether you saw him there that night. A. No, sir ; upon my word I never saw him. These gentlemen came to my room, and I heard them walking through tlie house. When they came to my room I laid down and covered my head up. By Mr. Pierrkpont : Q. Were you in bed ? A. Yes, sir ; I know they never spoke to me. All the words they said when they came into my room were, that it was a very particular case and they must be very particular about it. By Mr. Bradley : Q. Did any gentleman that night ask you where John Surratt was ? A. No, sir ; no gentleman ever mentioned Mr. Surr.att's name to me that night. Q. Anybody ask you anything about him ? A. No, sir ; they did not. Q. And you did not get up 1 A. No, sir ; I did not get up. I was lying down in my room. (4. All the time they were searching the house? A. No, sir; I did not get up. Q. You are sure you did not tell anybody that night that Mr. Surratt had not been there for two weeks 1 A. No, sir ; I give you my word that no one ever asked me such a question. Q. And there was no other colored person in the house but a little colored girl and a little boy ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you recollect ever telling anybody that Mr. Surratt had not been there for two weeks before this night ? A. No, sir ] I did not. Q. Do you know a colored woman by the name of Rachel ? A. Rachel who ? Question repeated. A. No, sir ; I do not think I know any one of the name of Rachel. Q. Do you know a woman by the name of Eliza Hawkins 1 AVlT.\B^;s. Where does she live? Mr Bradley. I cannot tell you. A. No, sir ; I do not have any acquaintance with anybody, except next door, at Mr. Sweeney's. Q. Do you know a woman by the name of Eliza Seavers 1 A. I do not. Q. You never told any gentleman that night, or you never said to any colored woman, Rachael or Eliza, that Mr. Surratt had not been at the house for two weeks ? A. No, sir ; I did not. Q. Have you ever said you were going to get anything for the testimony you gave in this case, or for being a witness ? A. Me, sir. No, sir ; I did not. I never expect to get anything. 550 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. You never, at any time, either at that time or afterwards, told Eachel or Eliza, that Mf. Surratt had not been in that house for two weeks ? A. No, sir. Examination of John T. Ford, resumed : Mr. Bradley desired the ruling of the court as to whether he would be al- lowed to examine witnesses on such points as he had then reached, in following the line of examination laid out by the prosecution, recalling witnesses subse- quently at other points, or whether he would be compelled to follow the ex- haust rule. The Court replied that he might take his own course in the examination of his witnesses. By Mr. Merrick : Q. I want you to explain to the jury the relative position of the entrance of the door to the ticket office and the wooden platform in front of the theatre erec- ted for the purpose of facilitating persons coming there in carriages to get to the theatre. A. [Explaining from the diagram.] This is entirely coi-rect here. The plat- form is constructed about eight feet in width, one end resting upon the curb- stone, and the other extending into the street. Letter A refers to the passage at the side of the theatre. Q. Where does that passage lead to ? A. To the stage, for the convenience of actors and professional men. Q. That comes outside to the rear of the theatre 1 A. It goes to the rear of the audience room, and from there to the rear of the stage. Q. Who made these plats 1 A. Mr. Gilford, the man who built the theatre. Q. You are familiar with all the positions and localities ? A. I think so. Q- And do you tell the jury that they are correct, faithful representations of the localities marked upon them ? A. I have examined them carefully before to-day, and I find no mistake in them. As far as I know, they are correct. (The diagrams referred to placed in evidence.) Q. Point the jury to the entrance door of the theatre ? A. The entrance is marked here by the letter C. The ticket office is at the right hand as you enter. Q. XoAv tell the jury where this clock, of which we have heard, is ? A. The clock is perhaps seven or eight feet high, on the wall in the rear of the passage as you enter. There are three doors from the vestibule leading into the theatre, to allow persons to come out more rapidly than they go in. Q. In order to see that clock during the performance in the theatre, what door would you enter ? A. In order to make myself better understood I should state that there is a temporary door covered with oil cloth or with canvas, placed at the entrance from the lobby in order to preserve the warmth of the lobby. It was used on all occasions except when the theatre was closed, when the large doors were shut. The large door is always open during the time of performance. After we commence selling tickets, until the avxdience leave the theatre, these doors are open against the walls of the theatre. Then there is an inner door, the tem- porary one which I have described, such as are frequently used iii public places, churches, &c. Q. And this is the door through which you would go during the performance in order to see the clock 1 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 551 A. Yes. You would go through the opening marked C — through the tem- porary door, Q, Now, on which side is Pennsylvania avenue? A. On this side, (explaining from diagram.) Q. And the theatre fronting west ? Now tell the jury whether or not that wooden platform of which you have spoken is above this entrance or below it ? A. It stood between the entrance door and the upper door, and occupied, I suppose, one third the width of the theatre. Q. Then the entrance door is in the centre of the building 1 A. It is not. It is nearer Pennsylvania avenue. Q. How near the entrance door would the southern edge of that platform be on a straight line ? A. Presuming I was sttinding in the door, and this representing the upper wall, the platform Avould commence about where Mr. Bradley sits, extending up in the direction of F street. (Witness explained by reference to various locali- ties in the room.) Q. Supi)ose you were sitting on the southern side of the platfoi-m, and a man was standing in the' entrance door, turning one-third of his person to the right, would he or not have his back directly towards the man so sitting on the south side of the platform ? A. He would. By a Juror: Q. Could you see the clock without going inside the door ? A. Not unless the door covered with canvas, I have referred to, was entirely away. Then you could see it by standing directly up to the door. By Mr. Merrick: Q. But if that door was not entirely away then you could not see the clock without going in ? A. You could not unless you went into the vestibule. Q. Was that door there when you had charge of this theatre ? A. It was intended always to be there. Cross-examined by Mr, Pikrrepont : Q. When did you leave Washington in April? A. My impression is I left it on Monday or Tuesday, before the assassination. Q. Where did you go ? A. First to Baltimore, afterwards to Fortress Monroe, and then to Richmond. Q, When did von get back to Washington ? A, The Tuesday following the assassination. Q. You were gone about a week? A, About a week. Q. And during that whole week you did not see Ford's theatre at any time ? A. No, sir. Q. And you do not know what door was open and what was shut during that time, do you ? A. I am not aware that I do. Q. Now this desk (pointing to the clerk's desk) faces the same way as the theatre did. Here is the vestibule — there is the entrance door behind tlie judge. Now point where the clock was? A. Over Judge Wylie. Q. When you got into the vestibule, if the door was open, you could see the clock ? A. When you were in the vestibule you could. Q. There was no trouble about it I A. No trouble about it. 552 TRIAL OF JOHN II. SUKRATT. Q. Will you look at this bar, (bar heretofore placed in evidence.) Do yon know anything of that piece tied to it ? A. I can only tell through what I have heard. Q. Do you know anything more about the bar than you do about that end Of it ? A. I can recognize the bar better than I can the piece; but I can recognize the piece as having been probably'' sawn from the bar. Q. You think it was, do you ? A. I have no doubt about it. Q. You believe that piece, when the bar was against the door on the night of the murder, was on here? A. Yes, sir. Q. Look at this book, (diary of Booth, heretofore placed in evidence) and state in whose hand-writing you think it is ? A. The first line I would recognize as Booth's immediately. Q. What would you say of the second ? A. It looks likes his hand-writing. I should say it was. (Page of the diary referred to exhibited to the jury.) Q. Now look at that page; do you think it is Booth's hand-writing ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now tell the jury whether you think Booth, with his big clumsy hands, could have written that in your opinion ? A. I recognize the characteristics of his hand- writing there. Q. Do you recognize that as a clumsy hand ? A. It shows awkwardness in the formation of the letters. Q. Do you think it is an awkward, clumsy hand ? A. It is not a perfect hand-writing. Q. Do you think it is a clumsy hand ? A. To some extent. Q. Do you think it is less clumsy than the Charles Selby letter 1 A. I think that is a better hand-writing. Q. Do you think that the Charles Selby letter is a less clumsy hand-writing than the diary? A. I do not know that it is. Q. Do you say that the Charles Selby letter is written in a natural hand ? A. I am not an expert on that subject, but to the best of my opinion it is very unhke anything I have ever seen Booth write. Q. And it was so intended, I presume. You have given a description of Booth as a very handsome man. He was a man of a very fine appearance was he not? A. To some extent. Q. Very careful in his dress ? A. Very fastidious. Q. He was a dandy in his dress was he not ? A. Not to that full extent. He was very careful in his dress. Q. Was he not extreme in the care of his dress and person ? A. He was not foppish. Q. I do not ask you whether he was foppish. Was he not extreme in the care of his person and dress ? A. I did not think him extreme. He dressed in good taste. Q. He dressed in careful taste, did he not ? A. He did. Q. And was careful in his dress and was clean in his person, was he not ? A. He was. Q. Was he careful as to the kind of boot he wore, in order to show a nice, neat foot ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. 553 A. His foot was large. Q. Was it a uice, neat foot I A I do not think it was. Q. Did he wear a uice boot ? A. He did. Q. A careful boot ? A. He appealed to be very careful. Q. Was not his tailor an artiale in the manufacture of his dress ? A. He appeared to be carefully appareled. Q. And what do you say as to his other appearance ? Do you think he neglected his hands ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you think his hands were hard, black, and rough like those of a laborer? A. No, sir. Q. Do you think they were white and soft like those of a gentleman ? A. No, sir ; I should think they were between the two. Q. Do you think they Avere brown ? A. His hands were apparently half as large again as mine. Q. I am now talking about the color. Were they clean, white, and carefully preserved, or were they black, rough, and coarse like those of a laborer ? A. He kept his hands clean, I believe. Q. As carefully as he did his person ? A. He kept his hands clean. He.\rv Clay Ford, residence, Baltimore, sworn and examined : By Mr. Bradley: Q. In April, 1865, in what business were you engaged ? A. I was in Washington city, the treasurer of Ford's theatre, on Tenth street. Q. In the absence of your brother, who had the superintendence or manage- ment of the theatre? A. Myself and my brother, John R. Ford. Q. Did you know John Wilkes Booth ? A. Yes, sir ; very well. Q. Do you recollect seeing him on Friday, the day of the murder of the President ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recollect what time of the day you saw liim ? A. I saw him about half-past eleven o'clock, in front of the theatre. He came down Tenth street from towards F street, towards the theatre. Q. Did he do anything after he came there ? If so, what ? A. I told him there was a letter in the office for him. I believe he went in and brought the letter out, sat down on the steps, and commenced reading it. Q, Did you learn before, or at that time, or about that time, that the Presi- dent was coming that night ? A. ]My brother told me he was to be there that night a little before I saw him, about eleven o'clock. Q. Do you remember, after Booth was there, that anything was said on that subject in his presence? A. I do not remember of any one telling him. I suppose he heard it while he was there. Q. State what orders were given by yourself, or any one else, for preparing the box for the President. [Question objected to by Mr. Pierrepont as immaterial. Objection overruled.] A. Orders were given about two o'clock to prepare the box. 36 554 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Who was present, charged with the execution of that order ? A. Thomas J. Raybold. Q. What is his position at the theatre ? A. He was doorkeeper, and attended to the upholstering about the theatre, the most of it. Q. Who gave the order to prepare the box ? A. I gave the order. Q. Did Mr. Raybold execute the order ? and if not, who did ? A. He was sick. (This evidence objected to by Mr. Pibrrepo.\t as incompetent.] Mr. Braulky said he only desired to show who prepared the box. Q. Did Mr. Raybold prepare it? A. No, sir ; he did not, Q. Who did it ? A. I did it. Q. At what time did you go to work preparing that box ? A. Some time between two and three o'clock. Q. Were you up in the box ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State to the jury whether the curtain of the theatre was up or down at that time. A. It was up. Q. Can you state whether it had been up all day or not ? A. All day, sir. Q. While you were at work preparing the box for the reception of the Presi- dent, was any stranger there ? A. I did not see an}'. Q. Did you have any conversation with any one who was there ? A. No, sir. Q. You knew Edward Spangler ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know where he was at that time ? A. He was on the stage, fixing the scenery. Q. Do you remember anj'thing about a chair being brought in for the occupa- tion of the President ? A. Yes, sir ; I ordered a colored man to bring a chair down from my room. Q. Were you in the box at that time 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have any conversation with any stranger at that time ? A. There was one gentleman there — I do not know his name— from the Treasury Department, helping me to fix up the box. He brought a flag there. Q. Any one else 1 A. No one else. Q. Do you know anything about the condition of the keepers of the locks of boxes Nus. 7 and 8 ? (The Court inquired what was meant by the word " keepers." Mr. Bradley replied, " Hasps.") Q. You do not know whether they were fast or loose to either of these boxes? A. No, sii*. Q. Where were you on the night of the performance — Friday night ? A. In the box office. Q. Where were you during the third act ? A. Still there. Q. Were you out in front at that time ? A. I may have been ; I have no recollection of it. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 555 Q. Have you any recollection of the rehearsal that day, as to what time it occurred ? A. There was a rehearsal. Q. Was it before or after the box was fitted up ? A. The rehearsal was before the box wasfittid up; not afterwards. Q. Tlie box, you say, was fitted up between two and three o'clock. Do you recollect at what. time the rehearsal commenced? A. 1 ;un not positive. The rehearsal was generally called at eleven o'clock Q. You do not knoAV of any diff'erence that day ? A. No, sii'. Q. I ask you if it was possible for any man, entering at that time the door marked D on this plat, to see the staire ? A. No, sir ; not unless one of the other doors was open. Q. If only the end door was open could you see the stage ? A. No, sir; unless you came round and looked into the box. Q. "VVho assisted you in fitting up that box, besides the gentleman from the Treasury ? A. Mr. Buckingham, doorkeeper there, Q. Was there any means of getting out of these two boxes into the body of the theatre except by jumping over the front of the box and through this door marked D l A. No, sir ; no other means. Q. Was there any door at all in the back wall of that box ? A. No, sir. Cross-examined by Mr. Pierrepont : Q. How many doors were there in entering into this box where the President was ? A. Three entrances. Q. Three doors ? A. Yes, sir. Q. At the time you went there the doors were all there, were they not ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You could go into any one and out at another 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. But you would have to go into the first door, marked D, before you could get to the others, and when you got through this door you could get into the others, or into one and out at another ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you could likewise go where Booth went, over ou to the stage ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now tell us where you took breakfast that day ] . A. At the National Hotel. Q. What did you do next, after breakfast ? A. I walked right up to the theatre. Q. At what time ? A. About 11 o'clock. Q. Where did you go ? A. Right into the box office. il- Did you stay there ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long 1 A. All the afternoon — not in the box office all the time, but in the theatre. Q. I am now speaking of the box-oilice. How long did you stay iu the ticket office ? A. About an hour. 556 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. That would bring you to about 12 o'clock. After 12 o'clock where did you go 1 A. I went back to the stage. Q. How long did you stay on the stage? A. I suppose about half an hour, or an hour. Q. Which do you think ? A. I cannot very positively say. Q. That brought you up to one o'clock ; what did you do then ? A. I was in the box-office again. Q. How long did you stay in the box-office ? A. I suppose an hour. Q. That brought yoir to two o'clock ; and what went on up in the theatre while you were in the box-office you do not know 1 A. They were taking the partition out of this box. Q. My question is whether you know while you were absent in the box- offiec what went on in the theatre 1 A. No, sir ; I am not certain. Q. Did you say the partition was taken out while you were in the box-office ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You do not know anything about this partition being taken out, except that it was out when yon got there ? A. No, sir. Q. When you went up there after two o'clock, was that the first time you were there 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know, then, that nobody had been there ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you examine the wall ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you examine the door ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you see any shavings or plastering on the carpet 1 A. No, sir. Q. Did you look for any such things 1 A. No, sir. Q. Did you know anything about these preparations ? A. No, sir. Q, When did yon first learn the President was to come there ? A. About 11 o'clock in the morning. Q. Who told you ? A. ]\Iy brother. Q. That was the first you heard of it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You never got to the box until two o'clock ? A. No, sir. Q. When you went there you found the partition taken out ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there any difficulty in seeing the stage when you got into this box, B 1 A. No, sir. Q. Do you say the curtain was up all day ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now tell how you know, when you Avere in the box, that it was up ? A. I do not remember of its being hoisted. Q. But you say you were in the box — might it not have been hoisted twenty times and you not know it ? A. It might have been. