a
** I
TH
ill
_
5HAD0TC
* OTTO EISEnSCHIML *
AUTHOR OF'WHY WAS LINCOLN MURDERED?"
WAS there more than one plot to kidnap
or murder Lincoln?
WAS Booth killed or did he escape?
WAS Mrs. Surratt tortured before she was
executed as a conspirator?
HERE are new long-buried revelations fully
substantiated by documentary evidence!
on AmeAica'b
molt 6o>i>iow.§ul Uaqedy*
No other chapter in American history
can compare in tense dramatic power
with that of Lincoln's death. And no one
is better qualified to write about the
event than Otto Eisenschiml, as was evi-
denced by the acclaim for his best-sell-
ing WHY WAS LINCOLN MURDERED?
Since its publication three years ago the
author has delved deeper into the enig-
mas that have baffled students of the
Civil War period. He has found new
long-buried facts about the conspiracy
surrounding the assassination, new facts
about the part played by Secretary
Stanton and other secrets of the tragic
episode.
In his new work the author answers
questions — for the first time — which
have long been mystifying. Was there
more than one plot to kidnap or murder
Lincoln? Whose body was identified as
that of the assassin Booth on board the
gunboat Montauk? Was Booth killed,
or did he escape? Was Mrs. Mary Sur-
ratt, one of the alleged conspirators,
tortured before she was executed? The
author brings forth facts which shed
fresh light on some long-neglected and
amazing chapters of the Civil War era.
It is the most provocative book on its
subject yet written. The book is fully
illustrated with many important histori-
cal documents never before published.
Price, $3.00
LINCOLN ROOM
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
LIBRARY
MEMORIAL
the Class of 1901
founded by
HARLAN HOYT HORNER
and
HENRIETTA CALHOUN HORNER
X. ^ /k— tf«^"~ /A #'
^Of— w-w— <^
'jpjt-zr/ /J
OTTO EISENSCHIML
COPYRIGHT 1940 BY WILFRED FUNK, INC.
PRINTED IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CONTENTS
chapter i Lincoln Had Some Narrow Escapes 3
CHAPTER II VoxPop7lU 25
chapter in A Body Is Identified 33
chapter iv Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 53
chapter v Mrs. Surratfs Boarding House 91
chapter vi Was Mrs. Surratt Tortured? 1 1 3
chapter vii The Silencing of Mrs. Surratt 127
chapter viii Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy
Trial 1 5 1
Part 1 What Counsel for the Defense Remem-
bered
Part 11 The Prosecution Presents Its Side
Part in Two Judges Review the Case
Part iv As the Court Reporters Saw It
Part v Colonel Wood Speaks Out
chapter ix Stanton's Reign of Terror 191
chapter x The Real Stanton 217
chapter xi The Queer Adventures of John H. Sur-
ratt 235
chapter xii Storm Around Surratt 255
chapter xiii The Surratt Trial 265
Part 1 The Prosecution
Part 11 The Defense
Part in The Verdict
chapter xiv Problems Solved and Unsolved 351
vii
ILLUSTRATIONS
Probable routes chosen for the abduction of President Lin-
coln
PAGE
l 7
A page from the original manuscript of Doctor May's
"The Mark of the Scalpel" facing p. 36
Photostatic copy of a portion of Doctor May's testimony
on board the Mont auk 39
The Garrett Home. With barn in background as it stood
in 1933 5 6
The Surra tt Tavern in 1876 facing p. 94
The former Surratt Tavern at Clinton (formerly Surratts-
ville), A4aryland, 1933, rear view facing p. 94
Mrs. Surratt advertises for roomers 96
Mrs. Surratt's House in 1865 at 541 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. facing p. 100
Mrs. Surratt's House in 1933, now 604 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. facing p. 100
Photostat of Calvert's letter of April 1865, to Mrs. Sur-
ratt facing p. 102
Mrs. Mary E. Surratt facing p. 114
Miss Anna Surratt facing p. 114
Father Jacob A. Walter facing p. 114
Scene at the Conspiracy Trial of 1865 facing p. 122
The Secretary of War requests that the prisoners on board
the Montauk be hooded 129
Transporting the prisoners from the gunboat Montauk to
the Arsenal Prison facing p. 132
An item in the New York Times of August 15, 1867
facing p. 147
Three of the Counsel for the Defense in the Conspiracy
Trial facing p. 152
ix
Illustrations
PAGE
Attorneys for the Government in the Conspiracy Trial
■facing p. 162
Three of the Military Judges and the chief reporter at the
Conspiracy Trial facing p. 166
The Old Capitol Prison facing p. 196
Colonel William P. Wood facing p. 196
The barracks at Veroli, Italy (1939) facing p. 238
John H. Surratt, sketched by an artist of Harper's Weekly
shortly after his arrival in Washington in 1867
facing p. 238
Route of Surratt's escape from Veroli to Naples, where he
took ship to Malta and Alexandria 240
Dotted line indicates Surratt's route from Naples to Alex-
andria 243
Arrival of John H. Surratt in Washington on February
19, 1867 facing p. 258
The Surratt Trial, Presiding Judge George P. Fisher,
Judge A. B. Wylie, Edwards Pierrepont, chief counsel
for the Government in the Surratt Trial. Albert Gal-
latin Riddle, representative of the State Department
facing p. 268
Surratt's alleged route from Elmira, N. Y. to Washington 297
Joseph H. Bradley, leader of the defense in the Surratt
Trial. Richard T. Merrick, counsel for the defense
facing p. 308
Dotted line indicates Surratt's route from Elmira to Mon-
treal 3 1 7
Lincoln's closed coach. Lincoln's barouche with foldable
top facing p. 356
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1 am greatly indebted to Milton S. Pratiner of New York City for
editorial help in arranging my data and for offering valuable sugges-
tions for its presentation.