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 557 Q. Might it not have been let down twenty times and you not know it ? A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Bradlev : Q. You say you were on the stage an hour or more? A. Yes, sir. Q^. And you were in that box preparing the box. During that time that curtain was up 1 A. Yes, sir, it was. Q. Does hoisting that curtain usually make considerable noise 1 A. I do not remember whether it went up easy or whether it made a noise. Q. It was up at any rate when you were there. Who took down the parti- tion ? A. Spangler. Q. Do you know who assisted him ? A. A man by the name of Jacob llitterspaw. Q. About the doors. After you got into the building, the entrance doors into the theatre, were they open or locked ? A. The door is generally locked. It may have been open to pass through to fix the box. It was usually locked, and I kept the key in the office. Jamks J. GiFFORD recalled as a witness for the defence, and examined by Mr. Bradley : Q,. I think you stated in your former examination that your place on the stage Avas stage carpenter. Do you remember being at the theatre during the night of the assassination of the President ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know the box he occupied ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You built the theatre ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State if you made these diagrams, [diagrams of the theatre heretofore placed in evidence,] or had them made. A. Yes, sir. (Mr. PiFRRRPONT said as the diagrams were in evidence and not questioned by the prosecution, he hardly saw the necessity of introducing evidence to prove their correctness.) Q. State if they are an accurate representation of Avhat they purport to rep- resent. A. They are correct, according to the memorandums I had of it. Q. State whether there is any outlet to boxes 7 and 8 into the body of the theatre, except in front and to the stage, except through the door marked E. A. There is no other exit or entrance at all. Q. Were you engaged about the theatre that day 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you assist in the preparations for the reception of the President ? A. No, sir ; I did not assist in the preparation of the box. I was attend- ing to my duties on the stage. Q. State, if you please, whether the curtain was down or up during that day. A. The curtain was generally lowered about half past five or six o'clock — after the work on the stage was done. Q. IIow before that time 1 A. It was not down before that time. Q. How much light is there into these boxes when the theatre is closed in the day time ? A. Very little, if any, unless the doors at the entrances of the boxes are open. 558 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Yon cannot see into the passage at all. It is perfectly dark in the passage lead- ing to the boxes. Q. State where the hole was in the wall. A. It was hack of the door in the passage. Q. State Avhether it was qnite dark there unless the doors were open. A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you make any examination there on the morning after the assassina- tion ? and if so state whether you found any marks of the plastering which had fallen from that wall. A. I did not know there was any hole cut in the wall until two or three days afterwards. I did not know until Sunday. Q. Did you make any examinition then ? A. I did. Q. Did you find anything either on the floor or carpet? A. Nothing at all. I found the hole on Saturday in the door, and I thought the President was shot through it. Q. That was merely the gimlet-hole which you described when you were on the stand before ? A. Yes, sir. Q. On the night of the assassination, and during the performance, state if you were out on the front pavement, in front of the theatre, at any time. A. Yes, sir ; I was out both during the first and second acts. Q. Were you out there at the commencement of the third act 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Who was with you 1 A. Lewis Garland. Q. Who is Lewis Garland ? A. He is a costumer and actor, engaged on the stage. Q. Did you see Booth about there ? A. No, sir. Q. How long did you remain there ? A. At the beginning of the third act, about twenty or twenty-five minutes. Q. Which way did you go from the stage to the front 1 A. I went through the stage entrance on the side next E street. Q. The stage entrance is on the south side of the theatre ? A. Yes, sii*. Q. Did you see Booth then ? A. No, sir ; I did not see him that night at all. Q. When you came out on the front, while there with Garland, state where your position was, as well as you recollect. A. It was between the stage entrance and between the second door in the building, which was used by the audience coming in and out to buy tickets. [Position explained to the jury by diagram, witness remarking " there was an opening of six feet (one or two) not put down.] By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. The diagram is right, then, with the exception of that 1 A. Yes, sir ; that is the inside door. By Mr. Bradley: Q. And that is the door Mr. Ford described as being a temporary one ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you know Mr. J. Wilkes Booth 1 A. Yes, sir ; I knew him from his boyhood. Q. Did you ever see the prisoner at the bar before you saw him here ? A. No, sir, I never saw him. TRIAL OF JOPIN H. SURRATT. 559 Q. That nigbt wheu you aud Mr. Garland were out in front of the tlieatre, did you see him, or anybody resembling him, come down in front of that place ? A. Xo, sir. Q Did you see any one come there and ask what time it was ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State who it was. A. The gentleman's name was Hess. Q. Was he connected with the theatre 1 A. He was connected with the theatre. Q. Was he on that night, or not ? A. He had not been in the first piece. He was to go on in the second and sing a national song. Q. What direction did be come from when he came down the street 1 A. From towards F street. Q. What occurred ? A. He came and asked what time it was. Mr. Garland stepped in the door, came out and said it was ten minutes past ten. Q. Was Booth anywhere about then ? A. Not that I saw ; I did not see him. Q. Did you see anybody sitting on the carriage platform in front of the the- atre that night? A. I did not. Q. You may state whether persons were allowed by the rules of the theatre to sit there ; and if so, As^hat would have been your duty in that respect. A. We allowed no persons to sit there at all, nor to loaf about the front of the theatre. It would have been my duty to see that they were put away if they had been there. Q. Were there policemen there for that purpose ? A. One policeman from the city police was detailed there in front of the the- atre. Q. What became of Hess after he asked what time it was ? A. He stood there awhile and then went in at the stage entrance, leaving Mr. Garland and I standing there. Q. Did anything further occur before you learned of the death of the Presi- dent ? A. Nothing that I know of. Q. Can you state with distinctness whether there were two other persons standing in the same place where you two were for some time, before you heard this calling of the time ? A. There may have been ; I did not take notice. Q. If Booth had been close there you would have seen him? A. If Booth had been there I should have seen him. A stranger I mi";ht not have taken any notice of. Q. What signal was given on the stage at the theatre for shifting the scenes ? A. A whistle. (A whistle was produced and blown by Mr. Bradley.) Q. Anything like that ? A. Yes, sir ; that is not a very good one. That was the signal for a change of scenes. Some theatres use gongs, (Another whistle was produced and blown by Mr. Merrick.) Q. Was it like that ? A. Sometimes he would blow as loud as that. By Mr. Merrick : Q. .\s you were the architect of the theatre, I will ask you to explain the position of that platform in front of the theatre. 560 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. It was placed on the curbston'e at one end. The other end reached out into the street. It was twenty or twenty-four feet long, and placed exactly in the centre of the theatre. Q. Take this diagram and show to the jury the relative position of the extreme southern side of the platform and the entrance door, on the inside of which was the clock 1 A. The clock hung over this door, (illustrating the dingram.) Here is the extreme southern end of the platform. It did not reach quite as far as the door. Q. The entrance door, then, is between the end of the platform and Penn- sylvania avenue ? A. Yes, sir ; it did not reach quite to the door. By a Juror : Q. How wide is the space between the outer wall of the theatre and the wall on which the clock was ? A. The width of the vestibule, which was about seven feet ; and the wall was three feet thick. The pavement between the platform and the wall was about sixteen feet. By Mr. Merrick: Q. Give the general dimensions, all round, of that vestibule ? A. I suppose the length of the vestibule was in the neighborhood of thirty or thirty-two feet. Q. Do you mean going in from the street ? A O, no, sir ; I refer to the length. It was about seven feet wide as you entered — in the centre, I suppose, about ten. Cross-examined by Mr. Pierrepont : Q. What was your business on the 14th of April, 1S65? A. My business was carpenter at the theatre. Q. Were you a laboring man 1 A. I was a laboring man, and am still. Q. At what time did you have dinner ? A. A little after two. Q. Did you take any that day ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you get it ? A". Around on F street. Q. You do not know what occvirred while you Avere gone? A. No ; I do not know what occurred while I was gone. Q. Are you a married man 'i A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you then ? A. Yes, air. Q. Where was your house ? A. In Baltimore. Q. You did not live here 1 A. No, sir. Q. Did you go to Baltimore every night ? A. No, sir. Q. On the night before the murder where did you stay ? A. In the theatre ; I had a room in the back part of the theatre with the watchman. Q. At what time did you begin work on the morning of the 14th ? A. I did not work much ; I was about the theatre when I got up, I sup- pose at five, or half-past five. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT. 561 Q. How long did you stay at the theatre ? A. I staid until the men came to work, and then I went to breakfast. Q. At what time was that ? A. Between eight and nine o'clock. Q. Where did you get your breakfast ? A. On F street. Sometimes I would get it at other places. Q. Where did you that day ? A. I judge I got it over on F street. Q. When did you breakfast 1 A. I cannot tell ; I did not look at the time. Q. Where did you go after breakfast 1 A. To the theatre. Q. How long did you stay there ? A. Until after rehearsal was over. Q. When was that 1 A. About two o'clock. Q Where did you then go ? A. To get my dinner. Q. HoAv long were you gone ? A. An hour or an hour and a half. Q. And you do not undertake to tell what took place while you were there? A. I only tell what I saw myself. Q. In that room where the boxes were, with these doors open and this parti- tion taken away, it was so dark you could not see anything ? A. Not with the doors shut. Q. Suppose they were open 1 A. Then there would be a dim light from the front of the box. Q. When the doors were open then there would be some light ? A. Yes ; from the front of the box. Q. When they came to take away that partition, they did not have any lights, did they ? A. 1 do not know whether they did or not ; I did not see them take it away. Q. It was iu the daytime when they took it away ] A. Yes, sir ; between two and three o'clock. Q. You did not hear about any ligjits being called for ? A. No, sir ; if I had gone up into that box to fix a lock I should have taken a light with me. Q. But you did not go for that purpose 1 A. No, sir. Q. And when you stood in that box and looked towards the stage, could you have seen anything 1 A. Yes ; I could have seen the stage. Q. Could you have seen in the box ? A. No, .sir ; if I looked at the stage I was looking out into the light ; l)Ut to look at the box 1 was looking into the dark place from the light. I could not have seen any person in the back part of the box from the stage. Q. That is, if the person was in the box and you on the stage ? A. Then I could not see him. Q. If the person was in the box and you were in the box could you see him then ? A. I might have seen him. Q. When you went out that night you did not see J. Wilkes Booth in front ? A. No, sir. Q. You did not see him go into a drinking-house to take a drink ? A. No, sir. Q. You did not see him come out ? 562 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. A. No, sir. Q. You did uot see liira come up the steps? A. No, sir. Q. You did not see him go into the President's hox ? A. No, sir. Q. You did not see him shoot the President ? A. No, sir. Q. And because you did not see him, you do not want us to infer these things did not take place ? A. No, sir. Q. You did not see Booth there at all that night? A. Not that night ; I saw him that day. Q. But you did not see him in the theatre, or in front of the theatre, or in the drinking house, or at all that night? A. Not that night ; no, sir. Q. You saw some people in front 1 A. 0, yes. Q. Whom did you see ? A. I saw a number of people. Q. Whom did you see ? A. I cannot recollect just the particular persons. Q. How long were you out in front ? A. Twenty or twenty-five minutes. Q. What did you go there for ? A. I went out in front to look about. Q. You did not go to order any people off the platform, or anything of that sort? A. If I had seen them there I should have ordered them off. Q. But you did not go for that purpose ? A. No, sir ; I did not Q. Did you see anybody on it ? A. No, sir ; I did not. Q. Did you see the President's carriage ? A. I did. Q. How did you know it was his ? A. They told me. Q^. Did you see anybody looking into it ? A. I saw a man in livery sitting on the box. Q. Did you see any man look into it ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you see any man then go up towards H street ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you see a man come down from towards H street ? A. I saw one come down from F street. Q. Whom did you see ? A. I saw Mr. Hess come there, and I saw George Harry. Q. Who was he ? A. An actor. Q. What did he do ? A. He was standing there. Q. Did he say anything to Booth ? A. I did not hear him. Q. He could not have said anything to Booth in your presence 1 A. Not without my hearing. Q. You are sure he did not speak to Booth while you were there ? A. I do not know whether he did or not. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 563 Q. He could not have done so without your seeing him ? A. I think not, Q. Then he did not do it ? A. I do not know whttlior he did or not. Q. You did not know Atzerodt ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you see him there that night ? A. No, sir ; I saw him afterwards on the triaL Q. Did you know Payne ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you see him afterwards ? A. I did. Q. You did not see any of the conspirators there that night ? A. Not that I know of. Q. Either in the theatre or out of it ? A No, sir. Q. Did Harry come down the street with you ? A. No, sir. Q. Did he speak to youl A. Yes, sir. Q. What did he say ? A. I do not recollect ; some few words ; I do not know what they were. Q. What were they about ? A. It was about the time for going on ; I think he asked me if it was time to be dressing, or something of that sort. Q. What did you tell him ] A. I did not tell him anytliing. Q. What did he say about dressing? A. I believe he asked if it was time to dress himself, or something of that sort. Q. And you did not make any answer? A. I did not make any answer ; it was none of my business. Q. What had you to do with his dressing 1 A. Nothing. Q. Where did he go ? A. He went into the theatre. Q. Did he dress 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. When you change the scenery to the theatre do you have a signal up in H street and another in the back alley of the theatre ? A. Not that I know of. !^Mr. Bradley objected to this as not proper cross-examination. Tliere had been no evidence about any whistle on F street. Mr. Pierrepont said there was the evidence of Pettit that a whistle was heard in that direction.) Q, They did not give any signal for moving the scenery outside of the thea- tre, did they 1 A. Not that I know of. Q. You never heard of such a thing ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you see Harry again ? A. After the assassination I saw him. Q. Tliat night ? A. Yes, sir. Q. At what time ? A. I could not tell exactly; there was a great deal of confusion at the time. Q. Where did you go that night after the assassination ? 5G4 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. I staid about the theatre. Q. Where did you go first 1 A. I rushed ia on to the stage. Q. Where next did you go afterwards ? A. I went into the alley. Q. Did you find anything there ? A. No, sir. Q. You did not go to examine the box that night ? You did not go till some days afterwards 1 A. I went on Saturday morning. Q. Did you say when this partition was taken away ? A. No, sir ; I said it had been taken away. Q. You do not know what was the condition of the curtain when you were not there ? A. I am not certain Question repeated. A. How can I tell what was done when I was not there to see ? Q. You do not know, do you ? A. No ; I know the condition when I was there present. Q. HoAV many curtains were there to that stage ? A. There is one drop curtain. Q. Was there not another curtain ? A. We had two, but we did not use but one. Q. Was one a painted curtain ? A. They were both painted. Q. Did they have pictures on them ? A. One of them had a bust of Shakspeare and a landscape. Q. That was the one that was used 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know where Hess is 1 A. He is here. Q. Do you know where Garland is 1 A. No, sir ; 1 do not. Q. Did Garland talk to you any that night 1 A. I placed him at the back door after the murder, and told him not to let anybody go out. We staid there in front until the assassination, and then both wen! in together. Q. Then you were standing out there when the assassination occurred? A. Yes, sir. Q. You did not see Booth go in ? A. No, sir. By Mr. Bradley: Q. You were asked when you were away from the theatre ; were you there at twelve o'clock 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. And if the curtain had been down at twelve o'clock you would have known it 1 A. It could not have been down at twelve ; the rehearsal lasted until nearly two. The rehearsal lasted nearly all the time from eleven until two. Q. As to the light in this box, where would it have come from in the day- time ? A. It would have come from the front of the box. Q. And where would the daylight have been admitted there ? A. (Witness refei'red to a point on the diagram.) It would have been ad- mitted from these openings. TEIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 565 Q. Then all the light that could have been admitted was that passiug through the main body of the theatre from these openings ? A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Pierrkpont : Q. You liave just stated there was a rehearsal from eleven till two ; where were you at that time ? A. On the stage. Q. On the stage all the time ? A. Yes, sir ; it was my business to be there. Q. You were there all the time from eleven luitil two ? A. Yes, sir ; I was in the theatre. Q. Did you leave the stage ? A. I might have left the stage between eleven and two. Q. Then why did you say the curtain could not have been down? A. Because the room was wanted for the rehearsal. They always want the first entrance, and the curtain rises back of the first entrance. Q. When they are playing in the theatre the curtain does drop, does it not ? A. Y^es, sir. By Mr. Bradley : Q. And when the curtain drops the actors retire behind it, do they not ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Except when they sometimes come in front to make their bows 1 A. Yes, t-ir. The court here ttiok a recess for half an hour. AFTERNOON SESSION. C. B. Hess sworn and examined. By Mr. Bradley : Q. Where do you reside ? A. At JS^. 520 North Fifth street, Thiladelpliia. Q. State whether, in the month of April, 1865, you were or not in any way connected with the theatre company performing at Ford's theatre, in this city. A. I was. Q. As an actor, or how ? A. Actor. Q. Do you remember the night of the assassination of the President ? ■ A. I do. Q. State whether you had any part in the performance that night, and at what time you were to appear. A. I was not in the American Cousin, but was in a song that was to be sufig after the performance of the American Cousin. Q. A national song? A. Yes, sir ; written expressly for the President. Q. And who was to sing with vou ? A. There was a Miss Gurley, Mr. Phillips— T think it is II. B. Phillip.s— and myself, with a general chorus on the part of the company. Q. State whether you were in front of the theatre in the course of that evening ? A. I was in and out of the theatre several times during the evening. Q. Do you recollect of, at any time, talking with Mr. Gifford or any one else out in front of the theatre] A. While I was talking Avith Mr. Gifford and Mr. Garland, there was a gen- tleman standing on the curbstone, dressed, it seemed to me, like an ofiicer. I thought he was an officer. He had a military coat on, or something like it. 566 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Do you recollect about where you were standing: talking, with !Mr. Gifford and Mr. Garland ? A. At the entrance leading to the stage, called by actors the back door. Q. Wei'e they there before you or uot 1 A. Mr. Garland and Mr. GilFord were there before I was. Q. From what direction did you come towards them ? A. As I came out of the theatre I met them at the door. Q. Did you leave them? A. I did. Q. Which direction did you take then 1 A I went right back into the theatre again. Q. Did you see them afterwards ? A. I did not. Q. When you came out and spoke to them, was anything said about the time? A. Yes, sir. I asked them what time it was. Mr. Garland walked as far as the first door in front of the theatre, leading into the audience department, looked at the clock, and came back and told me it was ten minutes past ten. Says I, "Ten minutes past ten; I M'ill be wanted in a few minutes," and then left them immediately and went back into the theatre again. I do not tliink I had been there more than two minutes when I heard the discharge of a pistol. What afterwards happened I do not know, because there was an uproar all over the house at that time. Q,. At any time in the course of the evening, and shortly before this, had you come from the direction of F street down to where they were standing 1 A. Yes, sir ; I walked up as far as F street, to Mr. Ferguson's, 1 think it was, and got a cigar. I then walked back again to the door. Q. Was that announcement of the time in an audible tone of voice, or was it said in a private way ? A. I asked it in a kind of very loud tone my.self, knowing that I had, at least I supposed I had, about a quarter of an hour in which to dress up — to put on a black dress suit — to appear before the President in. Q. Do you remember how you were dressed that evening 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. State how. A. I had a light spring overcoat on, and kind of darkish pants. Q. What is called a raglan ? A. Yes, sir. Cross-examination by Mr. Pierrepont : Q. Did you ever think you looked any like Surratt ? A. No, sir. Q. When you asked what the time was, and they told you, you pronounced it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Which tone of voice was the loudest — the way you asked it or the way you reiterated it after they told you? A. The way I asked it. Q. Then you announced it in a lower tone, did you ? A. Yes, s:r. Q. Won't you give the jury a specimen of how it was done? A. (Speaking in an ordinary conversational tone of voice.) Says I, " IMr. Garland, what time is it?" He walks up in the direction of the clock, and then says, "Ten minutes past ten." Says I, "Ten minutes past ten; I am wanted in a few minutes." Q. That is exactly what you said ? A. Yes, .sir. Q. And you stated it in that tone of voice? i TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURKATT. 567 A. Yes, sir. Q. You did not tuiii pale at all ? A. ?so, sir. Q. You did not tliiuk there was anything ti) cause you to be agitated in that, did you ? A. No, sir; nothing at all. Q. You were not agitated ? A. No, sir. Q. What sort of a hat did you wear on that occasion? A. Kind of a dark hat — not a very high one. Q. A low hat ] A. Yes, sir. Q. What sort of shape 1 A. Round at the top. Q. How about the brim ? A. Stiff brim. Q. Like this one ? (handing witness a black felt hat, round top, and stiff brim.) A. Of the same style; but it had no wire round the brim. Q. So far as its general appearance wa« concerned it was the same ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you then wear a moustache? A. Yes, sir. Q. The same as now ? A. About the same. Q. As heavy as it is now ? A. Very near. Q. And as black as it is now ? A. About the same. Q. And your hair was the same ? A. My hair was longer. Q. Was your hair as black ? A. Yes, sir; it always has been. Q. Was your fulness of face about the same ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You were no paler then than now? A. No, sir. Q. And no more agitated than now ? A. I do not think I was. Q. Wiien you said what you have stated to the jury, you said it just as you Lave given it here? A. Yes, sir. Q. In that same tone of voice? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you go down to the steps and range yourself in a line with anybody 1 A. No, t A. That 1 could not say. Q. Cannot you tell which of your number ? A. No, sir ; because I made no memorandum of it. Q. One of them did 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Didn't two ? A. I cannot say whether one or two. Q. Where did you have that handkerchief that night 1 A. I guess I had it in my overcoat pocket. Q. Where did you have it the next morning when you dressed yourself? A. I guess in my overcoat pocket. Q. That was the morning of Thursday, the 20th, was it not 1 •A. Yes, sir. Q. Then you think that handkerchief was in your overcoat pocket on Thurs- day, the 20th ? A. It was. Q. You are positive, that on Thursday, the 20th, it wag in your overcoat pocket 1 A. I am. Q. You took the cars that day 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. And went to Essex Junction ? A. I did. Q. Was it there you discovered the loss of the handkerchief? A. It was. Q You knew you had it in the morning ? A. I knew I had it the night previous in my overcoat pocket. I know it be- cause m}' tobacco was in my overcoat pocket. Q. Tlie tobacco makes you positive about the time ? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you got to Essex Junction, how did you happen to find out it was gone ? A. Well, there was a house about two hundred yards from the Junction, and I had asked some of the men on the cars if it was not a drinking house, and in- vited some of ihem to go and get a drink. It was early in the morning, and not feeling well, I went up and got a drink. Q. Who went with you? A. I went alone. Q. What time in the morning did you get the drink ? 1 TRIAL OF JOHN 11. SURRATT. 683' A, Between four and five o'clock. Q. After sunrifie ? A. Early iu the morning. Q. What then happened after you got the drink ? A. I wanted a chew of tobacco. When 1 came back, and got my overcoat from these parties who were with me, and who had charge of it, I searched in the pockets, but there was no tobacco nor any handkerchief. Q. How much tobacco had you in it in the morning ? A. I guess I had what we call three ten cent plugs. Q. Was the handkerchief wrapped around it 1 A. No, sir. Q. Were they both in the same pocket ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You supposed they both fell out 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. What sort of weather was it early in the morning, on the 20th ? A. It was a clear morning, but pretty cool where we were, in Vermont. Q. Did you wear your overcoat ? A. No, sir; I had thick winter clothes on, and therefore I had no need for it- Q. Was there anything else in the pocket, on the morning of the 20th, except this tobacco and the handkerchief? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever seen that handkerchief since ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you think you would know it if you were to see it? • A. Possibly I might recognize it. Q. You are sure about the date ? A. I am as positive as 1 am that I am now looking at you. Q. Where did you go after you had left there on the 20th of April ? A. We continued on our road to Canada. Q. At what time did you get to Canada ? A. It was early in the afternoon ; I think it might have been one or tw« -o'clock. . Q. What hotel did you go to t A. I think to the Oswego — some such name as that. There are duly three- hotels there of any account. Q. You know Mr. Bigley well, don't you ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is he in the army ? A. I do not know ; he may be. Q. Did you tell Mr. Bigley that you lost that handkerchief at St. Albans V A. No, sir. Q. You did not, at any time, tell Mr. Bigley that you lost it ai St. Albans ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you know Weichmann well, who was with you ? A. I knew him well. Q. Did you tell him you left it under your pillow, at the hotel ? ' A. No, sir; it is a falsehood. Q. You did not tell him so at that time ? A. No, sir ; it is a falsehood. Q. It is a falsehood, is it ? AVhat is a falsehood ? A. It is a falsehood, my leaving that handkerchief under the pMl'ow. Q. I did not ask you whether you left it. 1 asked you if you said you did ? A. I did not say 1 did. Q. Were you with Mr. Weichmann all the time in Canada?: A. No. Q. Were you and Clarvoe and Bigley with Weichmann in Canada ?' 684 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Clarvoe did not go to Canadra wheu we first went there. Q. Then neither you nor Ciarvoe were in Canada with Weichmann ? A. Yes, Ciarvoe was. He came there after we were there. Q. Were you and Ciarvoe with Weichmaun at any time ? A. No. I was with Weichmann and Bigley at one tiuie. Q. Did not Weichmann go to Quebec ? A. Yes. Mr. Bradley. Is not that hearsay. WiTN ESS. I know he went ; that is, I know they left to go to Quebec. I went to Three Rivers with a detective from Montreal. Q. You were examined before, were you not ? A. At the penitentiary I was. Q. At the trial of the conspirators 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Let me read to you from a report of that trial : " The last time I saw hira, [referring to Sun-att] was on the night of the third of April, the day on which the news of the fall of Richmond was received." You said that 1 A. I did, sir. Q. "He knocked at the door of my room at about ten o'clock, after I was in bed, and wished me to exchange some gold for greenbacks." Did you say that 1 A. The way of it was this : they would not allow me to make my statement there on that trial. Q. I did not ask you about that. I ask you whether you have said what I have read ? A. As I was saying to you Q. You must stop and answer my question. My question simply is, did you say this, as I have read it, on the trial ? A. Yes ; but I want to explain it in this way. Q. You said what I have read, did you ? A. Yes ; but I want to explain. Q. Well, now what do you want to say ? A. I want to put in this : they would not allow me to make my statement. "^J^hey put questions there, whatever they chose to ask. Surratt came to my room door and wanted to see me. I put my pants on, and went into the room where Mr. W«-ichmann was. He had his shirt off, and was undressed. Sur- ratt said to me "Have you any money with you." 1 said "I have. How much do you want?" He said "I want fifty dollars." I said you can have it. 1 went to my room and got it, and gave him fifty dollars, and asked him if tlTat was enough. He said he would like to get ten dollars more. I got ten dollars and gave it to him ; and just as I was going out in the passage he handed me two twenty-dollar gold pieces, and insisted on my taking it. I did not want it. Q. Is that all you want to say 1 A. That is all just now. Q. Now, is this what you said down at the arsenal : "I gave him sixty dol- lars in paper for forty dollars in gold. He said he wanted to go to New York, and that he could not get it exchanged in time to leave by the early train in the morning ?" A. Yes, I said that. Q. Is that true 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. "I never knew anything ofMrs.Surratt's defective eye-sight, while I lived with her " Mr. Bradley. We have not asked the witness anything about Mrs. Surratt's defective eje-sight. Mr. PiBRREPONT. Very well. I do not care to press it. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 685 Mr. Bradley. Why did you a?k it then? Mr. PiKRRKPONT. I asked him whether he said that in the other trial. I read again from that trial: "While there I eaw Atzerodt several times, though I did not know him by that name. He seemed to be with John Surratt most of the time." Did you say that on that trial ? A. I did. Q. Was it ti-ue 1 A. It was true. I sav/ Weichmann with the whole party. Q. "I also saw Payne there at breakfast. The name by which I knew him was Wood. John Wilkes liooth, I have seen frequently. I have seen him in the parlor with Mrs. Surratt and the young ladies." Did you say that ? A. I did. Q. Was that true 1 A. Yes, it was true. Q,. In your direct examination, you told us about a "mission" that you said you had up at the office of the Secretary of War. "Mission" Avas the word you used, was it not ? A. I do not recollect using any such word. Q. Do you remember or not about going to the office of the Secretary of War on a certain Saturday night? A. I do. Q. Did you use the word "mission" in that connection ? And did you say you faili'd in it ? A. We failed to get an engine for a special train to go to Baltimore. Q. Was that what you alluded to ? A. I think it was. Q. What were you going to Baltimore for ? A. It was at the suggestion of McDevitt. Q. What were you going to Baltimore for? A. McDevitt was going there, thinking that possibly Atzerodt and other parties would be in Baltimore. Q. What parties ? A. Atzerodt and parties. Same question repeated three times, with same answer. Question again repeated. A. Booth and Payne. Q. Anybody else ? A. No. Q. When you were so reluctant in naming what parties, did you mean Sur- ratt. The parties in Baltimore did not comprehend Surratt ? A. I do not understand tliat. Mr. PlERRKPuiVT. I presume that I shall hardly be able to put it in language that you will be able to understand. Witness. If you will put it in dift'erent language perhaps I may understand it. Q. If you do not understand that, I do not think I will be able to make my- self understood. Will you tell us when you got back from Canada? A. Saturday morning. Q. What day of the month ? A. I have no recollection of the day of the month. It was about eight or ten days after the assassination. It was on Saturday morning. I recollect distinctly. Q. Do you recollect what day of the month ? A. I have just told you, Saturday morning. Q. How many days after you left here? A. It was about ten days — eight or ten. Q. You speak of being in prison, what were you in prison for ? 686 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. That is more than I am able to say; Secretary Stanton will be able to answer you that better than I can. Q. You do not know ? A No. Q. When you went to the depot that morning from Burlington, the others went along with you? A. No, sir. Q. None of them ? A. None of them. Q. You went alone ] A. I went alone. Q You went alone that morning ? A. I did, sir ; positively. Q. Who at the hotel with you staid behind ? Witness. What hotel ? Mr. PiERREPOAT. The hotel at Burlington. AViT.NESS. Staid back? Mr. PiERREPONT. Yes; who staid back when you went alone ? Witness. I do not think you have got the right point. Mr. PiERREPONT. May be not. Witness. I do not think you have. I think your informer has not given you the right point. I can put you right. Mr. Pierrkpont. Just wait a moment; you will have to put yourself right. Now you will have to answer my questions. Witness. Very well; you must put your questions to me. Mr. PiERREPONT appealed to the court to direct the witness to answer questions. He wished to know whether the witness could be allowed to tell him he had got the wrong point, and that his informer had got the wrong point. The Court directed the witness to answer questions as they wei*e put, and to make whatever explanation he fouud necessaiy afterwards. Mr. Bradley. remarked that the other day the court reproved the counsel for the manner in which they cross-examined witnesses. He thought no witness had been cross-examined in a way more to provoke him than this. The Court said he could not see anything calling on hira to reprove counsel. The witness must answer the questions put to him. Q. Now, will you tell me when you left the hotel in Burlington, who you left behind of your party 1 A. I did not leave anybody behind. Q. Did they all go with you 1 A. No ; they did not. Q. Did anybody go with you? A. One. Q. Who? A. I will not be positive whether it was Bigley or McDevitt. One went with me, and one went with Weichmann. They separated. Q Did not Bigley go with you ? A. 1 think it was Bigley. By Mr. Bradley : Q. Tell the jury how many pockets your overcoat had in it. A. Six. Q. In which pocket was the tobacco and the pocket handerchief ? A. The right-hand outside pocket. Q. When you picked up the handkerchief were you aware that it had a name on it ? A. I was. Clarvoe said to me, " You keep that handkerchief^ you will want to use it." He made a remark something of that kind. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 6^87 Q. You have been asked if you would recognize that handkerchief again. Please look at that, (handkerchief heretofore placed in evidence exhibited) and say if you think that is the same. A. That is the handkerchief, sir. Q. Now, state to the jury by what you identify that as the handkerchi'^f ; state whether you carried it in your pocket and made some use of it. A. Yes, sir. I used it the same as my own handkerchief until it became very dirty. Q. You observed that handkerchief. Now, is the number where you sup- posed it to be or not ? A. It is under the line. Q. Not at the end of the line, as you supposed ? A. No. Q. You were asked if you told Weichmann that you left it under your pillow at the hotel. You say you did not tell him so Did you at any time state to Weichmann that you had lost that handkerchief? A. I never stated to him anything about it. The only statement I made was in Montreal. ^IcDevitt and Ciarvoe told me Mr. PiEKRBPONT. You need not state what they said. Mr. Bradley. Do not state what they said. I ask you if you communi- cated to any one the loss of that handkerchief; and if so, when it was, and where ? A. I did not communicate it to anybody until they told me it was found. A party told me it had been found, and then I said I had lost it. Q. That was after you reached Montreal ? A. Yes, sir; that was after we came back from Three Rivers. Q. The counsel read to you from your examination betbre the military com- mission as to whether you had ever seen Payne or not. Did you ever know him by any other name than AVood ? A. No, sit. Q. While you were in the house you met him there ? A. At breakfast. Q. Did you see him about the house at any other time than at breakfast ? A. No, sir, Q. Do you recollect about what period of time it was — how long after you went to board at Mrs. Surratt's ? A. It may have been two ortliree weeks. I do not recollect the time. Q. Was that the only time you ever saw him at that house ? A. The only t me. Q. You never knew him by any other name than Wood ? A. I did not. It was Weichmann who introduced me. Q. And he introduced you as Wood ? A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Pierrrpu.\t : Q. AVhere ^id you first mention the loss of that handkerchief to anybody ? A. In Montreal. q. What day ? A. I cannot locate the day. Q. Do you remember the day of the week ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember the day of the month ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember the person to whom you told it ? A. Yes. Q. Who? 688 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. McDevitt. Q. Please look at the handkerchief and see if the number is on the same line with the name. A. I do not think it is. I can see from this distance. Q. Is this the handkerchief that you lost ? A. That is asking too much of me. Q. A little too much, I suppose. A. I cannot say positively that I had this handkerchief there ; but I think this is the one. John A. W. Clarvoe, detective, metropolitan police, swoi-n and examined. By Mr. Bradley : Q. State to the court and jury whether you were at the house of Mrs. Surratt on the night of the 14th of April ; and if so, at what time you got there, and who went with you. A. 1 should judge at about half-past two o'clock on the night of the 14th of April, in company with my partner, Lieutenant Skippon, detective Donaldson, and an officer by the name of Maxwell, and several others I do not now recol- lect; and we went to the house of Mrs. Surratt on H street. Q. Was that in response to information you had received, and for what pur- pose did you go 1 A. I went for the purpose of capturing Booth, and also to arrest John H. Surratt. Examination of witness suspended at this point. , Eliza Holahan, wife of John T. Holahan, sworn and examined. By Mr. Bradley : Q. State whether you boarded at Mrs. Surratt's in the year 1865. A. I did, from the 7th of February until the 17th of April. Q. During that time did you mingle socially in the family of Mrs. Surratt, or keep yourself exclusive ? A. I mingled Avith them freely, met them at any time and at all times Q. Do you recollect to have seen there at any time Mr. Weichmann, and whether he was a boarder or not ? A. He was a boarder in the house while I was. He was there when I first went there to board. Q. Did you at any time see him and a man by the name of Atzerodt ? A. I saw a person who came to the house. I did not know him by that name. They called him Port Tobacco. His familiar name was Port Tobacco. Q. State whether you observed any intimacy between him and Mr. Weich- mann A. I saw him ofteuer with Mr. Weichmann than with any member of the household. Q. Bad you ever seen them go from the house or come to the house together ? A. Yes, sir; on two occasions I saw them go and come. Q. Did you know anything of Atzerodt wearing Weichmann's clothes at any time ? A. 1 remember once seeing Atzerodt leave the house with Weichmann's cloak and hat on — a tall black hat and military cloak. Q. During that time did you ever see a man by the name of Herold there 1 A. Never. Q. Did you see John Wilkes Booth ? A. Yes, sir ; I saw him there two or three times. Q. Did you ever see a man there by the name of Payne or Wood 1 I TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 689 A. I met a man calling liimself Wood ; I never knew him by the name of Payne. I never heard of him by that name until after the assassination. Q. In the latter part of the time you were there where did you have your washing done 1 A. In the latter part of my stay in the house we had it done by Mrs. Surratt's washerwoman. Q. At what time did you put out your clothes to wash? A. On Monday morning, generally, and they were delivered to us on Wednes- day. Q. Do you remember on the day after the assassination of the President whether there was any washing done in the house that day, or the day before ? A. On the day after the assassination I think there was none done. I am sure that I had no washing done after the assassination, and that I put out no clothes to wash until the Monday following. Q. When did you go home? A. I went home on Sunday at 2 o'clock and returned on Monday and re- mained until after 12 or 1 o'clock. That morning I put out my clothes to wash. Q. Do you remember whether on Sunday or ]\[onday your clean clothes you had received from the wash were put away, or whether they were left lying on the bed ? A. My clean clothes were put away. Q. You were at home at Mrs. Surratt's on the 3d of April, the day of the news of the surrender of Richmond ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see Mr. John Surratt that night ? A. I did not see him ; I heard his voice. He knocked at our door and asked Mr. Holahan to come to the door. Q. Had he not been absent some days before 1 A. He had ; some six or eight days, I believe. It might have been longer ; I think it was. Q. Did you see him when he left there prior to the 3d of April ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who