Grateful acknowledgments are also due to:
Paul M. Angle, who read the manuscript and whose criticism and
advice was much appreciated.
Mr. W. H. Cathcart, Director of the Western Reserve Historical
Society in Cleveland, for his help in procuring much of the informa-
tion pertaining to Albert G. Riddle.
Mrs. Marcelyn Heath Clark, Mr. E. M. Corbin, Mr. D. A. Loomis,
Burlington, Vermont, who did successful research on John Surratt's
flight through the Burlington territory.
Mr. C. M. Cochrane, Davenport, Iowa, who supplied rare copies
of the Washington Sunday Gazette containing the articles by Colo-
nel William P. Wood.
Mrs. Evan M. Davis, Deerfleld, Illinois; Mr. Charles E. Mason, Mr.
Kenneth Chamberlin, Waukegan, Illinois; Mrs. Charles H. Watson,
Evanston, Illinois; Mr. Frank L. Wood, Chicago, who helped me in
tracing the life story of John W. Clampitt after he had settled in the
Chicago district.
Mr. Wadsworth Doster, Pittsburgh, for his permission to study
the literary estate of his father, General William E. Doster.
Mr. Walter M. Holden and Mr. John W. Curran, Chicago, who
read some chapters of the manuscript and who shared with me their
valuable knowledge and material.
Mr. Leonarde Keeler and Dr. C. W. Muehlberger, Chicago, who
have given me generously of their time and knowledge.
Mr. Herbert A. Kellar of the McCormick Historical Association,
Chicago, whose constant support has been of great help.
Dr. Otto Korpiolek, who covered photographically the route
which John Surratt took from Veroli to Naples.
Mr. H. B. McConnell and Mr. L. Milton Ronsheim of Cadiz, Ohio,
xi
Xll
A cknowledgments
who permitted me to study and use their extensive collection of
Wiechmann and Bingham letters.
Professor R. Gerald McMurtry, of Lincoln Memorial University,
who has never failed to send me pertinent facts whenever and wher-
ever he found them.
Virginia Maier, for her untiring cooperation in collecting, assem-
bling and evaluating the historical data used in this volume.
Ralph Newman, M. E. Northwall, Wright Howes, of Chicago, for
their diligent efforts in procuring copies of rare books.
Mrs. J. M. Peddicord and Dr. Everett E. Watson, Salem, Virginia,
from whom I received what was said to be hair from the corpse on
the Montauk, and whose recollections of the late Dr. J. M. Peddi-
cord were freely put at my disposal.
Dr. William Allen Pusey, whose deep knowledge of dermatology
and whose kindness in introducing me to other experts in this field
opened the way to a study of Booth's tattoo marks and their possible
removal, as well as Booth's alleged freckles.
Forest H. Sweet, Battle Creek, Michigan, for his ceaseless search
among rare manuscripts and for the relevant facts he supplied.
Dr. Max Thorek, Chicago, for reading the medical portions of my
book and for many valuable suggestions.
Dr. C. S. Webb, of Bowling Green, Virginia, who turned over to
me some of the hair which Miss Lucinda Holloway claimed to have
cut from the head of the man who died at Garrett's barn.
James N. Wilkerson, of Kansas City, a close student of Booth's
fate, with whom I have constantly exchanged views and whose ma-
terial I have studied with interest and gratitude.
John Woodford, for valuable criticism.
Betty Breakstone, Sally Camerer, Meta Caminer, Blanche No-
votny, Gladys Poll, who suggested many literary improvements in
style and arrangement.
I
&
It was the 14th of April, iS6$. In Ford's Theatre at Washing-
ton Taylor's farce-comedy "Our American Cousin" was play-
ing to a full house, with President Lincoln and his wife in
attendance. The second scene of the third act was drawing to a
close. Suddenly a shot rang out. The audience, thinking it was
part of the play, paid little attention to it; but back-stage and in
the orchestra pit startled looks were exchanged. The script did
not call for the discharge of a pistol. Before anyone could give
expression to his unnamed fear, a slim figure jumped from Lin-
coln's box and disappeared into the wings.
Through a haze of smoke Mrs. Lincoln could be seen bend-
ing over the prostrate body of her husband. Her cry, "Stop that
man''' shrilled through the house. Then there was pandemo-
nium. Awe-stricken men first whispered and then cried aloud the
name of the murderer: "John Wilkes Booth! John Wilkes
Booth!"
The assassination of Lincoln, usually considered the spontane-
ous act of a madman, was in fact the culmination of several plots
conceived to abduct the President, not to kill him. These plots
were born, flowered under the surface for a time and then failed
of fruition. If one of them had succeeded, Lincoln's life might
have been spared; but they miscarried, and one furious and
baffled conspirator turned murderer.
That Lincoln lived through four years in the White House
without serious misadventure is remarkable; for he did have,
indeed, some narrow escapes —
I
Lincoln Had Some Narrow Escapes
FROM THE moment Lincoln left Springfield on his trip to
Washington in February 1861, many of his friends consid-
ered him in bodily danger. There was reason to expect a hostile
outbreak in Baltimore, and the newly elected President was
rushed through there at night. When Lincoln arrived in Wash-
ington, his close associates were still fearful for his safety. Major
David Hunter, who had accompanied Lincoln most of the way
from Illinois, organized a voluntary bodyguard and established
its headquarters in the East room of the Executive Mansion.