went with him and how did he go ? Witness. On his visit to Richmond, do you mean ? Mr. Bradley. Yes; at that time. A. I think he left in company with his mother and another lady, in a car- riage, with a white and dark horse. Q. A buggy and two horses 1 A. Yes, si I ; two horses and carriage. Q. Were you at home on the ]4th of April ? A. I was. Q. AVere you at home when Mrs. Surratt arrived that afternoon ? A. I was. Q. Now please to state to the court and jury what occurred immediately after Mrs. Surratt's arrival on Friday afternoon from Surrattsville ? A. I did not see Mrs. Surratt for some time after she returned ; some ten or fifteen or twenty minutes. Then 1 called her and asked her if she was ready to go out. She had promised that morning to go to church that night. She said she was, and took her bonnet and shawl and put them on, and we went as far as Dr. Evans's house, two doors above Mrs. Surratt's. The adjoining house was Mr. Sweeney's. I remarked that it was a heavy, disagreeable night, and suggest- ed that we did not go. She said " well," and we returned togcrther back to the porch and staid some five or ten minutes, when I went to my room and Mrs. Sur- ratt went to the parlor. I did not see her after that. 690 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. After you went to your room and Mrs. Surratt went to the parlor, you did not see her again till when ? A. Until the next morning, ahout 7 or half-past 7 o'clock ; I am not sure about the hour. It was some time before we had breakfast. Q. And you did not see her during the night when the officers were there making their search ? A. I did not see her until the next morning, Q. At breakfast, do you remember what time Miss Anna Surratt came in ? A. She came in late; when we were nearly through. She went to bed the evening before — or left the parloi' — the first one, and she did not enter the breakfast room until we were nearly through breakfast. Q. Was Weichmann at breakfast ? A. He was. Q. Did you hear Weichmann, while at breakfast, say to Mrs. Surratt and to Mr. Holahan, at the table, that he had his suspicions about tins business and was going to the government and state his suspicions about it; state who he had ever seen in Booth's company, and do all he could to bring these parties to justice ? Mr. PiERREPONT asked whether that was a proper question Mr. Bradley replied that it was ; that the witness Weichmann stated that this conversation took place in the presence of Mrs. Holahan, Mr. Holahan, Miss Jenkins, and Miss Dean, at breakfast, and read from the report of Weichmann's testimony, in which lie stated that this conversation was in the presence of Mrs. Holahan, at the breakfast table. Mr. PiERREPONT said he did not object to the question. Question repeated. A. No, sir ; I never heard any such expression made use of. Mr. Bradley said he understood that under the ruling of the court he was not permitted to inquire whether any such remark as was imputed to Anna Surratt was made The Court replied, he was not. Q. I understand you to say you did not go into the parlor after you returned from your walk with Mrs. Surratt that night. Now can you state with any confidence at what time in the evening you and Mrs. Surratt went out ? A. I should suppose it was about 9 o'clock, or it might have been later than 9 ; probably about a quarter past 9. Q. Did you observe anything in her manner to excite your surpi'ise at all or to attract your attention ? A. No, sir ; I did not ; she seemed as calm as ever I saw her in my life. Q. You observed no nervousness ; hurried, excited manner ? A. None at all. Q. You say you went out that evening intending to go to church ; state whether you had ever been to church with her before, and what her habit was as to going to church Question objected to by Mr. Pierrepont, on the ground that general habits could not be shown. Ml-. Bradley said he offered the evidence to prove the general good charac- ter of Mrs. Surratt. The Court said that the matter of people going to church he did not think proved anything about character, so far as his experience went. Mr. Bradley said, then he would put the question in this way : Q. While you lived at Mrs. Surratt's had you opportunities of learning her character ? (Question objected to by Mr. Pierrepont as immaterial ; Mrs. Surratt was not on trial. Objection sustained, and exception to ruling reserved by counsel for the defence.) TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 691 Q. I ask you whether you know anything of Mrs. Surratt having a defec- tive eyesight ? A. 1 do not think her eyesight was very good. I have often been called to thread needles for her and to read notes. I never saw her read or sew after daylight. Cross-examined by Mr. Pierrepont : Q. At what time did church begin on this Friday night in April ? A. About half past 7. Q. You state tliat ]\Irs. Surratt and yourself started out to go to church at 9 o'clock or a quarter after ; iiow many houses did you pass towards the church before you turned back 1 A. Two. Q. And when you came back you went to your room ? A. I staid in the door-way after, a few minutes ; then I went to my room and Mrs. Surratt went to the parlor. Q. And you saw her no more until the next morning ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you know about your husband going to the theatre a while before that ? A. I think Mr. Ilolahan was down town one night, and went to the theatre. Mr. Bradley. You did not go with him ] A. I did not. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. Then you do not know about it of your own knowledge ? A. No, sir. Q. You spoke of a lady who went away with Mrs. Surratt ; who was that lady? A. I do not know her name. Q. Did you ever see her before ? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever seen her since 1 A. No, sir. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt tell you who she was ? (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley, on the ground that the court had already ruled that what Mrs. Surratt said could not be given in evidence. Objection sus- tained.) A. I said that Mr. Snrratt left home on the 3d of April, and that he was accompanied by his mother and a lady ; that they went in a two-horse carriage. Q. And you cannot tell me who the lady was 1 A. No, sir. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt tell you who she was 1 (Question again objected to by Mr. Bradley, and objection sustained.) Q. You say Surratt returned on the 3d of April ; was this six days before that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now tell us when you put your clothes in the wash at the time you have been asked about. A. We put our clothes in the wash on Monday. Q. This murder of the President having occurred on Friday night, did you put out your clothes on the next Monday ? A. I did. I left Mrs. Surratt's on Sunday, and returned next morning and put them out to wash. Q. Do you know when they came out of the wash ? A. I do not know anything further about them. I never saw them again for three or four weeks. 692 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. When you left, the clothea that had been washed, you say, had been put away 1 A. I do not recollect anything about it. We found them some up stairs and some down stairs. Q. When did you see the clothes you put in the wash on that Monday, again ? A. Never until I was allowed permission to go and get my clothes from Mrs. Surratt's house. Q. How long afterwards ? A. I presume some fourteen days. It may have been more. Q. Were you examined on the conspiracy trial 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. On that trial let me call your attention to what you are reported as having said. Did you state this : " I boarded with Mrs. Surratt from the seventh of February until two days after the assassination. I know the prisoner at the bar, who called himself Wood. [Payne.] I saw him at Mrs. Surratt's in February, and the second time 1 think about the middle of March. He was introduced to me as ]\[r. Wood, but I never exchanged a word with him on either visit. I asked Miss Anna Surratt who he was, and she said he was a Mr. Wood, a Bap- tist minister. I said I did not think he would convert many souls. He did not look as if he would." A. I did. Q. I read further : " I have seen the prisoner Atzerodt at Mrs. Surratt's, though I never heard of him by that name. He called himself and the young ladies called him Port Tobacco. I saw him come in at times and he dined there once or twice." Did you state that l A. Yes, sir. Q. Further on : "I have seen John Wilkes Booth at Mrs. Surratt's three or four times. When he called he spent most of his time in company with Mrs. Surratt, I believe. He would ask for Mr. John Surratt, as I understood." Did you state that before the military commission ? (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley as not in response to direct examination.) Mr. PiERREPONT in.sisted on the question, and said he had a right to ask her whether this was what she said on the former trial. (Objection overruled.) A. Yes, sir ; about that. Q. State what church you started to attend that night. A. Saint Patrick's church. Q. How far was that from the house 1 ik. I suppose about five squares. By Mr. Merrick : Q. How long did the services in that church continue on Good Friday night? A. Generally until ten o'clock or after. The services are prolonged on Good Friday night. By Mr. Bradley: Q. I ask you whether on this same trial to which the gentleman has referred you did not testify as follows, in speaking of Atzerodt : " I saw him come in at times, and he dined there once or twice. I heard Mrs. Surratt say she objected to Mr. At»n-odt ; she did not like him — and that she would rather he did not come there to board." A. Yes, sir ; that was my statement. Eliza Hawkins, (colored,) sworn and examined. By Mr. Bradley : Q. Were you ever called Rachel 1 A. Yes, sir ; that was my name. They called me Eliza for short ; it has beeu so long since they called me Rachel that I am not called that at all now. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 693 Q. Do you know Susan Ann Jackson, who lived at Mrs. Surratt's ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was her name then ? A. Susan Ann Mahony. Q. But now it is Jackson 1 A. Yes ; slie was not married when I saw her. Her name then was Susan Mahony. Q. Do you recollect the night when the President was murdered ? A. Yes, sir ; Good Friday night. Q. How long after that was it before you saw Susan Mahony 1 A. I saw her Tuesday morning. Mrs. Surratt was taken to prison on Monday night. 1 saw her on Tuesday morning. Q. Where were you living at that time ? A. I was living with Mr. John Lloyd, at Surrattsville, and I came to see my children and Mr. Wildman and his family. I used to belong to him. I came up on Good Friday to take my Easter holiday. I always do it. Q. When you saw Susan, did yon have any talk with her about John Surratt? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did she tell you about John Surratt ? (Question objected toby Mr. Pierrepont. He did not understand that when Susan Ann .lackson was cross-examined that Eliza Hawkins and Rachel Seavers were the same person.) Tlie Court said he understood distinctly that they referred to the same per- son, and that he thought the witness so understood. A. She was talking about her having such bad luck in losing homes ; that she was afraid she would not get her money. She said she had been living at Mrs. Surratt's two weeks, but that she thought she might get her pay. I said Mrs. Surratt would pay her if it took the last cent she had. She said the night the President was killed they came there and searched the house, and that she heard talk al'out Mr. Surratt; that when she first came there Mr. Surratt was there, and Mrs. Surratt asked her if he did not look very much like her daughter. She said she had not seen him since, and that was about two weeks before ; that she went in where he was, to take in a pot of tea. Tha*. is before God what she told me. I would not say it if it was not true. Cross-examined by Mr. Pierrki'oivt : Q. At what time did you leave Mr. Lloyd's house ? A. After dinner. Q. Did you know Mrs. Surratt 1 A. I lived with her six years. Q. Were yon a slave at the time? A, Yes, 1 was always a slave. Q. Were you the slave of Mrs. Surratt ? A. T was hired to Mrs. Surratt. Mr. Wildman, my master, hired me. Q. And you came up to see her that night? A. I came up to see her, to see my children, and to see Mr. Wildman's family. Q. You went to her house ? A. I did not go that night ; I went to Mr. Wildman's. I went to her house Tuesday morning. Q. That was the first time you went ? A. It was. Q. Where did you see Susan? A. I saw her that morning when I went there. I staid there all day. My little child was there, and after I found the soldiers Avere there I wanted to take her away. 1 staid until S o'clock, and tlien with Susan Jackson and the col- ored mail, whom 1 suppose she married, I went down to the provost marshal's. 694 TRIAL OF JOHN H SUREATT. Q. Was the colored man she married there when you came there on Tuesday? A. No, sir ; he came there in the day. The soldiers said that anybody who came in the house could not go out. Miss Anna Ward came there, and another young lady with her; and they had to stay. Q. Did the soldiers come in while you were there ? A. They were there when I went there. Q. At what time in the morning ? A. After breakfast. The soldiers were there then, and they were passing in and out all day. Q. Did they say anything to you about your staying there. A. They told me I had to stay. I wanted to go away, but they would not let me. I staid until eight o'clock that night. Q. How did you get away 1 A. They carried me down to the provost marshal's. Q. And then they let you oflf ? Who carried you there ? A. They were two soldiers. I do not know who they were. Q. Susan told you that Mrs. Surratt said John looked like Anna ? A. She said he looked very much like Anna. Q. Did you know Ann i ? A. Certainly, I knew Miss Anna Surratt. I had been living in the house six years. Q. You knew them all ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You were attached to them 1 A. Very much attached to them. I would have been with them till this day if I could. Q. You are very much attached to them to this day ? A. Yes, sir, very much attached to them. Q. Your feelings are strongly interested in them 1 A. Oh, yes, sir ; they treated me right ; I certainly had a right to be so. By Mr. Bradley : Q. But your feelings are not strong enough to make you tell a lie about it 1 A. No, sir; before God, I want to tell the truth. Q. You say you lived with Mrs. Surratt for six years down at Surrattsville, now I want you to tell me how Mrs. Surratt behaved when the Union soldiers came there. (Question objected to by Mr. Pierrepont as not relevant. Mr. Bradley said his offer of proof was that Mrs Surratt fed and sustained the Union soldiers and furnished them with everything she had when at her house. Objection sus- tained. Exception to the ruling reserved by counsel for the defence.) By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. State to the jury when you first told anybody about this matter? Witness. About Susan Ana Jackson and what she told me 1 Mr. Pierrepont. Yes. A. I went on the Island and told my young mistress about it as soon as I got there. Q. When w^as that? A. It was the very night I got there. I do not know what day of the month it was. Q. Who was young mistress 1 A. She married Henry Quinn. Q. Who have you told since this trial commenced about it? A. I heard them read about it in the papers what Susan said, and told them Susan certainly could not have said that ; she could not have sworn to such a thing as that. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. 695 Q. Did you say that to several people ? A. I said it to every one mIio read the papers to me. Q. Wlio did you say it to tirst? A. The first one I said it to was the man who lived with Mr. Barry. His name is Richardson. He road the paper to me. Q. When did you last see Susan ? A. I saw Susan last fall. She was going down to see her mother. Q. Are you and Susan good friends ? A. Yes, sir ; good friends. Q. You never had any quarrel ? A. No, indeed. We never had any words. I never had any difference with her. Q. Are you married ] A. Yes, sir. Q. What is your husband's name 1 A. His name was Tom Seavers. Q. When did he die ? A. He is not dead yet. When the colored people were going away he went away too. He was with a man who did better for him than he does now for himself. Q. But he did not go back ? A. No, sir ; he staid in the city. He was so lazy and good for nothing I made up my mind I would not follow him. I had children to work for, and I thought I woidd rather stay there and work for my children than to come here and snffer with liitn. Q. Now tell us, please, where you saw Susan Jackson. A She came down to Surrattsville on her way to see her mother — she and her husband. I Avas down there fixing Mr. Robey's daughter off to get mar- ried — fixing up some clothes. When they got to T. B. her horse gave out, and they wanted to stop there all night. Mrs. Robey was away. I told her that if Mr. Robey said so she could stay, but that otherwise she could not sleep in that house tliat niglit. When Mr. Robey came out he told them they could rest their horses and go on ; that she could not stay there that night. Q. W^hat was the reason she could not stay there ? A. Mrs. Robey was away from the house, and left the house in my care, and I could not take any stranger in to lodge in the house. Q. She was a stranger to you, then ? A. I had seen her. She was no intimate friend. Q. You did not like last fall to take a stranger into the house ? A. I would not take her into Mrs. Robey's house when she was away. If it had been my mother I would not have done it. Q. Was this a tavern 1 A. Yes, sir; Mr. Ned Robey kept it. Q. They did not take strangers in there did they ? A. Yes, sir, they took strangers in. By Mr. Merrick : Q. You mean strangers to Mrs. Robey ? A. Yes ; Mrs Robey was not there. By Mr. Bradley : Q. They took in strangers who wanted to lodge there and paid for their lodg- ing, did they not? A. Yes, sir ; they did. They did not take in anybody except white people They had no arrangements for taking in colored people. By Mr. PiERREPOiVT : Q. Did they take in any people they did not know 1 696 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Certainly they took in more than they knew. It was a tavern ; and if they had not done this it coukl not have been of any service to them. The court took a recess until to-morrow, at 10 o'clock a. m. Friday, July 12, 1867. The court met at 1 o'clock a. m. Examination-in-chief of John A. W. Clarvoe resumed. By Mr. Bradley: Q. When you were interrupted yesterday, you had proceeded so far as to state that you went, with a number of others, to the house of Mrs. Surratt to capture Booth and arrest John H. Surratt. Now state, if you please, taking up your narrative, all that you recollect that passed after you reached Mrs. Surratt's house. A. I went to the house with McDevitt, Lieutenant Skippon, and others. McDevitt, myself, and Lieutenant Skippon entered the house after putting a guard at the back and at each corner. We went up and knocked at the door. The door was opened by a man barefoot, in his shirt-sleeves, and bareheaded. I asked him if John Surratt was in. Q. Who was that man 1 A. He gave me his name as Weichmann. Said he, " No, sir, he is not in the city." Said 1, "His mother is in. Does she live here?" He said "Yes." I told him I would like to see the lady. He said she was in bed. I told him it made no difference, I must see her. Said he, "I will speak to her first." As he moved from the door I pushed in, and tlie i-est followed. Q. Did you follow him 1 A. I followed Weichman ; yes, sir. He went to the second door in the pas- sage, to the left, which I supposed to be the back parlor. He went to that door and knocked, I think. When he first went, he held a conversation there a few minutes. 1 went to the door and saw a lady standing there. I asked if that was Mrs. Surratt. She said it was. I told her I wanted to see John. She said, " John is not in the city, sir." I asked her when she had seen him last. Mr. PlERREPONT said the witness could not say what Mrs. Surratt stated. The Court said the witness might give in evidence all the conversation the witness Weichman alluded to in his evidence. Mr. Bradley said that was all he asked of the witness. Mr. PlERREPONT denied that Weichman had alluded to any such conversation in his evidence, whatever, and appealed to the reporters' notes to sustain him. The notes of the witness Weichman 's testimony having been read, Mr. Pierre- pont still denied that the conversation this witness had commenced to relate was referred to by Weichman. The conversation stated by Weichman was no one else but himself was present with Mrs. Surratt. The Court remaiked that the notes seemed to show that there were two con- versations ; one between the detective outside with Weichman, and another inside between Weichman and Mrs. Surratt. Anything relating to these con- versations that the witness heard could be stated in evidence. Mr. Bradley said he proposed to prove that, in point of fact, the incident did not occur as Weichman stated it. The Court said the counsel might prove by this witness whether the con- versation AVeichman testified to was in his presence. Q. Was Mr. Weichman standing by the door when this conversation passed between you and Mrs. Surratt ? A. Mr. Weichman was to my left. I was on the right of him, and behind him was McDevitt. Q. Could you hear every word that passed ? A. I should think so ; I could. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 697 Q. Was it directly in continuation of the conversation he had had with Mis. Surratt — the former part of the conversation ? A. He had had a conversation with Mrs. Surratt before I got to the door. Q. Was that completed before you came up, or was it still going on ? A. I do not recollect whether it was going on or not when 1 got to the door. Q. You do not remember whether it had ceased before you got there ? A. No, sir. Mr. Bradley then offered to give in evidence what passed between the wit- ness Clarvoe and Mrs. Surratt, in Weichman's presence at that time. He un- derstood the court to overrule it; and he (Mr. Bi-adley) reserved an exception to the ruling of the court. Q. Now proceed with your narrative. You cannot say anything of wliat Mrs. Surratt said. A. I asked Weichman then if he belonged in the house. He told me he did. Said I, " I want to see in your room." I left McDevitt at the door in conver- sation with Mrs. Surratt, and went up stairs with him. Lieutenant Skippon, also, was with me, and another officer behind us. Q. What did you do ? A. He carried me into his room, from the room that Mrs Surratt occupied, the back parlor. I asked him if he said that was his room. He said it was. Said I, "Is ihat your trunk?" He replied "Yes, sir." It was a large trunk. He put his hand on my shoulder and said, " Will you be kind enough to tell me the meaning of all this 1" Said I, " That is a pretty question for you to ask me. Where have you been to-night V He replied, " I have been here in the house." Said I, 'Have you been here all the evening?" He said no, he had been down the country with Mrs. Surratt. I said, " Do you pretend to tell me you have not heard the President has been murdered ?" He replied, " Great God ! I see it all !" or " I see it all, now !" He then asked me if that was true. I told him it certainly was, and pulled out a bow of a neck-handkerchief which I got out of the box, saturated with blood. I told him that was the President's blood ; that John Wilkes Booth had done it, that it was supposed Surratt had assassinated the Secretary of State. I remained in his room a few minutes and started down stairs, Weichman in company. When I got below I met McDevitt and called him aside. I told him Mr. PiERKEPONT. You need not give your conversation with McDevitt. Q. Before you went down stairs did you or not go iu a room where some young ladies were ? A. Not at that time. Q. What did you do when you went down stairs ? A. I went and had a conversation with Mrs. Surratt. Q. Was Weichman with you ? A. I do not know. Q. Go on to state what passed. The Court said witness might state the conversation that occurred with Mr^ Surratt when Weichman and McDevitt were present after the return down stairs. WiT.XFSS. I do not exactly understand what you want me to state.. Mr. Merrick read from the testimony of the witness Weichman as to the conversation that occurred after he went down stairs. Mr. Bradley. Did you go down with Weichman? A. Weichman came down behind me. Q. Was Mrs. Surratt coming out of her room ? A. Mrs. Surratt was standing in her room. She had changed her dress before we had come down. Q. Had Weichman come down stairs before that — before he came with you? A. No, sir ; he could not have done it. 45 698 TRIAL OF JOHN H, SURE ATT. Q. Did you bear Weichman say, " Mrs. Surratt, wliat do you thick 1 Abra- ham Lincoln has been murdered ?" or "President Lincoln has been murdered?'* A. [ did not hear it. Q. Did you hear her reply to an observation, "My God! Mr. Weichman, you do not tell me so !" A. No such reply to me. Q. You may state the conversation that occurred at that time. (Objected to by Mr. Pierrepont.) The Court said the witness might state what occurred between Mrs. Sur- ratt, Weichman, and himself, when all three were together. Mr. Bradley said he had not asked the witness for anything else than what occurred when they were all together. Witness. I am satisfied that Mr. Weichman was with me when I came down stairs. Mr. Merrick argued that it was not necessary for the witness to state abso- lutely that Weichman was present. He stated that to the best of his belief they had a right to show by proof aliunde that he was pi'esent. Mr. Pierrepont replied they might prove by this witness or by any other person that Weichman was present but until that proof the conversation alluded to could not be stated. The Court decided that the conversation might be given by the witness and that if it was proved subsequently that Weichman was present, it would be received in evidence, otherwise not. The examination was then continued. Q. I understand that you came down stairs followed by Weichman ? A. I did not say that. I came down stairs followedbyMcDevitt, and Weich- man followed him. Q. 1 understand that you came down stairs, and that a conversation passed with INIrs. Surratt immediately on your coming down. A. I spoke to McDevitt when I came down stairs as I recollect now, Weich- man being on the steps when 1 spoke to McDevitt. Q. How far off? A. The stairs run up by the side of the door. 'Q. How many feet off? A. 1 do not recollect how many feet. ■Q. You did not miss Weichman from you ? You did not see him go away ? A. I did not. Mr. Bradley. I now ask you to state the conversation ? - (Question objected to by Mr. Pien-epont. Objection overruled by the court, Avith the understanding that unless it was subsequently proved that Weichmanu was present, the testimony would be ruled out.) Witness. I went to her, and said I, Mrs. Surratt, I want to ask you a couple of questions ; and be very particular how you answer them, for there is a great deal depends upon them. When did you see John Wilkes Booth ? She replied she saw him at two o'clock that day. Said I, when did you see your son, John, 'last, and where is he ? Said she : I have told you, sir, I have not seen John for over two weeks. I asked her, then, if she could tell me where he was. She said the last she heard of him was in Canada. Q. Did she say she had heard from him that day ? A. Yes, sir ; 1 understood her to say she heard from him that day ; that she had received a letter from him that day, or had heard from him, I do not recol- 1( c't which — one or the other. She asked me what was the meaning of all this and she said there were a great many mothers who did not know where their sons were. Said I, Mc, you tell her; and then I started up the steps. Q. When you started up the stairs, where did you go ? A. I went up to a little room over the passage. I tried the door, it was TEIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. 099 locked. I heard a female voice inside. At tliat time John Holalian came out of the door opposite. As he came out I said : John, how do you do ? What are you doing here ? Says lie : How are you, John ? I am boarding here ? What is the matter 1 Said I : How long have you been here ? He said he took a walk the night before and got in early, about nine o'clock, I think. I told him the President had been murdered. He replied : Great God Almighty ! and seemed to be surprised. I then took hold of the door to open it, and he said that was his little daughter in there, and asked me to come this way. I went up the steps and when we got on the platform, I told him I wanted to go into that room. He said his wife was in there ; that he would speak to her and let me in. He asked if it was true what I told him. I told him it was. We then started on to the upper story, he told me the front room facing on H street was occupied by two young ladies, and would I have any objection for him to tell them that we wanted to come in their room. I told him that I had not. He went to the door, knocked and the door was opened. I then slipped into a little passage, or little room over the passage, opened the door and went in. That door was not locked. Q. That was the little room over the passage at the top of the house, was it not ? The servants' room 1 A. Yes. When I came out Mr. Holahau said that was the servants' room. Q. Did you look in that room I A. I searched the room. Q. If there had been any body lying on the bed would you have seen them ? A. I certainly should have seen them. Q. Can you state positively whether there was a woman rolled up in the clothes in that bed-room or not ? A. No, sir ; there was not. Q. What followed next 1 A. I stood there a moment, came down, went to the door. He told me that the ladies were ready. I went into the room and searched that room. The ladies were covered up. I told them they would have to show me their faces, that they must excuse me. I pulled the cover from their faces and saw that they were two young ladies. Q. You are certain they Avere not colored women ? A. They were not colored women. I have seen one of the ladies in thirf court room. Q. Was there any colored woman in the bed in Weichmann's room ? A. Is 0,' sir. Q. Now go down stairs if you please. A. I went down stairs and told McDevitt I thought it was best Mr. PrERREPONT. No matter what you told McDevitt. Q. Did you see Susan Ann Jackson ? If so, tell us what she said. A. I then went down into the basement, and going down the stairs I met Lieutenant Skippon. He followed down behind me. At the back room — the kitchen — I saw a black woman. Says I, "Aunty, is John Surratt in this house?" Says she, "I do not know him, sir; whom do you mean, j\Irs. Surratt's son ?" I said I did ; that I did not know Mrs. Surratt had a husband. " I have not seen him," said she, "for over two weeks." Q. Did she tell you she had been covered up in bed up stairs ? A. No, sir ; she did not mention that. Q. After that, what did you do ? A. I went up stairs ; had a conversation with the men. We searched the house, closets, and cupboards, and different places, and then I left there. Q. When did you see Louis J. Weichmann again ? A. I saw Louis J. Weichmann the next morning, about 9 o'clock. Q. Where] 700 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. A. Tn the front of our office, on Tenth street at that time. Q. Was anybody with hi'm 1 A. Yes, sir; Mr. Holahan and Mr. McDevitt were in conversation with Weichmann when I came up. Q. Go back now to your first entrance into that house. When Weichmau opened the door, did you, or anybody else in your hearing, tell him when he inquired who was there, " Government officers, come to search the house for John Wilkes Booth and John Surratt ?" A. Some one of them, I think McDevitt, replied that it was officers ; that we wished to come in. Q Did 3'ou tell him you were there to search the house for John Wilkes Booth, and John Surratt, or did anybody say that in an audible tone of voice 1 A. I did not, and did not hear it. Q. Now, following him up to the time you were on the pavement in front of the police office or headquarters, I wish you to state Avhat foPowed after that, in his presence. A. I had very little conversation with Weichmann. We were getting up a party. Q,. I do not Avant to know what you said, I want to know what was done with him. A. He was with McDevitt. Q. After you went into the house, what was done with him ? State whether he was or not put in charge of somebody. A. I do not know ; I left that morning. Q. State whei-e you went to and what you did in reference to this matter. A. I went to the First ward and got some horses, and went to Surrattsville. Q. Did you see John M. Lloyd at Surrattsville ? A. I did. Q. Did you inquire of John M. Lloyd where Booth or anybody else was ? A. I did. Q. State what passed between you and Mr. Lloyd. (Question objected to as irrelevant.) Mr. Bradley said he proposed to contradict the witness Lloyd in the con- versation inquired about, and that he had laid the foundation plainly in Lloyd's testimony. Mr. PiERREPONT said Lloyd was asked if he did not tell the officers that these parties had not passed there, and that he replied he did, and gave his feasons. Mr. Bradley replied that he had asked Lloyd if that was all that passed, and the reply was, yes. Mr. B. then read from the cross examination of the witness Lloyd to show that he had laid the foundation for contradicting him, in the conversation inquired of. The Court said the witness might be asked whether Lloyd told him that he knew nothing about the circumstances. Q. Did he tell you that he kuew nothing about the circumstances at all 1 A. I do not know what circumstances you mean. Inever mentioned Herold's name to him. Q. Did you tell him there was money enough in this thing to make both of you rich, if he would give you the information he possessed ? A. No, sir ; there was nothing said about money or getting rich. Q. Did he tell you he knew nothing about the circumstances at all ? A. Not in that way, he did not. Q. I now ask you what he did tell you ? Wit.\E5?s. Do you want to know what I said to him? Mr. Bradley. Yes, and what he said to you. A. Well, sir, I went up to the house alone. He was standing in his door TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 701 with several on his porch. Said I " John, how do you do 1" I recognized him as a man I formerly knew as an officer, under Mr. Barrett, I think it was. Said I " John, I would rather see you now than anybody I know except two men." Said he " come in." We went into the sitting room. I asked him if he had heard an^/thing. Said he " I heard the President had been shot in the city." Said I, " whom did you hear that from V He said he heard it that morning from soldiers. I asked him if he heard it from them this morning. He said yes. I asked him who they told him did it. He said " a fellow by the name of Booze, or something like that, a circus actor." I told him to get back, that he could not play that sort of game ; that Mrs. Surratt was here the day before ; and asked him whom she was in company with. He said in com- pany with a young man by the name of Weichmann. At that time Bigley came up. I went out to meet Bigley and then went back to the room again. Said I, " John, give me the trail." He said he did not know what I was talking about. I asked iiim if he did not know Booth. He said he did not. At that time i[r. Bigley came in. We took a drink. I then said to Lloyd that he and I knew these men would be taken ; that if he would give me the trail, he was a made man and so was I. He raised his hands and said these men could not have been past there ; that he had been up all night. Q. Was he drunk or sober ? A. He was sober. Q. After leaving Surrattsville, where did you go ? A. I asked Lloyd, if he was in pursuit of these men, which road he would take. He gave me the Piscataway road. Q. Was that the road towards T. B. or Leonardtown 1 A. No, sir. It was my intention to take the Beantown road ; but he put me on the Piscataway road which brought us back towards Washingt(m. T was with Weichmann, Holahan, McDevitt, Keys, and several others. Q. Did you return to Washington or go further on ? A. We went further on. We did not return to Washington. Bigley and myself did not, I judge, until Monday morning about two o'clock, when our horses having failed, we came back. Or it was Sunday night you might say. Q. On Monday what did you do 1 A. On Monday we were preparing to go. We were .preparing to leave the city and go to Canada. Q. Did you go to Canada, or how far did you go ? A. I went as far as Philadelphia and returned. Then on Saturday I started to catch up with the party. Q. Did you afterwards go to Canada 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. For what purpose and by whose orders ? A. I went by my own order, I judge, at the time 1 started. I went twice to Canada. I left the party, Bigley, McDevitt, Holahan, and Weichmann, in Phila- delphia, after we had first started, and relumed with a prisoner. Q. Did you go again while they were in Canada 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Now state for what piirpose you went ; whether under promise of reward, or anything. A. On my first trip to Canada, I went to catch the party ahead of me. When I arrived in Canada I could get no tidings of them. Q. No tidings of whom ? A. I was looking for Holahan, McDevitt, Bigley, and Weichmann. I returned to Washington for want of money, and then started again. Q. What was the purpose of your going the second time ? State whether you had any offer, any promise of reward, and if so, for doing what? A 1 will explain what caused my trip last time. Last time I started for 702 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Canada was on a despatch received from New York. It was from McDevitt, and read " Send Clarvoe immediately here." [The district attorney interrupted the witness by calling attention to the fact that other witnesses were present in the room, in violation of an order, as he understood, on that subject. The court replied that no order had been made on that subject ; that Avitnesses on both sides had been in the room all the time.] A. I had the promise of a reward on my last visit to Canada; and I will state to you the circumstances in connection with that reward. I asked Major Rich- ards to go with me. [This evidence objected to by Mr. Pierrepont as not proper, so far as he could see. Mr. Bradley said the object was to show the circumstances under which witness went to Canada on this occasion. The court remarked that he did not see what the reward had to do with it, but allowed the question to be asked.] A. I started to go to assist the men who were there. By Mr. Merrick : Q. What else had you to do ? A. I wanted to get Weichmann and Holaban into the States. Q. If you were offered a reward for that, state it. [Question objected to by Mr. Pierrepont. Mr. Merrick proposed to prove that the witness was offered a large reward to bring Weichmann home; Weich- mann had testified that he was under no restraint. The court said he did not see the relevancy the reward had to the issue.] By Mr. Bradley: Q. Do you know anything of Mr. Holahan's getting clothes from Mrs. Sur- ratt's about the time you were starting away ? A. Yes, sir; it was on the seventeenth; on Monday. I was in a hack with Mr. Holahan, and started to go to see a lawyer to get the directions of the party. He a?ked me to drive past that house. We went to Mrs. Surratt's house ; went up stairs. He went into his roi.m and picked up some things that were on the bed, and amongst them were two handkerchiefs. Q. Did you see these handkerchiefs, or either of them ? A. One of them. Q. State whether or not it had a mark on it ? A. He showed it to me and said, " Here are some of John Surratt's handker- chiefs." He showed me one with the name on it. I told him to keep them; that we would want them. ^ Q. What name? A. -'John H. Surratt" was on the handkerchief. Q. Do you know whether it had a number or mark on it besides the name 1 A. I did not examine it closely. I just merely took a glance at it. That was the first I knew that his name was John H. Surratt. Q. Do you recollect how the name was put on, whether it was across the. corner or not ? A. I do not recollect. [Handkerchief hei'etofore placed in evidence shown witness.] I do not recollect about the name. The handkerchief was folded up [manner of folding exhibited] and I saw the name on the corner. Q. Then all you recollect about it is that he picked up a handkerchief with the name of John H. Surratt on it, and that you saw the name on the handker- chief Whetlier it had a number on, or any other mark, you do not remember? A. I do not remember. Cross-examined by Mr. Pierrepont: Q. What is your business ? A. Detective. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 703 Q. You have been in the business for some years ? A. Since 1863 I have. Q. It was Mr. Weichmann who came to the door with his shoes off, that night, and opened it? A. Yes, sir. Q. It was not Mr. Holahan ? A. No, sir. Q. You are sure of that ? A. I am satisfied of it. Q. Mr. Holahan told you that he went to bed that night about nine o'clock ? A. Yes, sir ; or a little after. Q. Now take this paper and pencil and draw the rooms on that floor on which these young ladies were, showing their bedroom and likewise showing Mrs. Hol- ahan's bedroom. [Witness made a diagram of the upper story of Mrs. Surratt's house.] Q. Now tell me which Mrs. Holahan's room was ? A. Mrs. Holahan's room would be under the room marked " front." She was not on that story. Q. Was Mrs. Holahan in the room you were told was the servant's room in that story ? A. No, sir. Q. She was not in the same story ? A. No, sir ; she was in the story below. Q. Then you did not go out of Mrs. Holahan's room to look into the servant 3 room in the same story ] A. No, sir. Q. In this servant's room you went into, was there a bed ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Tell the jury what time of night it was ? A. I judge between two and three o'clock. Q. At what time did you get to the house 1 A. About half-past two or a little earlier. Q. How long after you got to the house before you went up to this servant's room where there was a bed ? A. I suppose half an hour. Q. Will you tell the jury whether you put your hand upon the bed ? A. I did not. Q. Do you know whether the bed was warm or not ? A. No, sir. Q. Then you do not know Avhether there was a person covered up in it or not? A. I know there was no person in it. Q. How do you know ? A. The covering was thrown back and I could see. Q. But you did not put your hand upon it. Can you tell whether it had just been left or not ? A. I can only say that it looked as if it had been tumbled. Q. If the person who had been thei*e got up, they rose at a pretty early hour in the morning did they not ? A. I do not know at what time they got up. They were not there when I got there. Q. They were not there at three o'clock in the night 1 A. No, sir. Q. Tell when you left that place ? A. We went back to the oflSce shortly after three. 704 TRFAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. When you went below you say you saw a colored woman. Where did you see her ? A. Down in the first story. Q. The basement you mean ? A. I do not know whether it was a basement. 