Marshal Ward Hill Lamon, who idolized his master and was
watchful against danger, did not only apprehend assassination
but also kidnaping. Rumors had come to his ears that in the last
months of the outgoing administration fiery secessionists had
planned to abduct Lincoln's predecessor, President Buchanan,
and put Vice President Breckenridge in his place. When Lin-
coln moved into the White House, these hotheads, so Lamon
thought, might turn their plot with stronger reasons against the
new Executive for the purpose of seizing his person and holding
him as hostage, "until such concessions were made to the South-
ern leaders as their plans of compromise rendered necessary." *
All these fears eventually proved to be groundless. Month
after month passed without mishap, and by and by all precau-
tionary measures were abandoned. One year after his inaugura-
tion the President was wont to walk through the streets of
3
4 Chapter I
Washington or ride to his summer residence wholly unguarded.
The summer residence was located at the Soldiers' Home about
three miles north of the capital, and as the road led through a
desolate section of the city's environs, it offered unusual chances
for would-be attackers. But even Lamon's apprehensions had
been dissipated after a year of vain watchfulness.
Lincoln was entirely unconcerned about his own security.
He lived in the White House like any ordinary citizen in his
home. A major on General Halleck's staff in the fall of 1862
noted "the utterly unprotected condition of the President's per-
son and the fact that any assassin or maniac seeking his life could
enter his presence without the interference of a single armed
man to hold him back." 2 The doors of the White House were
open at all hours of the day and very late into the evening.
People walked up to the rooms of the President's private secre-
taries as late as nine or ten o'clock at night without being either
seen or challenged. There were two civil servants in attendance,
but their duties rested lightly on their shoulders. Halleck's staff
officer frequently drew the attention of his general and that of
Lincoln's junior secretary, John Hay, to the hazards of the situ-
ation, but failed to arouse their interest. Finally he approached
Lincoln himself and described to him by way of contrast the
precautions taken by commanding generals at military head-
quarters. Lincoln listened gravely, but shook his head.
"Ah, yes!" he said, ". . . such things do very well for you
military people . . . But the office of President is essentially a
civil one ... I tell you, Major," he continued, "that I call . . .
receptions my public-opinion baths— for I have but little time to
read the papers and gather public opinion that way." 3 He then
added that to have guards with drawn sabers at his door would
make people fancy that they were dealing not with a President
but with an Emperor. The officer thereupon became more in-
sistent and hinted that, if some protective steps were not taken,
Lincoln Had Some Narrow Escapes 5
assassination might result. Lincoln smiled and, with his hands
locked across his knees and his body rocking back and forth in
his chair, gave every indication that he was only amused.
"I have an insurance on my life worth half the prairie land
of Illinois,"* he reckoned, and added that the Richmond people
would not like Vice President Hamlin any better than himself.
Moreover, if guards were placed at the doors of the White
House, they would put ideas into the heads of would-be assas-
sins; as to crazy folks, they might even be attracted by having it
published that he was afraid of them. 4
With which dictum the matter was put to rest.
In the summer of 1862 Lincoln traveled unattended and at all
hours to his country residence near the Soldiers' Home, some-
times on horseback, sometimes by carriage. Secretary of State
Seward also moved without protection and saw nothing unusual
in this habit. 5 But General Wadsworth, then military com-
mander of the District of Columbia, foresaw possible trouble.
He took it upon himself to provide Lincoln with a bodyguard
consisting of some cavalry, whose special duty it was to accom-
pany the President on his trips, 6 in spite of his protests and thinly
veiled disgust. One evening the President called after dinner at
Halleck's private quarters to remonstrate, half jocularly and half
in earnest, against his escort. The burden of his complaint was
that he and Mrs. Lincoln could not hear themselves talk for the
clatter of sabers and spurs. 7 He then added with a smile that
from the looks of the soldiers he figured he was in more danger
through an accidental discharge of their weapons than through
an attack by an enemy. When his protest was politely but firmly
denied, Lincoln merely shrugged his shoulders and yielded, as
he so frequently did in matters that seemed to him of no vital
importance.
General Wadsworth was transferred to Burnside's army in
December, 1862, and the discipline maintained up to then slack-
6 Chapter I
ened. Nevertheless, by September two companies of the 150th
Pennsylvania Volunteers had been detailed as guards at the Sol-
diers' Home. The President's safety on his trips was entrusted to
the cavalry of another command. Eventually, Company K of
the Pennsylvania regiment became the permanent guardians of
the Executive Mansion, a position held by them until the end
of the war. Lincoln accepted their services with as good grace
as he could muster, writing once with a fine touch of humor that
the captain and his company "are very agreeable to me, and
while it is deemed proper for any guard to remain none would
be more satisfactory . . ." 8
A year later the guard service worked only intermittently.
On June 30, 1863, Walt Whitman wrote in a letter:
Mr. Lincoln passes here (14th Street) every evening on the way
out. I noticed him about half past 6— he was in his barouche, two
horses, guarded by about thirty cavalry. The barouche comes first
under a slow trot, driven by one man on the box, not servant or
footman beside; the cavalry all follow closely after with a lieutenant
at their head. . . . 9
On the other hand, General Butler found the President en-
tirely unprotected a few weeks later. "In the late summer
[1863]," he chronicled, "I was invited by the President to ride
with him in the evening out to the Soldiers' Home, some two
miles, a portion of the way being quite lonely. He had no guard
—not even an orderly on the box." When Butler criticized this
lack of precautions, Lincoln argued that assassination was not an
American crime. He did promise, however, to accept a guard if
Stanton would provide one. A guard was promptly furnished, 10
and Butler took credit for the achievement.
During the summer of 1863 Governor Tod of Ohio had occa-
sion to visit Washington and was shocked by the lack of pro-
tection accorded the President. He sought and obtained permis-
Lincoln Had Some Narrow Escapes 7
sion to organize as guard a detachment of Ohio cavalry which
later became known as the Union Light Guard. 11
Tod had found only two infantrymen and four cavalrymen
on duty at the White House. But even they were not permitted
to challenge anyone, and their value therefore was problemati-
cal. 12 The Union Light Guard did not enter upon its duties until
January, 1864.
In the meantime, the battle of Gettysburg had been fought,
Vicksburg had fallen, and the more thoughtful in the Confed-
erate ranks were beginning to lose hope. Desperate measures
were needed to bolster their cause. It was then that attempts to
kidnap Lincoln were first seriously discussed by Southern par-
tisans. An effort was made directly after the Gettysburg cam-
paign by some of the irregulars under General Mosby, whose
raiders were constantly hovering around the outskirts of the
capital. A half dozen of these daring riders actually made their
way into Washington with the avowed purpose of capturing
Lincoln. But, as one of them confessed afterward, "the bland-
ishments of John Barleycorn were more than those thirsty war-
riors in butternut could withstand." 13 Their conversations were
overheard, an alarm was sounded, and Mosby's men were glad
to escape before they were trapped.
Then came 1864 and Grant. A military decree, published by
him, abruptly raised kidnaping from a madcap Confederate ven-
ture to an inviting war measure. Grant had decreed that the ex-
change of war prisoners must stop. With no further accruals to
the enemy regiments through exchange of prisoners, the leader
of the Union forces hoped to exhaust the man power of the
South and thereby win a quick and comparatively bloodless
victory. Any successful counterstroke against this threatening
move on the military checkerboard would bring its sponsor un-
8 Chapter I
dying glory. The kidnaping of Lincoln was one move which
might checkmate Grant's strategy.
After three years of warfare the exchange of prisoners had
become a routine matter. It was still based on certain rules laid
down in a cartel on July 22, 1862, signed by Generals John A.
Dix and D. H. Hill for their respective armies. A lieutenant, by
mutual agreement, was rated as equal to six privates; a captain
was worth fifteen, a major general forty, a general in command
sixty. 14 No value, of course, had been put on the heads of the
Presidents who were commanders-in-chief of both army and
navy. Would not Lincoln as a captive be worth all the tens of
thousands of Confederate prisoners in the Northern camps?
There is little doubt that the thought of capturing Lincoln
originated with several people simultaneously. John Wilkes
Booth, a young tragedian who loved the South passionately, but
who had promised his mother he would not become a soldier,
was one of those who were stirred into feverish action. By hold-
ing Lincoln as hostage for the exchange of an army, he would
serve his country better than by fighting. To many, the abduc-
tion of a President from within his own capital may have seemed
preposterous. On closer analysis, though, it would be found
entirely practical. If executed with boldness and speed, it could
succeed. Nevertheless, careful preparations had to be made, and
Booth at once set out to lay the groundwork for his enterprise.
The best opportunities to effect Lincoln's seizure were fur-
nished by his frequent trips to the Soldiers' Home. Booth se-
lected a lonely spot outside the capital for the attack; but he had
alternate plans also. 15 One of them was to capture Lincoln on
one of his visits to a hospital across the Anacostia bridge; another
was to abduct him while attending a theatrical performance.
Both schemes were abandoned after due consideration. The
President's trips across the Potomac were taken too irregularly,
and the romantic scheme to seize the President inside a play-
Lincoln Had Some Narrow Escapes 9
house found no favorable response among Booth's more practi-
cal-minded companions.
One of the problems confronting the kidnapers was the
selection of a proper route for carrying their captive into the
Confederacy. There were two obvious possibilities from which
to choose. One likely road led from Washington to the upper
Potomac and south through the Shenandoah Valley or the coun-
try east of it. The other was by way of the lower Potomac
along what was known by the natives as the doctor's route, so
called because it was used for the distribution of contraband
mail by country physicians of Southern sympathies whose duties
shielded them from close supervision. Booth finally gave pref-
erence to this latter route and traveled extensively in lower
Maryland under the pretext of buying farm property, but in
reality to familiarize himself with every road and byroad. 16 If
successful, Booth would have carried Lincoln through Surratts-
ville, T. B. and Bryantown to Port Tobacco on the Potomac,
where boats were constantly kept in waiting for the illustrious
prisoner.
Booth's companions have often been described as mere rabble;
as a matter of fact, they were well chosen for their peculiarly
valuable qualities as kidnapers. Assassination was not yet thought
of at that time. John Surratt, the only one of Booth's helpers
who had both intelligence and breeding, was an expert handler
of horses and had an intimate knowledge of southern Maryland,
where he had often traveled as a Confederate dispatch bearer.