1 think not. Q. Was it in the parlor story 1 A. No, sir ; it was under the parlor story. Q. Where was she ? A. She was at the door of the back room. Q. Was the door open 1 A. No, sir. Q. Was there any light there ? A. We had a candle there lighted, a spennaceti candle, which I had taken out of my own pocket. Q. Was that the only light you had ? A. No, sir; the house was lighted up. Q. Was that part of the house lighted ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was it lighted with ? A. I do not recollect. Q. Was the colored person you saw there dressed ? A. She had on a kind of calico dress, some dark kind of slate-colored dress, open in the bosom, flowered. Q. You think you are not mistaken about that ? A. I think I am not. Q. You say you called her " aunty." How old a person was she apparently ? A. I do not know, she may have been twenty-five or thirty. Q. Do you know her age ? A, I do not. Q. Do you know her name ? A. I do not. Q. Have j-ou seen her since 1 A, I do not know whether I have or not. Q. You say you went to Canada. What did you go to Canada for ? A. I went to Canada to look for John Surratt. Q. Who sent you ? A. The government, or partly the government. Q. Government ofiicer ? "A. Yes, sir. Q. You have stated that in your talk with Mrs. Surratt that night she told you her son was in Canada. Is that so ? A. Yes, sir ; I heard her say he was in Canada. Q. She said so that night of the murder? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did she say about mother's sou's ? A. I am not sure whether I heard. She said to me, " What is the meaning of all this ?" I then said to her I would like her to answer my question. Then she said, " A good many mothers do not know where their sons are." Q. When you told her you would like her to answer your question, had she been evasive in her answer previously 1 A. No, sir. Q. Then why did you tell her you wanted her to answer your question ? A. She said, " What is the meamug of all this 1" Q. At what time did you arrive at Mr. Lloyd's house when you went out there ? A. Before twelve o'clock on Saturday, the 15th. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 705 Q. State to the jury whether he was drunk ? A. Not to my kowledge. He was not drunk. Q. He was perfectly sober, was he 1 A. Apparently. Q. Did he tell you he knew nothing about it ? A. He did not. Q. Did he try to mislead you 1 A. I know he did mislead me. Q. He took great pains to try to mislead you, and put you on the wrong road, did he ? A. I do not know whether he took great pains to put me on the wrong road. He told me what road if he Avas me he would take. Q. That was the wrong road ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do not you think from his conversation that he was trying to mislead you ? (Question objected to by Mr. !I\Ierrick on the ground that only the inference of the witness was called for. Objection sustained.) Q. Did he say anything as though he he did not know anything about (Question objected to by Mr. Merrick. Objection sustained.) Q. Did he use words that conveyed to you the idea that he knew nothing about it ? (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley. The Court said the witness could be asked to state what he said substan- tially.) Q. Substantially what did Lloyd say 1 A. ]\Ir. Lloyd told me they had not been past there, and could not have passed there without his knowing. Q. Did he tell you they could not have passed ? A. Yes ; and that he had been up all night. Q. What further did he tell you 1 A. He told me he had heard it that morning from some soldiers ; that they told him it was some man by the name of Booze, or something like that, a circus actor. Q. What did you tell him if he would tell you about the making of you ? Give the exact words as nearly as you can remember. A. I told him that his experience as an officer would tell him that these men were bound to be caught; to give me the trail and he was a made man, and so was L Q. Did you get him to give you the trail even on that offer ? A. I did not. Q. He carefully concealed it, did he ? (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley and withdrawn.) Q. Which Avay did the Piscataway road lead ? A. It led to the right. Q. And if you followed it where did it take you to ? A. It brought me into Piscataway. Q. If you had gone further where would it have carried you ? A. I judge I could have gone to Washington. Q. Then it led towards Washington, did it 1 A. I do not know whether it did or not. I believe it Avas the river road to Washington. Q. You did not get any information from Mr. Lloyd that put you on the trail of the murderers, did you ? A. No, sir. 706 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Did you get any information or statement from Mr. Lloyd that put you off the trail of the murderers ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You say you went with Mr. Holahan back to Mrs. Surratt's to get some clothes on the 17th. What time in the day did you go ? A. About two o'clock, I judge, in the afternoon. One or two o'clock. Q. Now when you got to the house where did you go to? A. We went up stairs. Q. To what story ] A. To the second story — the story over the parlor. Q. What did you find there ? A. I did not find anything. He picked up some clothing. Q. Where did he get it from ? A. From the bed. Q. Any other clothes than the two handkerchiefs ? What other clothes ? A. I do not know. Q. Did they lay spread out on the bed ? A. Yes, sir. Q. They were clean ? A. Apparently. Q. Ironed and folded ? A. Yes, sir. Q. This was Monday, I understand you. Had both handkerchiefs Surratt's name on them ? A. I do not know. He showed me one. Q. What did he tell you 1 A. When he showed me the handkerchief I told him to keep them, that we should want them. My intention was to get them from him. Q. You thought they would furnish some clue to John Surratt ? A. I thought so. Q. He put them in his pocket did he ? A. Yes, sir. Q. I suppose you would not know that handkerchief if you were to see it 1 A. No, sir. Q. You know Mr. Holahan pretty well, do you not ? A. I had known Mr. Holahan when he was in the substitute business. Q. What substitute business i (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley. Objection sustained.) Q. You went to Canada and saw Mr. Holahan there ? A. I did. Q. Did you talk with him ? A. Yes, sir. Q, Did you talk with him about the handkerchiefs 1 A. I did. Q. Did Mr. Holahan tell you anything about losing the handkerchief 1 A. Yes, sii'. Q. Where did he tell you he lost it ? A. He told me he had lost the handkerchief in the depot. Q. Where ? A. I do not recollect the depot. Q. Did he tell you he lost it at St. Albans ? A. I do not recollect the depot. Mr. Bradley said he objected to the question ; it had been answered. Wit- ness had already stated he did not recollect what depot it was. Mr. PiERREPONT said he had no further questions to ask. I TRIAL OF JOHN' H. SURE ATT. 707 By Mr. Bradley : Q. You say that you do not know that you have seen that colored woman since that night. Were you here when Susan Jackson was examined or recalled for cross-examination ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State whether, to the best of your recollection, she was the woman. A. I thought she was the woman. I saw her coming across the court-house square, and 1 thought she was the woman, but I do not know it. Q. To the best of your recollection and belief she was the woman ? A. That was a woman of her stature — a square-shouldered woman. There were two or three officers in company with me that made me speak of her. James A. McDevitt, detective officer Metropolitan Police, sworn and ex- amined. By Mr. Bradley : Q. Will you state whether on the night of the J 4th of April, 1865, or the morning of the loth, you took any steps to discover and arrest the assassins of the President ? A. I did. I received information that J. Wilkes Booth had fired the shot. Q. Did you go to the house of Mrs. Surratt 1 A. I did. Q. Who went with you ? A. Lieutenant Charles M. Skippon, sixth precinct, then sergeant of the pre- cinct, and a squad of his men, Mr. Clarvoe and myself, and Mr. Donaldson, one of our detective officers. Q. State at what time you arrived there, and give as well as you recollect a narrative of the incidents that occurred. A. I think after the bell was rung, a lady put her head out of the second story window — that is the window over the parlor — and asked us who it was. We asked for Mrs. Sui-ratt, if she lived there ; she said, she did ; we said, we wish to come in immediately ; the door was then opened by Mr. Weichmann ; he was dressed in his shirt sleeves, and I think he was in his stocking feet ; his shirt was open in the bosom ; I think he had one suspender on, but I am not certain ; we asked for John Surratt ; he said, he was not at home ; we found a shawl lying there in the passage, and asked whose shawl that was. It was covered with mud. Mr. Bradley said he supposed he could not inquire about that shawl. Mr. Pierrepont did not object Mr. Bradley. Then go on and state about the shawl. Witness. I asked Weichmann whose shawl it was; he said it was a shawl he had used in going to Surrattsville with Mrs. Surratt that day. I went to the door occupied by Mrs. Surratt ; I think there were some ladies in the room with her — one, at any rate ; the question was asked her where her son was. She said she had not seen him since the fall of Richmond. Q. Who was present when this conversation took place 1 A. Mr. Weichmann and Mr. Clarvoe. She turned to Mr. Weichmann and says, '•How long has that been, Mr. Weichmann ? " He replied, "About two weeks." I then went to Mr. Holohan's room, and saw himself and his wife ; they told me their daughter occupied a small room just as you go up stairs — a front room. Q. Who was with you ? A. I think 1 was accompanied by Mr. Clarvoe; I am not positive ; I have not given this matter a great deal of attention, never having thought of being called here, and I may not be able to give as accurate an account of it as I could have done at the time; I asked Mrs. Surratt, 1 think, when she had heard from her son. 708 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SDRRATT. By Mr. Pierrepont : Q. Was that after you came down 1 A. I think before ; but I will not be positive whether before or after. By Mr. Bradlev: Q. "Were Mr. Weic^imann and Mr. Olarvoe present during that conversation ? A. I will not swear positively; I think they were present when I asked where the letter was that she had received. Mr. Pierrepont. You need not tell about that letter. Mr. Bradley. Was that a part of the conversation 1 Witness I think they were present wlien I asked about the letter she had received. She said it was somewhere about the house, and asked some one to find it for her. Mr. Pierrepont objected to anything in relation to a letter not produced being given by the witness. The Court replied that if it was a part of the conversation in the presence of Weichmann, witness might testify to what was stated. Mr. Pierrepont remarked that the witness had not said Weichmann was there. Witness. I said I thought he was present. The Court to witness. If there was any more conversation, you may state what was said in the presence of Weichmann. Witness. I will not state anything that I do not think to be correct. I asked where that letter was she received that day ; she said it was somewhere about the house, and asked some one to get it ; they did not find the letter, or, at least, I did not see it. Q. When you stated that, did you go down to the basement 1 A. This was in the basement, in the front basement room — the dining room I suppose. After searching for the letter we started for the kitchen door, and there saw two colored females. Q. Describe tliem if you can. A. That is quite impossible for me to do. Q. State whether one was a girl and one a woman. A. I do not know ; one was darker than the other. By the Court : Q. Were they both grown ? A. I will not be positive about that. The question was asked, "Where is John Surratt, is he secreted about the house 1 " One of these women says, "I do not know." I think Mr. Clarvoe said, "You don't know;" she says, "Do you mean Mrs. Surratt's son ? " He replied, "I did not know that Mrs. Surratt was married ; I did not know that there was but one John Surratt." She says, " If you are speaking of Mrs. Surratt's son, I have not seen him for some time, about two weeks." I then went to the door, to the best of my recollection, and proceeded with others to search the stable. Q. According to the best of your recollection and belief, have you seen that woman since then ? A. I will not swear positively whether I saw her or not. Q. I ask you for the best of your recollection and belief. A. The other day I was standing outside here, having been subpoenaed for the defence, and said I was going aAvay ; that I did not know what they wanted. They said they just wanted me to see a party. While I was standing there in company with Mr. Clarvoe and Mr. Boss, this woman came up stairs. Mr. Clarvoe remarked, "There goes a woman who looks like the woman at Mrs. Surratt's house that night." I could not swear whether she was the one or not. Q. What do you think 1 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 709 A. I will not swear whether she is the woman or not. Q. What is your opinion about it ? A. All I can say is, there were two of these women, and that, according to my recollection, one was a dark woman, and the other light complected. You must remember that, in my position as a detective in seeing so many, it would be impossible to remember a person with a certainty that long. Q. After that, what occurred 1 A. After we had searched tlie house, I ordered Weichmanu and Holohan to report at our office at 9 o'clock in the morning. They reported before that time. Q. Did you or not put either of these officers in charge of Mr. Weichmann ? A. I took charge of Mr. Weichmann and told him to consider himself in my charge ; that if any one came after him to arrest him, to tell them that I had him arrested and that he was in my charge. Weichmann went with me to my house to breakfast on Sunday morning. Q State whether he was kept under arrest, or whether he was allowed to go at large until he reached Canada ? A. Up to the time he reached Canada I think Mr. Weichmann was in my custody except when he was at police headquarters. This is to the best of my knowledge. I went into the country with Weichmann and returned with him Saturday evening. He asked me, when we got to police headquarters, what was going to be done with him. I told him he was to remain there. He said, " Are you going to hold me ?" I replied, " Certainly we will have to hold yuu." I left him there at the police headquarters and went with Mr. Holohan out on some business. Cross-examined by Mr. Pierrrpo.xt : Q. Do you know anything about this order which has been referred to in evi- dence several times ? (Order in evidence for McDevitt, Weichmann, Holohan, &:c., as special officers to proceed to New York city, &c., shown witness,) Witness. That is not correct. Q. Have you the original with you 1 A. I have. Q. Read it. (The order read by witness is the same as that already iu evidence except as to the Christian name of Mr. Holohan.) Q. Did you and Mr. AVeichmann go as special officers under that order 1 A. We went under that order. Q. AVhere did you go ? A. To the city of New York and from there to Canada. Q. Were you with Mr. AVeichmann in Canada? A. I was. Q. You were not with him all the time ? A. I was not. Q. Did he come back with you ? A. He came with Mr. Bigley, one of our detective officers. Q. How long was he with you in Canada ? A. I do not know. I saw uo more of him until he returned to New York after I left Canada. Q. Did he come back afterwards ? A. He came back afterwards to New York, and came on to AVashington with me. Q. And remained here 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Was the object of your visit to Canada to search for Surratt 1 A. That was one object. Q. You did all you could iu that search? 710 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. Of course. Q. You did not succeed ? A. We did not. Q. You told us about a letter Mrs. Surratt alluded to; you did not find that letter ? A. No, sir. Q. You never saw that letter ? A. No, sir. Q. You could not find it in the house ? A. No, sir. Q. You searched for it ? A. We made no extraordinary search. Q. But you searched for it and could not find it ; then you went into the base- ment and saw two colored women — where 1 A. In the passage-way. Q. It was rather dark, was it not ? A. We had a light. Q. What light ? A. I think Mr. Clarvoe or somebody had a candle. By Mr. Bradley: Q. Did you say it was rather dark in that passage ? A. No, sir ; I did not. By Mr. Pferrepont : Q. Was it dark or light ? A. It was light enough to tell a negro from a white person. Q. You could tell a negro from a white person in that light ? A. Indeed I could. Q . You did not require a very strong light for that ? A. We certainly had sufficient light for that. Q. Did you have sufficient light to tell how these colored women were dressed ? A. No, sir. I did not take particular notice of that. Q. Could you tell how either one was dressed ] A. I could not. Q. Was one dressed in a slate colored calico dress? A. It would be difficult for me to say whether either had a calico dress on or not. Calicoes sometimes look like silk on the street; they do not bear ex- amination. Q. Were they both about the same height ? A. I cannot swear to that. Q. What time in the night was it ? A. I judge we got to the house in the neighborhood of two. It may have been a little before or a little after. Q. You did not see either of these women in bed, did you ? A. I did not go into that room at all. Q. Could you tell which of the two was taller ? A. I could not. I only knew there were two colored females, and that one of the two made use of this language. Q. You could not tell which was the taller, and which was the shorter ? A. No, sir. Q. And you could not tell the age of either 1 A. No, sir. Q. You have been examined once before ? A. I have. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 711 Q. Did you give any statement at that time in relation to seeing two colored women ? A. No, sir ; because persons at that trial were only allowed to state certain matters. Q. And you did not give any statement about it 1 A. Not that I remember. I am not certain. Q. Did you state in your foi-mer trial, as follows: "Mi-. Weichmann accom- panied me to Canada. I took him to identify John H. Surratt. He went with me willingly in pursuit of the assassins, and was zealous and earnest in pei*- forming the part allotted him in the pursuit, and although he had every oppor- tunity to escape he did not. I left him in Canada when I returned to New York. I could not state from my own knowledge of John Surratt's writing— thatthe entry on the register of the St. Lawrence Hall is his ] " A. I stated that. Q. All of it ? A. I did. Q. And it is true? Mr. Bradley asked whether it was proper for counsel to read the same fects witness had stated from the record of another trial, and ask whether he had said it. Mr. PiERREPONT said witness had not testified to a part of the facts he had read. The Court remarked that it was a waste of time to read from the former testimony of the witness the same statement he bad now made, but that counsel were wasting more in quarrelling about it. Question repeated. A. I think my statement in the former trial is all correct. Q. When Susan Jackson was recalled the other day, did you not come in and stand beside the foreman of the jury ? A. I did. Q. Did not you look at her then ? A. I did. Q. And did you talk to her after she left the stand ? A. I did. Q. Did not you ask her if she was the woman ] A. No, sir. Q. Did not you ask her if she was not the woman 1 A. No, sir. Q. You said something to her ? A. I did; here is what I said to her. Mr. Bradley. You need not state that. Q. Did you ask her what I have said in substance ? Mr. Merrick objected to the question as inadmissible. The Court said the witness might be asked whether he identified this woman on that occasion. By Mr. Merrick : Q. You liave already stated you would not swear she was the woman. What is your best recollection as to that ? A. I will not swear I believe her to be the woman or not the woman. By Mr. Bradley : Q. You have produced an original document under which you went to Canada. State the ci'-cumstances under which the order was made and the object of it. Mr. PiERREPOXT said the order would show for itself. Mr. Bradley said it was nothing more than an order for transportation. 