Lewis Paine, the former Florida soldier, with his gigantic
strength, was to have subdued the powerful Lincoln. Herold,
insignificant boy though he was, had spent many a day hunting
among the crossroads of the Potomac country and knew strange
hiding places with which even Surratt was not acquainted. The
uncouth Atzerodt owned a boat at Port Tobacco and was well
versed in illicit traffic. Samuel Arnold and Michael O'Laughlin
io Chapter I
were trusted schoolmates of Booth and had served under Lee
as good and obedient soldiers.
Toward the end of 1 864 the groundwork of the plan had been
completed. No great secrecy seems to have been observed by
the conspirators, for rumors of the proposed abduction had
spread widely among the secessionist inhabitants of the district.
Among others, a Confederate mail agent in southern Mary-
land named Thomas A. Jones had heard of the plan. 17 The Pres-
ident, he understood, was to be seized during his customary
evening drive toward the Navy Yard, either chloroformed or
gagged, and driven quietly out of the city. If the carriage should
be stopped while crossing the Navy Yard bridge, the captors
would point to the President and drive on. The carnage was to
be escorted out of the city by men dressed in Federal uniforms.
Relays of fast horses were in readiness all along the route, and a
boat in which to take the captive across the Potomac was kept
on the west side of Port Tobacco Creek, about three and a half
miles from the town of the same name.
In Jones' opinion, the carriage containing the abducted Presi-
dent, once clear of Washington, could not be overtaken. The
distance to be traversed was only thirty-six miles, and while the
kidnapers had relays of fresh horses waiting for them, the pur-
suers would be without such preparations. Moreover, ropes were
to have been stretched across the roads, trees felled and other
obstacles placed in the way of any rescuing party.
Others were aware of Booth's plans. A farmer named Bryan,
living on the Virginia side of the Potomac, told a reporter later
that he had known all about the plan of abduction and the part
he was expected to take. 18 Bryan had belonged to Mosby's men,
and his company was to be stationed at that point of the river
where the conspirators were to cross. Mosby's raiders, he be-
lieved, would have been strong enough to take care of any small
number of men sent in pursuit. He thought the road had been so
Lincoln Had Some Narrow Escapes 1 1
well chosen and the people throughout southern Maryland were
so loyal to the Confederate cause, that no fear of interference
from that quarter need be entertained.
The time chosen for the execution of Booth's scheme was the
first half of January 1865. A cotton broker named Martin, who
happened to be in Port Tobacco at that time, testified that
Atzerodt would not carry him across the Potomac because he
expected to transport a more important party. 19 John Surratt
left his employ on January 13 so abruptly that he didn't even
draw his pay. 20 Sam Arnold also expected the climax about that
time. 21 The actor Samuel K. Chester, to whom Booth had as-
signed the part of turning off the gas in the theatre, should the
abduction take place there, was wanted in Washington in Janu-
ary of that year. Although no details were vouchsafed him, he
was invited to participate in a "plan that could not fail". 22
Yet, the plan that could not fail was never even put to a test.
An extremely mild winter had left the roads impassable and, as
the kidnaping party could not afford the risk of becoming
mired before crossing the Potomac into Confederate territory,
the execution of the plot had to be abandoned for the time being.
How many other of his enemies intended to kidnap Lincoln
will probably never be known. There is definite proof, how-
ever, that the idea had not occurred to Booth alone. In fact, he
and his little band constantly suspected that others were plotting
along similar lines.
John Surratt asserted in 1870 that there had been a rival con-
spiracy afoot in Washington five years before. One evening,
as he was lying down in the reading room of the Metropolitan
Hotel, two or three gentlemen came in and commenced to talk
mysteriously about an expedition which was about to be under-
taken.
"We didn't know what they were after, exactly," Surratt
1 2 Chapter I
said, 23 "but we were well satisfied that their object was very
much the same as ours." The identity of those whom Surratt
overheard has never been discovered. That their intrigue was
important may well be questioned. Only dilettante conspirators
would have discussed their plans audibly in the public parlor of
a Washington hotel.
Yet Booth and his associates were correct in their surmise that
someone else was running them a close race. At the head of an-
other party which meant serious business was a man named
Thomas N. Conrad, a famous Confederate scout, who had
worked out the details of a kidnaping plot with another scout
named Mount joy while their command had been at winter
quarters on the Chickahominy in 1863.
Their contemplated plan of action closely paralleled that of
the Booth group. 24 They also had selected the lower Potomac
route and had decided to intercept the Presidential carriage near
the Soldiers' Home. This resort was surrounded by a large acre-
age of old trees, and the grounds contained beautiful winding
driveways. The Fourteenth Street entrance, through which the
President's carriage usually approached, was admirably adapted
for the attack, so Conrad decided. 25 The Confederate scout also
had chosen his help with care, and his band closely resembled
that of Booth. Where the latter needed Paine for his brutality,
so Conrad relied upon a big, rawboned athlete named Frizzell.
Both Paine and Frizzell had been prisoners of war and had re-
ceived rough treatment; they could therefore be expected to be
eager for an act of vengeance. Conrad's driver was a man named
Williams, and the description he gave of him could well have
fitted that of Surratt.
"He was six feet in height, straight as an arrow, twenty-three years
of age, and when with me was as bold as a lion . . . His loyalty . . .
could not be questioned. I wanted him on this occasion to mount
Lincoln Had Some Narrow Escapes i 3
the seat upon which Mr. Lincoln's driver sat and, with pistol in hand,
to make him obey my orders" . . , 26
Conrad's well-laid plan miscarried. The President, whom the
Confederate scout had never before known to travel under
escort during weeks of waiting, suddenly changed his routine
and moved under military protection. The change took place
on the very day the plot was to have been executed.
"Imagine my astounding surprise and total collapse," he wrote,
"when we beheld the carriage of Mr. Lincoln moving out of the
grounds of the White House preceded and followed by a squad
of cavalry." 27 Conrad was convinced that no one of his party
had betrayed his plans. What had caused this unexpected ob-
stacle to be thrown in his way, Conrad never knew; but he be-
lieved to his dying day that if he had acted a day sooner he
would have succeeded.
Conrad had one advantage over Booth. Had he abducted Lin-
coln on a dark night, he could have hurried him across the Treas-
ury Park south of the White House to a vacant home near the
Potomac River, where he had often been in hiding on his scout-
ing missions. This was the old Van Ness mansion in the rear of
the War Department. It was surrounded by a high brick wall
with a large iron gate and, being several blocks away from the
main streets of Washington, served as an admirable rendezvous
for Southern sympathizers throughout the war. Its owner, Col-
onel Green, was an old Virginian who had two sons in the Con-
federate army. The porter's lodge of his home was used as a
secret post office where messages were dropped and called for
at regular intervals. 28
After Booth's abortive attempt in January, 1865, months
passed without an opportunity to repeat it. "We seldom saw one
another," stated one of the plotters, "owing to the many rumors
1 4 Chapter I
afloat that a conspiracy of some kind was being concocted . . ."
Then the long-delayed chance came. "One day we received
information," John Surratt recalled, "that the President would
visit the Seventh Street Hospital for the purpose of being pres-
ent at an entertainment . . . the report only reached us about
three-quarters of an hour before the time appointed . . . This
was between i and 2 o'clock in the afternoon." 29
The carriage was to be halted and directed south over Ben-
ning's Bridge, which was not guarded. Everything was in readi-
ness. Arnold and O'Laughlin had preceded the party to inter-
cept the carriage, should the driver try to escape by whipping
up the horses. Herold was at Surrattsville, ready to add ropes
and other necessary material when the prisoner should reach
there. Booth, Surratt and Paine were to effect the capture.
The carriage drew near; one can visualize the trembling sus-
pense of the conspirators, as every step of the horses, every turn
of the wheels, brought them closer to the great moment which
would make them famous, envied, rich. But the moment came,
and passed unsung into history. For some reason never made
known, Lincoln had sent someone else in his stead to see the per-
formance of the afternoon. Did a slight cold beset Lincoln and
cause his wife to keep him at home? Did a sudden premonition
warn him of impending danger?
The man in the carriage was not molested, and the small band
of crestfallen, angry plotters scattered. Thus, on or about
March 20, 1865, 30 ended the last and most promising attempt to
kidnap a President of the United States.
The various conspiracies to abduct Lincoln did not escape
notice by the secret service. Only two people, however, were
worried enough to take definite countermeasures. These two
Lincoln Had Some Narrow Escapes i 5
people were Mrs. Lincoln and Marshal Lamon. In the fall of
1864, when Conrad's plot came uncomfortably close to success,
it was probably the President's wife who aroused the mounted
guard to a stricter attention to duty. The escort was cautioned
to be extremely vigilant, not only on the trips to and from the
old Soldiers' Home, but to be prepared for any disturbance in
the vicinity during the night. In fact, the whole company was
for a time kept under arms with horses saddled. But Mrs. Lin-
coln was not satisfied even with these precautions. After the
family had returned to the White House for the winter, she pri-
vately requested that a detail from the Union Light Guard should
be stationed in the Executive Mansion each night, without Mr.
Lincoln's knowledge. Her wishes were respected, of course, and
members of the squad were assigned to the house. 31 These ar-
rangements could not be kept from the President for any length
of time, and Lamon therefore decided to install a system of per-
sonal bodyguards who were to be with Lincoln day and night
and accompany him where mounted men could not follow. 32
So it came about that four men were drafted from the ranks of
the Metropolitan police force in November, 1864, and remained
on duty until Lincoln's death.
The President's failure to cooperate with any arrangements
for his own safety was a matter of grave concern to his entour-
age. Fifty years later some of the surviving telegraph operators
still remembered how "he terrified them all by his careless habits
. . .", as Clara E. Laughlin wrote after interviewing them. 33
Even Lamon, who watched over Lincoln with all the care of a
loving friend, could not overcome his Chief's passive resistance.
"It was impossible ... to induce him to forego these lonely
and dangerous journeys between the Executive Mansion and the
Soldiers' Home," he complained. "A stranger to fear, he often
eluded our vigilance . . ." 34
1 6 Chapter I
The trips to the Soldiers' Home were not the only sources of
threatening dangers. Even more risky perhaps were the short
walks Lincoln took to the War Department almost every eve-
ning. The distance was only about an ordinary city block, but
the densely shaded passageway ran along the north side of a
brick wall about four or five feet high and was only dimly
lighted by a few flickering gas jets. 35 One of the cavalrymen on
duty opined that kidnaping the President on one of these nightly
strolls would have been practicable. 36
Noah Brooks, a newspaperman much devoted to the President,
once remonstrated with him after the two men had walked to-
gether from the War Department to the White House.