712 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. Witness remarked that the order in evidence was precisely like the original he had produced, except that the name of John Holohan, iu the original, was written George Holohan in the copy in evidence. Q. Did you not obtain the order ? A. I obtained this order; it was written under my instructions; that is, I dictated it. Q. Did you ask them to appoint Holohan and Weichmann as special oflScers ? A. Yes, sir. I wanted they should go in as special officers. I thought we might have trouble if they were not mentioned in some form. Q. You were asked about the light in that passage at Mrs. Surratt's. The counsel on the other side understood you to say it was a dim light, hardly enough to distinguish between the color of persons. Did you say there was a dim light in the passage 1 A. I said there was light enough to distinguish between a white person and a negro. Q. If you had examined their dress, was there not light enough for that 1 A. If there had been as much again light I would not have paid any attention. Q. Was there light enough to distinguish the color of their dress if you had examined it ? A. I should think so. Lieutenant Chas. A. Skippon recalled and examined. By Mr. Bradley : Q. State to the coiart and jury whether jou were with these officers in their examination of Mrs. Surratt's house the night of the assassination. A. I was. Q. State whether you saw any colored women there. A. I saw two colored women down iu the basement. Q. Describe them as well as you can ] A. To the best of my recollection one of them was a rather stout, thick set woman ; the other was rather slim built, about the same height. Q. About the same color ? A. No ; she was a mulatto. Q. Did you hear any conversation between Mr. Clarvoe and one of these colored women or not? A. I heard one of the detectives — I cannot state positively which — ask one of the colored women when she last saw Mr. John Surratt. As I under- stood her, she said she had not seen him for several days. Q. I asked you the other day, 1 believe, whether you had seen that woman since . A. I would not know her were I to see her. E. H. Wyvill, physician. Prince George county, Maryland, sworn and ex- amined. By Mr. Bradley: Q. Is there any other gentleman of your name iu Prince George county ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you know Mrs. Surratt iu her lifetime ? A. I did. Q. Did you ever drive home to her house, in the month of March, 1865, a buggy and pair of horses, one white and the other gray ? A. No, sir ; no horses of any color, and no horses at all. Cross-examined by Mr. Pierrepont : Q. Were you in Washington in 186/5, in the month of March ? A. I hardly know. I think it is very possible. I was here very frequently, Q. Were you at Mrs. Surratt's house, iu this city, in that month ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT 713 A. I never was at Mrs. Surratt's house in this city. Q. Were you at the stable back of her house 1 A. Yes, sir ; I kept my horses there. Q. ^V^ere you there in the mouth of March ? A. I could not say positively. As I stated just now, I was here very fre- quently. Q. Did you know Mrs. Slater 1 A. No. Q. You knew Mrs. Surratt and you saw her in the month of March ? A. I do not think I did. I very seldom saw Mrs. Surratt after she left the country. Q. Did you see her down in the country after that? A. No, sir. Q,. Did you see her son in the country in the month of March ? (Question objected to by Mr. Bradley. Objection subsequently withdrawn.) A. No, sir. Q. Did you see hira between the 20th and 28th of March 1 A. No, sir. Q. When did you last see him down there ? A. To the best of my recollection I saw John Surratt the last time either ia December, 1864, or the early part of January, 1S65. Q. You never saw him there afterwards 1 A. No, sir. Q. Did you see Mrs. Surratt there ? A. No, sir. Q. You have no memory of going to that stable in the latter part of March 1865? A. I have not, but very likely I was there. I attend market and come in very frequently, perhaps every week. Q. Do you know about any horses coming up about that time? A. Nothing whatever. HoNORA FiTZPATRiCK recalled and examined. By Mr. Merrick : Q. You stated in your former examination that you staid with Mrs, Surratt did you occupy her room with her 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you sleep with her ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What room was it she occupied ? A. It was the room back of the parlor. Q. What kind of doors were there between that room and the parlor ? A. Folding doors. Q. You recollect the night of the assassination, had you seen John Surratt about the house that day ? A. No, sir. Q. What time had elapsed since you had seen him ? A. It had been about two weeks before the assassination. Q. What time did he come to the house on that occasion ? A. I think he came between eight and nine o'clock. Q. Where did you see him on that occasion, in the parlor first, or where ? A. I met him in the parlor. Q, Who was present with him ? A. Mr. Weichman, Miss Surratt, Mrs. Surratt, Miss Jenkins, and myself 46 714 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUERATT. Q. Do you recollect anytliing about bis taking supper on tbat nigbt, and if you bad anytbing to do witb it, state all about it ? A. I was in tbe parlor and bis motber asked me if I would not go down and get eomptbing for Jobn to eat. I Avent down, and wben supper was ready I called Mrs. iSurratt, and tbey botb came down togetber. Q. Now please go on and state wbat occurred, A. Wben I was tbere a colored woman came in and brougbt tbe tea. Q. Tbe colored woman who testified bere, ISusan Ann Jackson 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. How long bad tbis colored woman been at tbe bouse ? A. I do not remember bow long, 1 know sbe came during tbe week Mr. Jobn Surratt was absent from bome. Q. It was tbe week preceding tbis supper ? A. Yes, sir. Wben ibis colored woman came in, Mrs. Surratt said to ber •' bere is my son Jobn, don't you tbink be resembles bis sister Anna 1 " Q. Have you any recollection of any supper tbe nigbt of tbe assassination wben Jobn was tbere, or wben any conversation of tbat sort occurred 1 A. No, sir. Q. Can you say positively that nothing of tbe kind occurred tbe nigbt of the asgassination ? A. J know Mr. Surratt was not in tbe house tbat night. Q. Did you ever see Atzerodt come to tbe house 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. In whose company was Atzerodt usually when he came there ? A. I generally saw him with Mr. Weicbman more than witb any other gentleman in tbe house. Q. Did you ever see him wear Mr. Weichman's clothes 1 A. I met him on H street one evening, and Mr. Atzerodt had on Mr. Weich- man's blue coat and bis bat. Q. Did you ever see Weicbman dressed in Atzerodt's clothes more than once ? A. I never saw Mr. Weicbman dressed in Mr. Atzerodt's clothes, and I only saw Mr. Atzerodt dressed in Mr. Weichman's clothes but once. Q. Did you ever see a man who visited that house by the name of Wood 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you hear him called, in tbat bouse, by any other name tlian Wood ? A. No, sir ; I only knew him by tbe name of Wood. Q. Was be ever introduced in your presence by the name of Payne by Mr. Weicbman ? A. No, sir ; I never remember hearing any name but Wood. Q. Did you ever see that man afterwards under the name Payne ? A. No, sir. Q. You saw him at the assassination trial I A. Yes, sir ; I saw him tbere, that was tbe first time I knew his name was . Payne. Q. Who brought him to tbe bouse and introduced him, do you recollect ? A. I received an introduction to him through Mr. Weicbman. By Mr. Bradley : Q. Was he introduced to you by Weicbman 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Under wbat name ? A. Mr. Wood. Q. Was be introduced to you by Mr. Weicbman by the name of Payne ? A. No, sir. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 715 By Mr. Merrick : Q. Do you recollect who drove the pair of horses home when John went away on the 26th of March, 1865 ? A. I think they were driven home by Mr. David Barry, Q. Do you recollect, some time in March, taking a walk with Mrs. Snrratt, Miss Jenkins, Miss Anna iSurratt, and Mr. Weichman when Mrs. Surratt stopped at the Herndon House 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did she say who she was going to see ? A. No, sir ; I never heard her mention who she was going to see. Q Did she say she was going to see Payne ? A. No, sir. Q. I understood you to say you did not know him by the name of Payne at that time 1 A. I did not. Q. Did Anna Surratt go into that house with her mother ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State as nearly as you can recollect who the parties were, and what oc- curred ? A. Mrs. Surratt, Mr. Weichman, Miss Surratt, Miss Jenkins and myself went down to St. Patrick's church on that evening. When we were returning Mrs. Surratt stopped at this house, and her daughter went in with her. Q. Where did you go ? A. Mr. Weichman, Miss Jenkins, and myself walked up not very far fi'om that bouse, then we turned, Mrs. Surratt came out and we went home. Q. Did you go down E street and then down 10th street before Mrs. Sur- ratt returned ? A. No, sir ; we did not leave the square the house was on. Q. I understand that you parted with her at the front door of the house, then walked along down the street the house was on, then turned and Miss Sur- ratt and her mother joined you ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You did not leave the street on which the house was, or the square ? A. No, sir. Q. Were you at supper at Mrs. Surratt's house on the night of the assassi- nation ? A. Yes, sir. I was with Miss Surratt. Mr. Weichman and Mrs. Surratt came to supper together. Miss Jenkins, Miss Anna Surratt, and myself were there when Mr. Weichman, and ]\[rs. Surratt took their supper. Q. That was after they came back from Surrattsville ? A. Yes, sir. Q. About what time in the day was it ? A. I think it was between 8 and 9 o'clock. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt leave the table at any time that night while they were eating supper ? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. You were there all the time were you while they were there ? A. Yes, sir. I do not remember her leaving. Q. While they were at supper, did you hear any footsteps going up the outer stairs 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Was the bell rung at the door and answered ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did the footsteps that went up the stairs go into the parlor ? A. No, sir. I do not remember that. 716 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt answer that bell ? A. I do not remember Mrs. Surratt leaving the dining-room while I was there, Q. Who answered that bell at that time 1 A. It was Miss Anna Surratt. At this point the court took a recess for half an hour. AFTERNOON SESSION, On reassembling the examination of Mrs, Honora Fitzpatrick was resumed : By Mr. Merrick : Q, Did you go anywliere in company with Mrs. Surratt on the Thursday morning preceding the day of the assassination ? A, Yes, sir. Mrs. Surratt and myself went to early mass at St. Patrick's church. Q, What did you go for ? A. I went there to confession. Q, Did she do so also ? A, Yes, sir, Q, You say you were at supper with Mrs, Surratt, Mr, Weichman and Mr. and Mrs. Holahan after Mrs. Surratt and Weichman came back from Surratts- ville on Friday night 1 A. Yes, sir, Q, What did you all do after siipper 1 A. After supper Mrs. Surratt, Miss Jenkins and myself all retired to the parlor. Miss Anna Surratt retired to her room. She did not feel very well that night. Q. Was Mr, Weichman in the parlor 1 A, Yes, sir. Q. You all then went into the parlor except Miss Anna, who went to bed feeling badly ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you recollect what lime it was that you went up into the parlor ? A. I do not remember the time exactly. Q. Will you state what occurred after you went up into the parlor ? A. We engaged in general conversation, Q, Who was the first of the party "who left the parlor and retired, after Miss ^Anna Surratt 1 A. Mr. Weichman. Q. How long did Mr, Weichman remain with your party in the parlor, after you went up there from supper ? A. He remained there some time. Miss Jenkins and myself were teasing him that evening. Q. Did he remain there as long as an hour, or half an hour 1 A. I suppose he had been there about an hour, Q. He then retired, and left you. Miss Jenkins, and Mrs. Surratt in the parlor? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you leave the parlor, at any time, after you went there from the sup- per room, before Mr. Weichman left 1 A. No, sir. Q. Did you observe anything peculiar, on that occasion, in Mrs. Surratt's manner? A. No, sir ; I did not notice any change in her conduct more than usual. Q. Was there any apparent nervous excitement about her manner ? A. No, sir ; she did not appear to me to be nervous, Q. Do you remember of her walking up and down the room with a pair of beads in her hands, asking Weichman to pray for her intentions ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT. 717 A. I remember of her walking iip and down the room, bat do not remember of her asking Mr. Weichman to pray for her intentions. Q. Do you remember anything about his reply ; that he never prayed for anybody's intentions unless he knew what they were ? A. No, sir; I do not remember any conversation of the kind. Q. You and Miss Jenkins, as I understand you, were conversing together with Weichraann, during the time he remained in the parlor if A. Yes, sir. Q. At what time did Miss Jenkins leave the parlor ? A. She had been there, I suppose, a few minutes. Q. How long after Weichman left? A. I suppose about half an hour. Q. Did you or Miss Jenkins bid Weichman good night at his room door, that night ? A. No, sir. I never did. Q. At what hour of the night did yeu retire to bed ? A. I think it was about ten when I retired. Q. Do you recollect being awakened that night by persons coming to the house to search it ? A. Yes, sir; I remember being awakened about two o'clock in the morning, by the door bell ringing. Q. You were awakened by the ringing of the bell ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you get up when the bell rung 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt get up when the bell rung 1 A. She got up a few minutes after I did. Q. Do you recollect Weichman's coming to the door to speak to her? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you hear their conversation ? A. I remember Mr. Weichman rapped at the door and said : " Mrs. Surratt, there are detectives in the parlor, to search the house. They would like to search your room." She said : " Ask them to wait a few moments, and I will open the door for them." Q. What else was said 1 A. Nothing else was said until Mrs. Surratt opened the door, and Mr. Mc- Devitt came there. Q. Did she say to him at that time, that " I expected the house to be searched?" A. No, sir ; I never heard her make any such remark. Q. Did you hear the conversation that took place between the detectives and Mrs. Surratt, Mr. Weichman being present ? A. Mr. McDevitt came to Mrs. Snrratt's door, bowed, but without entering, said he would like to search the other rooms of the house. Q. Do you recollect of Mr. Clarvoe coming there ? A. No, sir ; I do not remember any but Mr. McDevitt. Q. Were you at breakfast the next morning after the assassination — Satur- day morning ? A. Yes, sir. Q. At what time in the course of your breakfast did Miss Anna Surratt ap- pear at the table ? A. We had nearly finished breakfast when Miss Anna Surratt entered the dining room. Q. Who were at the table at that time ? A. Mr. and Mrs. Holahan, Mrs. surratt, Mr. Weichman, and myself. Q. Was Miss Jenkins there ? A. Yes, sir. 718 TRIAL OF JOH^ H. SUKRATT. Q. State wliether or not you heard Miss Anna Surratt say that the death of Lincoln was no more than the death of a negro in the northern army ? (Objected to by 'Mr. Pierrepont as irrelevant and collateral, the testimony sought to be contradicted having been brought out on cross-examination. Ob- jection sustained. Exception reserved.) Q. Did Weichman state at the table on that morning that he had his sus- picions against these parties, and that he was going to state to the government his suspicions ; make known who he had seen Booth in company with, and do all he could to bring the parties to justice 1 A. No, sir ; I never heard him make any such remark. Q. Did Weichman leave the table before you did ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recollect the night that Mrs. Surratt was taken to the office of the provost marshal ? A. Yes, sir. Q. At what hour of the night did the parties who took her there get to the house ? A. I think it was about 10 o'clock when they came. Q. Do you recollect who was in the parlor at the time Captain Smith came m ? A. Miss Jenkins, Miss Anna Surratt, and myself. Q. Do you recollect anything about Weichman's asking Miss Surratt to let him see a letter on the night of the assassination, when you were in the parlor ? A. No, sir ; I do not remember it. Q. Where was Miss Anna Surratt sitting in the parlor when Captain Smith came in 1 A. I think Miss Surratt was sitting on the chair near the sofa. Q. Where were you seated 1 A. Miss Jenkins and myself were sitting on the sofa together. Q. Near Miss Anna Surratt ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt whisper anything to Anna ? A. I do not remember it. Q. Did you hear Anna Surratt say on that occasion, " Oh, mother! think of being taken down there for such a crime? " A. No, sir ; I do not remember of Miss Surratt making any such remark. Q. On the night of the assassination do you recollect hearing Miss Surratt say when they were talking about the matter, " Oh, mother ! to think of that man having been here only an hour before. What disgrace it will bring on the house ? " A. No, sir ; I do not remember it. Q. Did you hear Mrs. Surratt say in reply, she thought John Wilk'^s Booth was only an instrument in the hands of Providence to punish this proud and licentious people ? A. No, sir ; 1 never heard such a remark from Mrs. Surratt. Q. Were you present all the time with Mrs. Surratt in the parlor that night ? A. I was present all the time Mr. Weichman was there. Q. Now on the night that they came to arrest Mrs. Surratt to take her to the provost marshal's office, did you see Wood at the house 1 A. I saw a man there, but I did not recognize him until I got to General Au- gur's office. Q. You were very intimate with Mrs. Surratt, were you not? A. Yes, sir ; I was in Mrs. Surratt's company very often. Q. State whether Mrs. Surratt's eyesight was good or defective 1 A. Her eyesight was very bad. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURE ATT. 719 Cross-examined by Mr. Pirrrepont : Q. What was the matter with her eyesight ? A. I think Mrs. Surratt was near-sighted. I remember once wheji I was out with her she failed to recognize Mrs. Kirby, who was walking on the same Bide of the street with her. Q. Did she ever wear glasses ? A, No, sir. Q. Did she ever wear an eye-glass 1 A. No, sir. Q. What caused you to think her near-sighted ; did she ever tell you so ? A. No, sir ; but I judged so from her not recognizing Mrs. Kirby on the street, and I heard her say her sight was very bad. Q. She did not do anything to improve it, by the way of glasses or other- wise ? A. She never wore glasses, but I remember of often threading a needle for her, because she could not do it herself. Q. You never saw her wear any eye-glasses or spectacles ? A. No, sir. Q. YoH have told us about the horses ; will you tell us if you ave sure of the name of the man who brought them back ? A. Yes, sir ; I think it was a Mr. David Barry. Q. Were those the same horses that Mrs. Surratt and John and Mrs. Slater went away with ? A. 1 did not see the horses when Mr. Barry returned. Q. What were the horses that were brought back that you told about ? A. Mr. Barry came and said he returned the carriage that Mrs. Surratt bad. Q. Do you remember when that was ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember whether John's note, dated March 26, that we have had in evidence, accompanied it ? A. No, sir ; I do not remember that. There might have been one, but I do not remember of seeing it. Q. You saw Colonel Smith there that night, did vou ? A. I did. Q. Did you see Colonel Morgan ? A. I do not remember any name but that of Colonel Smith. Q. Did you see Captain Wermerskirch ? A. No, sir. I do not remember any one else but Colonel Smith. Q. Mr. Weichman was there the night you were arrested ? A. No, sir. Q. Who was present at the time you were arrested except Colonel Smith ? A. I do not remember any of them at all. Q. There were more persons there than him, were there not ? A. Yes, sir ; there were a great many officers there. Q. Was Colonel Morgan there ? A. I do not know. Q. Was Colonel W^ermerskirch there ? A. I do not know. Q. Have you read his testimony, or that of Colonel Morgan, or heard it read ? A. I do not remember their names ; I have read all the evidence. Q. On the night you were arrested how many men did you see there besides Colonel Smith 1 A. I do not remember how many there were, but I remember there were a great many of them. 720 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Did you hear any of the expressions that you have been asked abou; made by anybody at that time? (Objected to by Mr. Merrick. Question withdrawn.) Q. Did she whisper to Anna f A. I do not remember of her whispering to Miss Surratt. Q. Do you know whether she did or not ? A. I was in the parlor, and I do not remember of her doing it. Q. Were you out in the hall when Mrs. Surratt passed by an oflScer at the door? A. Mrs. Surratt, Miss Jenkins, Miss Anna Surratt and myself, all passed out together. Q. Did you hear Mrs. Surratt say anything to Colonel Morgan ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you hear her say anything to the officer there 1 A. No, sir ; I do not remember of her speaking at all. Q. You did not hear anything 1 A. No, sir. Q. What time did you go to bed on the night of the murder of the President ? A. I think it was ten o'clock when I retired. Q. Who went to bed first, you or Mrs. Surratt? A. I retired before Mrs. Surratt. Q. How long before ? Had you got to sleep before she came 1 A. I do not remember when Mrs. Surratt came. Q. Did you go to sleep pretty soon after you retired 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Who came into the house after you got to sleep that night until you got up again ; you do not know, do you ? A. I do not remember of anybody coming there. Q. You do not remember of anybody who came there while you were asleep 1 A. No, sir ; I do not remember whether anybody came there or not. Q. They might, I suppose, have come in while you were asleep without you knowing it 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Now I will go back to the 3d of April. That night John came from Richmond ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What time did he get home ? J^. I think between 8 and 9 o'clock. Q. What day of the week was it? A. On Monday. Q. Who was in the room when he came in ? A. Miss Jenkins, Mrs. Surratt, Aliss Anna Surratt, Mr. Weichmann, and myself. Q. What room were you in ? A. I was in the parlor. Q. When did he get his supper ? A. I do not know the exact time. Q. You went down, did you, to order it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who did you go to order it from ] A. I went down to give-the things to the girl to get the supper with, and did give them to her. Q. To whom 1 A. To the servant. Q. To what servant? A. Susan Ann Jackson. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 721 Q. Did she make the tea ? A. Yes, sir. Q. While you were there ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you stay and see her make it 1 A. I did not stay iu the kitchen, hut I was in the diuing-room. - Q. Did you stay in the dining-room 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. How soon did she bring it in 1 A. She did not bring it in until Mrs. Surratt and Mr. Surratt came down. I had been there only a few minutes before she brought it in. Q. Did she bring anything else iu ? A. I do not remember of her bringing anything but the tea. Q. Did you stay there during the whole time ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long ? A, I staid there until I heard Mrs. Surratt say Q. How long did you stay ? A. I suppose I had been in the dining-room fifteen minutes. Q. Who went out of the dining-room first 1 A. I did. Q. Who did you leave in the dining room ? A. Mrs. Surratt and Mr. Surratt. Q. Both? A. Yes, sir. Q. And there you heard something said about John looking like Anna, did you ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who said that ? A. Mrs. Surratt. Q. Was there any food brought in at all 1 A. No, sir; I do not remember of her bringing in anything but the tea. I set the table. Q. What did you set upon the table ? A. I placed some bread, butter, and ham on it. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt partake of the supper with John 1 A. Yes, sir; she sat down to the table with him. Q. Did you partake of the supper ? A. No, sir ; I had had my supper before. Q. Mrs. Surratt had not had her'a 1 A. No, sir. Q, And she ate with him, but you did not ? A. I do not remember whether she ate with him or not. I remained there a few minutes. Q. Did you hear anything said about any clothes at that time ? A. No, sir; I do not remember of hearing anything. Q. When did you next see John 1 A. It was M'hen I was called down here as a witness for the prosecutiou. Q. Recently ? A. Yes, sir. Q. After you saw him at the supper table on the 3d of April you never saw him again until you saw him here 1 A. No, sir. Q. You do not know where he went ; you did not see him anywhere else? A. No, sir. Q. You never saw him anywhere else ? 722 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SUKRATT. A. No, sir. Q. Did not you see him up in the parlor after that ? A. No, sir. Q. You did not see him in the dining-room after that? A. No, sir. Q. Did you go to the theatre that night 1 A. No, sir ; I did not go to the theatre on the 3d of April. Q. Where did you go after you went from the diuing-room 1 A. I went up into the parlor. Q. Who did you find there ? A. Miss Jenkins, Miss Surratt, and Mr. Weichman ? Q. Did John Surratt come into the parlor ? A. No, sir. Q. If he ha'^l come in you would have seen him ? A. I saw him in the back parlor. Q. Did you see him in the back parlor after he had been dovvn in the diuing- room ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who did you see him with in the back parlor ? A. I was in the parlor, and Mrs. Surratt called me out and told me that John had a very bad headache, and asked me if I had any cologne that I could give him. Q. Did you see John in the back parlor after he ate supper 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see him anywhere else after he ate supper ? A. No, sir. Q Was that the last time you ever saw him until you saw him here ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What time was that when you saw him in the back parlor, and which you now say was the last time ? A. I do not remember ; I suppose about 9 or half past. Q. Who else was in the back parlor with him ? A. Mrs. Surratt. Q. Nobody else ? A No, sir. Q. Was Mr. Weichman then in the front parlor ? A. Yes, sir. -Q. Were the doors open ? A. No, sir. Q. Were they closed ? A. Yes, sir. Q. On the night of the murder you say you went to bed about 10 o'clock. Do you remember at what time in the morning you were awakened t A. I think it was about 2 or half past 2 o'clock. Q. How were you awakened ? A. By the door bell ringing. Q,. Did anybody come to Mrs. Surratt's door ? A. Mr. Weichman came there and rapped. By Mr. Merrick : Q. You have spoken of Mrs. Surratt's defective eyesight. Will you please tell the jury whether she was in the habit of reading or sewing after gaslight ? A. No, sir ; I never saw Mrs Surratt read or sew after gaslight. Q. Did she give any reason for not sewing or reading after gaslight ? A. She said her sight was not very strong. TRIAL OF JOHN II. SURRATT. 723 Q. Do you recollect of her receiving a letter from John Surratt on Friday, the dav of the assassination 1 (Objected to by Mr. Pierrepont. Objection sustained.) Q. Do you know by letters from him or from your own observation where he went ? (Objected to by Mr. Pierrepont. Objection sustained. Exception reserved.) Charles B. Stewart sworn and examined. By Mr. Bradley : Q. Where do you reside ? A. At Elmira, New York. ^ Q. What is your business ? A. Merchant tailor. I am in the clothing business. Q. Where were you residing, and in what business were you engaged in April, 1865? A. I was engaged in the same town, in the same business, on the same street, but in a different store from what I am now. Q. State whether your store was all in one room or whether you had more than one room. A. There were tvvo stores connected together. Q. Did you carry on the same business in both or were they different ? A. We had different departments. One was the hat, cap, boot, and shoe store, and the other Avas merchant tailoring, clothing, and gents' furnishing business. Q Will you state where that store was in April, 1865 ? A. Nos. 20 and 22 Lake street, Elmira, New York. Q. State whether you were in the store during the day of the 14th of April, 1865. A. I was. Q. Do you recollect a gentleman coming in that day to speak about getting a suit of clothes there, who had on anything peculiar in the way of dress ? A. On the 13th or 14th of April, 1 do. Q. Which ? A. I cannot say which, but one or the other. Q. Describe as well as you can his dress. A. It was a style of cut which I had never seen before, nor have I since, until to-day. I refer to the cut and the make of the coat. Q. Do you remember the color ? A. It was gray, mixed with tweed, of foreign manufacture. It was what is called a skeleton coat, that is, made without lining. It was cut full, pleated, and gathered at the waist by a belt. The style of manufacture is, I believe, in use in Canada. Q. How h»ng did that person remain in the store ? A. I should say I saw him twice. That is I stepped from one store to the other and saw him twice. He was there from ten to twenty minutes. I cannot speak very definitely as to the time. Q. State whether your attention was or not particularly directed to him. A. It was. Q. Do you recollect his appearance ? A. His face and manner, I do. Q. Did you hear his voice in conversation without speaking to him yourself r A. I did. Q. Have you seen that person since ? A. I think 1 have. Q. When and where 1 724 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. A. To-day, in the jail and in this place. (The prisoner was here requested to stand up.) Q. State whether that is the man. (Pointing to the prisoner.) A. I believe that to be the man. Cross-examined by Mr. Pierrepoxt : Q. You have not much doubt about this being the man. A. I have not. Q. Will you tell us what day of the month it was ? A. It was either the 13th or the 14th. Q. Which? A. I cannot tell which. Q. Why cannot you fix the day ? A. Because it was while my partner was in New York purchasing goods. He was gone those two days, and this man came in then ; but on which one of the two days I am unable to say. Q. You are sure it was while your partner was gone ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you know he was gone on the 13th and 14th ? A. Yes, sir. 1 tell that from my books. Q. Did he get back the 14th ? A. He got back on the morning of the 15th. By Mr. Bradley : Q. You say you fix it by the fact of your partner being absent at the time. Please state whether anything passed in your hearing in reference to your partner being out of town. Mr. PlERRBPONT. I object. We want the facts, not the reasoning of the witness. The Court, I do not see how any conversation of this kind can be given in evidence. The question is ruled out. By Mr. Merrick : Q. What time was this ? A. It was after my return from dinner. Q. At what time do you dine ? A. At 12 o'clock. We have good country hours there. Q. On the 13th or 14th after 12 o'clock? "^A. Yes, sir. By the Court : Q. How long does it take to go from Elmira to New York ? A, The express train runs through in twelve hours. Mr. Bradley suggested that all that matter regarding the movements of the train and the time occupied in travelling from point to point on this route would be given in evidence by them. Mr. Pierrepont said if counsel for the defence didn't offer such proof the prosecution would. John Cass sworn and examined. By Mr. Bradley : Q. Where do you reside ? A. At Elmira. Q. What is your occupation ? A. Assessor of the city at present. TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 725 Q. Where were you residing in April, 1865 ? A. In Elmiia. 1 kept a clothing store at the corner of "Water and Baldwin streets. Q. Do you remember any particular incident which occurred on the morning of the 15th of April, after the news of the assassination of the President was received in Elmira 1 A. That morning I got the paper about half past seven o'clock with the news of the assassination. In consequence of the news in the paper, I staid at home probably longer than I would have done. I got down to the store about quarter to eight or perhaps eight o'clock. My store was directly opposite the telegraph office, and when I got down there I went over to the telegraph office and inquired the news of an operator who was a personal friend of mine. He told me they had received uothing since the news of the assassination, but as soon as they did he would let me know. I staid around there some time with other friends. Shortly after nine o'clock news came of the death of Abraham Lincoln. I im- mediately walked over to my store and told the clerks to close up. Q. This was early in the morning, before any public order had been issued ? A. Yes, sir. They had received no public news of tlie death. I then went and stood at the front door of the store. By that time the bulletin had been placed on the side door. I at that time noticed a gentleman coming across the street whom I thought, from his dress, was a friend of mine from Canada. That was my first idea when I saw him coming across the street ; but I soon saw it was not, and I then turned and started to go back into the store. I had not, probably, got more than ten feet into the store, when this party whom I had observed, came in. He inquired for some white shirts. He asked me for a particular make, which make I did not keep, and told him so, hut proceeded to show him some other descriptions of white shirts. He exam- ined them, but said he would rather have those of the make which he had been accustomed to wearing. At that time I made a remark that we had received some very bad news. He asked, "What?" I said to him, "Of the death of Abraham Lincoln." The party made an answer to my remark which at the first commencement I took to be a little disrespectful, and I felt rather incensed, but before he concluded I was satisfied no disrespect was intended. My idea was that he was a Canadian and had no sympathy with our people. Q. What was the remark 1 A. I cannot recall it, but I remember the feehng I had at the time. Q. His explanation satisfied you that he meant no disrespect? A. Yes, sir. I thought that he was a Canadian who had no sympathy with us, and who did not feel as we felt about the matter. Q. Can you describe his dress ? A. He had on darkish pants ; a kind of mixed blue coat — I should call it — pleated, with a belt around the waist. That was the first thing that caused my attention to be drawn to him. Q. Have you ever seen that man since ? A. I have. Q. Where have you seen him? A. In the jail down here. (The prisoner was requested to stand up.) Q. Look at that man (pointing to the prisoner) and state if he is or not the man. A. That is the man I saw there. By a Juror. Was that on the 15th? A. Yes, sir ; while closing the store after seeing the news. Cross-examined by Mr. Pierrepo.mt : Q. How did you get the first news of the assassination 1 A. At home in the morning paper. 726 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. Q. Wliat paper ? A. The Elraira Advertiser. Q. At M'hat time did you see the Elmira Advertiser ? A. Between 7 and 7J in the morning. Q. That was on Saturday morning, the 15th? A. I do not remember the day. Q The next morning after the assassination ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You think it was the 15th 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. That was the first you heard of it ? A Yes, sir. Q. What did you do when you heard of it ? A. I went into my dining room and took breakfast with my family ; read the news, and felt very badly about it. Q. When did you go to the telegraph office. A. It must have been between eight and half past eight. Q. Who did you see there ? A. Mr. Palmer. Q. Did you get any more news ? A I did not at that time. No other news had come. Q. When did this man, who looked like a Canadian, cross the street 1 A. I should say it was between the hours of nine and ten, probably half past nine. Q. Was he dirty or was he clean ? A. Clean. Q What had he on his head 1 A. He had a hat of some kind. I cannot tell what kind. Q. What kind of trowsers did he wear 1 A. A lightish pair of trowsers. I should think drab. Q. Was there anything peculiar about them 1 A. Not that I know of. I do not remember noticing particularly any por- tion of his dress except his blouse. Q. Was there anything peculiar in his hat ? A. Not that I am aware of. Q. What kind of a beard had he ? A. He had a goatee, which came from about the side of the lips round. Q. Pretty long ? A.. Rather short. Q. Had he anything else? A I think not. Q. You are very sure he had a goatee coming around here, under the chin 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. You have no doubt of that ? A. I think not. That is my impression. Q. Had he a moustache, the same as he has now ? A. No, sir. Q. What color was the goatee that he had here, around under the chin ? A. Rather a dark brown. Q. The same color it is now ? A. No, sir. My impression is that it was rather darker than it is now. Q. Did you think it was dyed ? A. I did not look at him enough to be able to say. Q. Was it the same color then as it is now ? A. It was darker. Q. Do you think it was an unnatural color ? TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT. 727 A. No, sir ; I do not think it was an unnatural color. Q. He has a moustache now 1 A. Yes, sir; a light one. Q. And that he didn't have then? A. 1 did not notice any. Q. How was his hair then ? A. I could not tell, because I did not notice enough to see. Q. Do you know Colonel Foster ? A. No, sir ; I do not. Q. Have you not been here before ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you talk with a gentleman here on this subject when you were here before 1 A. No, sir. Q. Did you talk with anybody on the subject ! A. I talked with Mr. Bradley and Mr. Merrick. Q. Nobody else. A. Not tliat I recollect of now. Q. Don't you know Colonel Foster? Did not he see you at Elniira ? A. I saw a gentleman on the train who represented himself to be Colonel Foster. I was not introduced to him, and, probably, I would not recognize him. Q. Did you talk with that man here when you were here before ? A. No, sir. Q. Is there any other John Cass that you know of? A. Not that I know of. Q. If you did not talk with Colonel Foster did you talk with any other man here except Mr. Bradley and Mr. Merrick ? A. No, sir; except the parties who came with me from Elmira. Q. Who came with you ? A. Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Carroll, and Mr. Fowler. Q. Nobody else ? A. Yes, sir ; a gentleman from Canada, v/hose name I dp not remember. Mr. Bradlky. Mr. Baylin. Witness. I believe that is it. Q. When were you here last ? A. I think it was three weeks ago. Q. At that time didn't you go over to the jail ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Didn't you see the prisoner there ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Didn't you have a conversation out here, near the city hall, on that subject with Colonel Foster after you had been to the jail ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you with Mr. Knapp ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know him ? A. Yes, sir; very well. Q. -1 )id you have any conversation with Mr. Knapp, in Elmira. about it ? A. We apoke about it while coming on here, but no particular conversation. Q. Did you state to him after you had been to the jail that you did not re- cognize the man ? A. No, sir ; I did not. Q. Did you say anything to him about it ? A. I do not know Colonel Fo.stcr. Q. Well, the one who was pointed out to you as Colonel Foster? A. Nobody was pointed out to me aa Colonel Foster. 728 TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT.' Q. Then you did not talk to him on the subject ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you knQW this gentleman sitting at my right, (assistant district attor- ney Wilson ?) A. I do not. Q. Did you talk with him across the street over here near his office ? A. No, sir. Q. You didn't say a word to him ? A. I do not remember it. Q. At the Toot of the stairs 1 Witness. When 1 Mr. PiERKEPoNT. Three weeks ago, or about that, when you were here. A. No, sir. , I saw you, and spoke to you, and may have spoken to him at the same time. Q. Didn't you see this gentleman standing with me at the time ? A, I presume he came there while you and I were speaking. Q. Did you talk with him ? A. No, sir ; I believe not. Q. Did you ask him anything ? A. No, sir. Q. Didn't you tell him what you knew, and what you didn't know ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you not ask him — this gentleman, Mr. Wilson — if you could not go home ? A. No, sir ; I had nothing to do with it. Q. Did you tell him that you knew nothing about this person ? A. No, sir ; I did not. Q. Nothing of the kind 1 A. No, sir. Q. Did you say anything at all to him about the case ? A. Not that I am aware of. I do not think the case was spoken of. I do not remember speaking to him at all. I remember speaking to you. Q. Was Mr. Knapp present 1 A. Yes, sir ; and was going to introduce me, when I told him that I knew you from seeing you in Elmira four years ago. Q. Did you say anything to Mr. Wilson, in Mr. Knapp's presence, on the subject of this case ? A. No, sir ; he did not mention the case at all. - Q. Did you here, or elsewhere, say anything to Mr. Knapp to the effect that you did not know anything about this prisoner ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you, in Mr. Knapp's presence, ask Mr. Wilson if he did not think you could go home ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you stand across the street, at the foot of the stairs, with this gen- tleman (Mr. Wilson) and Mr. Knapp 1 A. I do not think I did. I do not remember of doing it. Q. Do you know where the district attorney's office is 1 A. No, sir. Q. Have you been across the street, near the corner 1 A. 1 have been to the corner — to Mr. Bradley's office. , Q. I mean near the corner 1 A. I saw Mr. Knapp there, and I remember Mr. Knapp was going to intro- duce me to you, and we walked a little further from the corner, when some other parties came up and called your attention, and 1 left ? . ' I >o..>5> ,.>>!> S>X^ 'iMy^ - »^ J»-i . ^-* >~» '^ j> ^^ 3>>> Ji->?.3) - 1 >/>:?: V-»ll> - -> J» > > ■:> >) > -a •■> >o » ' > >» » > > > p_> .» ^,=> ^ '>^ J-' ->:-^ ^^^A — rS» 3> : ■^^>'>^^Sv:>^^^>^'^- > ~>:»>j.3» .; > :>> 5 > > -■ 2> y^^^ -> ^> » s ^ > >>v -r>> 1^ iiSii^ >;>j3»z>3>:>:3>> 3?-^ 55" ► ,»^^ • >> >>->iaj ^ ^>^ ► JK>'^!^ > ^ ^ ^ > > > > > V ^ ^ ^-i J > yyjs>:^: 3 > a> J& ;• • ■> >* ^» » >: . ► > 5 3o» £> > :>2> ^>>2 »°^ fc: -5^ .• >>■" ^^ ^-> >^ Vl -» .-)» -I >~^ "1 ^^ >^y^^^^3^ ^ ^ 5>^ ^ » >' ^»>3»a» :»> >is» 2»rm ^f ^^?* > :> : > J» >>^ ).:>:»<' ^5> >;> ^:or2m • :):>3 • ■>> 3> ,^ > a ' >^ »- >> >^ ^>^^^ f » v:> ^?^ >-> >j» 7 ^^ ■"4? ■• 3 » ■^ ^> > J » 3 >J> . Sfc -si >» -^ ^• » :> » ^ >> ■< -•^S >» ^ jjH[ ►» ^ ^B '> :> -^3 » ^ J ""^1 » ' > ^ ■^ ""^S o> :> ^s *^ ~> s ;^S ir^ -* -^ *^S 2> > JO > J > > >■ . > > »" .> > •) » > )■ » > :> :> .. ■;^:iS 5 ^\^ >» ^ >^ J> ^> :> y^ > .\>i;. > ):»& > ^ 'y^>? > ?i ^ -•>•:> ^)a5>>>*^3 -y '■■'br ^^y.- ts»A> >>>^^y mo. ^ » >-> '>' , s» Y->?>^^>_ _J> 3S> 3. j'^'3 3:^' ^i>Ov5 ' Jf> ■>;>,? !> ■> ».j»a ^ ^' \^ * ^ • » !») . k !>^ \^^ > ^ :» 5» V''^>^^ :>'j>-5^ -> ):>-5» -, jfc>' 'L> ) y ' » 5» ^^\1k '^>^- ->:» >:>^ ^\^.'^07> > ^iJJ »j> ■^.V:-. ■• :» :i^ ^ -»^ .»:>