"I could not help saying," Brooks reported, "that I thought his
going to and fro in the darkness of the night, . . . often alone
. . . was dangerous recklessness. That night, in deference to his
wife's anxious appeal, he had provided himself with a thick oaken
stick. He laughed as he showed me this slight weapon . . .'*' 37
Lincoln never was attacked on these short walks in the dark,
although vague stories that he had had some close calls in his own
grounds were circulated after his death. Major Eckert, one of
Stanton's confidants, even claimed to have received the confes-
sion of a murderous attempt there by the conspirator Paine. The
attack was said to have been planned for one frosty night in the
winter of 1864-1865. 38
On another occasion a messenger of the War Department
named Hatter accompanied Lincoln from Stanton's office to the
White House. He heard a man running away and next morning
found that part of the fence around the War Office had been
removed. Lincoln asked Hatter to keep the matter quiet, but the
latter did report it to Stanton, who said he had already heard of
the occurrence and apparently was not greatly disturbed. 39
A successful abduction of the President by his enemies would
Lincoln Had Some Narrow Escapes * 7
not have been contrary to the laws of civilized warfare. This
was conceded by observers on both sides of the Mason-Dixon
line.
"It is a common, well known fact," wrote the New York
Herald on June 20, 1867, "that the abduction of Lincoln was
projected and discussed in the southern papers two or three
years before his death. Such a plan was regarded at that time as
LEESBURG
WASHINGTON
ALEXANDRIA^ •
\ # SURRATTSVILLE
KING GEORGE CrH
FREDERICKSBURG
PORT ROYAL*
BOWLI
RICHMOND
PROBABLE Routes chosen FOR THE
ABt>UCTlOM OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN
1 8 Chapter I
fair game. It was not very vehemently discouraged, and there
was very little blame attached to the idea, even in the North."
Nevertheless, the Confederate government never became in-
volved in any kidnaping plans. More likely than not, Jefferson
Davis would have vetoed them had he known of their existence.
When John Surratt lectured in later years, he stated plainly
that the planned abduction of Lincoln had been "concocted
without the knowledge or the assistance of the Confederate gov-
ernment. . . ." 40 Surratt even confided to Booth his fear that
the Richmond authorities might surrender the successful kid-
napers to the United States together with their prisoner.
The Confederate scout Conrad was equally emphatic in his
denial.
"Neither President Davis nor his secretary of war," he as-
serted, "had any knowledge of my contemplated attempt to
capture Mr. Lincoln and bring him to Richmond. I consulted
only the military secretary of General Bragg . . . This . . .
secretary enjoined me, above all things, not to hurt a hair upon
Lincoln's head, or treat him with the slightest indignity."' 41
Although Lincoln was indifferent to any possible dangers of
abduction or assassination, he was aware of them and sometimes
discussed them with Marshal Lamon. Strangely, he actually en-
tertained suspicions against two persons, but chiefly against
Adam Gurowski, a Polish count who, after a checkered career
leading through Russian prisons and a professorship at a Swiss
university, had come to the United States in 1 849.
". . . From the known disposition of the man," Lincoln once
said, "he is dangerous ... I have sometimes thought that he
might try to take my life. . . ." 42
Lincoln was wrong. Not a shadow of suspicion touches
Lincoln Had Some Narrow Escapes 1 9
Gurowski, and if Lincoln had been more familiar with this type
of European theorist he would have harbored no fear of him.
Gurowski was, in spite of an outward appearance of ferocious
bravery, nothing but a shrinking coward. Gideon Welles in
1862 still described him as "Brave . . . without doubt, a rude,
rough Polish bear . . .", 43 but two years later he changed his
views. Welles had arranged a party, but had not invited the
count, and Gurowski exhibited uncontrollable rage at this slight.
A few days later the two men met. The Secretary of the Navy
undoubtedly thought himself in peril; but, so he told his diary,
"he [Gurowski] saw and recognized me, seemed to be embar-
rassed . . . dropped his head and, turning off ... he went far
around, with his head bent over, shame and passion in his coun-
tenance." 44
Morally, Gurowski was even a worse coward. He had writ-
ten a diary, "in horrid style and bad English," Welles thought,
". . . abusing in clumsy language almost all public characters."
For that the District Attorney of Washington had him indicted
for libel. Gurowski offered an astounding defense: he refused
to concede authorship of the book, although he had bragged
about it months before its publication. When questioned on the
witness stand the valorous count, in spite of hecklings and near-
insults, would not open his mouth. 45
Lincoln's other suspect was a man whom he accidentally met
one night in the War Department. Thomas Pendel, then one of
the bodyguards, had just left Stanton's office in company with
the President when, about half way down the stairs, they met a
man coming up who scrutinized Lincoln intently. He was thick-
set, and wore a gray suit. Then the President did something un-
usual—he looked at the stranger very closely, as if trying to fix
his features on his memory. When Lincoln was alone with Pen-
del, he said,
"Last night I received a letter from New York stating that
20 Chapter I
there would be a man here who would attempt to take my life.
In that letter was a description . . . The man we just passed
agreed exactly with the description . . ." 46
There was no "thick-set man" in Booth's band. Surratt was
too slim to fit any such description. The others all had out-
standing characteristics which would have struck an observer
more poignantly than their builds— Booth with his beauty, Paine
with his defiant eyes, Atzerodt with his head wedged between
stooping shoulders and Herold with his vacant expression. Fur-
thermore, Pendel certainly was asked to look over all the sus-
pects gathered in after the assassination, and he obviously did
not find the "thick-set man" among them.
Marshal Lamon, in constant anxiety about the security of his
beloved master, believed that Booth had originally planned the
murder of the President for March 4, 1865, during the second
inauguration. Lamon related that the young actor had tried to
break through a cordon of policemen to get at his victim, but
had been restrained by a Capitol guard named Westfall. 47
There exist many affidavits showing that Booth really tried to
break through the police cordon during the inauguration cere-
monies. 48 Nevertheless, Lamon's opinion that the tragedian con-
templated assassination on that occasion is open to doubt. It is
known that Booth had obtained tickets through the daughter of
Senator Hale, that he used them and that he sat only a few feet
from Lincoln while the latter delivered his address. 49 If he had
intended to assassinate the President, a scuffle with the Capitol
guards would have been the worst possible blunder. Besides, on
March 4 Booth still had faith in his kidnaping plot. Lee's army
was yet unbeaten and an exchange of prisoners a worthwhile
goal. Investigation would probably have shown only that Booth
Lincoln Had Some Narrow Escapes
21
was late for his appointment and tried to reach his seat hurriedly
and in an unorthodox manner.
Further evidence that Lincoln was not in danger from Booth
on March 4 was furnished by sworn testimony two years later.
Louis Wiechmann had seen Booth on inauguration night and
testified that he had shown neither excitement nor any other
emotion; but when Wiechmann had seen the actor after the
abortive kidnaping attempt, "Booth was so excited that he
walked around the room . . . frantically . . ." 50
The details of this incident on inauguration day were with-
held from the press "for prudential reasons," according to
Lamon. 51 It seems that Lamon shouldered a tremendous responsi-
bility by withholding pertinent and important information not
only from the press but from Lincoln as well. For when Lamon
left for Richmond two days before the assassination he went to
Lincoln and begged him to promise not to go out after nightfall,
particularly not to the theatre.
What did Lamon know that he never told? How much did
he suspect?
Booth's plot was the only one which had any connection
with the theatre. Lamon might have known of Booth's miscar-
ried plan of abduction. If he did, why was he not more out-
spoken? Lincoln was no simpleton and had shown on the pre-
vious occasion of his trip through Baltimore in 1861, that he
would heed warnings, provided they were based on something
more tangible than mere generalities. If Lamon had taken Lin-
coln into his confidence, the tragedy at Ford's Theatre might
have been avoided.
II
* ft
One of the most amazing features of
Lincoln's assassination is that it ivas talked
about as an accomplished fact, yes, was
even published in newspapers, before it
happened. Instances of this kind were
found in widely separated parts of the
country —
II
Vox Populi
ON THE morning of the fatal April 14, 1865, twelve hours
or more prior to the tragedy at Ford's Theatre, people in
the New Hampshire town of Manchester openly spoke of Lin-
coln's assassination as an event of the past. At that time no one
paid much attention to the report, but soon afterward it loomed
large in the eyes of the secret service. Could it be possible that
the ramifications of the murder plot reached all the way into that
New England town?
A diligent provost marshal at Concord took charge of the case.
He traced the report to a man named John Morrison who, un-
fortunately, had just left for Wilmington, North Carolina. Ef-
forts to find him there proved unsuccessful. What made this
development look still more ominous was that Booth had been in
Manchester a short time previously and had a relative by mar-
riage living there. But here the story ends, so far as the archives
of the War Department tell it.
Manchester was not the only place in America which could
boast of having known of Lincoln's assassination in advance of
the tragedy. St. Joseph, Minnesota, might have put in a claim for
a share of the honor, if such it was. According to Father Chini-
qui, a former Catholic priest, who later devoted much effort to
prove that Lincoln's assassination had been the outcome of a
Jesuit plot, this premature knowledge of the crime was more than
oracular. 1
25
26 Chapter II
"I present ... to the world," the ex-priest proclaimed, "a fact
of the greatest gravity, and that fact is so well authenticated that
it cannot allow even the possibility of a doubt.
"Three or four hours before Lincoln was murdered in Wash-
ington, . . . that murder was not only known by some one, but
it was circulated and talked of in the streets, and in the houses of
the priestly and Romish town of St. Joseph, Minnesota. . . .
there were no railroad nor any telegraph communication nearer
than 40 or 80 miles from the nearest station . . ."
To Chiniqui the answer to this riddle was plain: ". . . the
priests of Rome knew and circulated the death of Lincoln four
hours before its occurrence . . . But they could not circulate it
without knowing it, and they could not know it, without belong-
ing to the band of conspirators who assassinated President Lin-
coln."
Thus the author of Fifty Years in the Church of Rome con-
cluded that the guilt of the priests who had "circulated the death
of Lincoln" before it occurred stood proven. Perhaps he would
have been less certain had he known that Middletown, New
York, also had heard of the tragedy prior to its happening.
On Friday, the 14th, at 2:30 p.m., so a writer in the Middle-
town Whig Press asserted, he had been informed that the Presi-
dent was shot and that "it was currently so reported in the village
of Pine Bush, in the town of Crawford, before 12 o'clock, M., of
that day."
Did that not evidence a widespread conspiracy, the editor
asked? Was the report predicated upon a knowledge of what
was to be done? Had some of the "Sons of Liberty", that secret
order of anti-war Democrats, let the matter out prematurely?
The Newburgh Journal confirmed the facts reported in the
Whig, but was more conservative in its editorial opinion.
"Whether it is actually the fact that Rebels there [in Pine
Bush] had knowledge of the plot, or whether it was one of those
Vox Populi 2 7
rumors which start and are carried no one knows how, the reader
can judge for himself . . ."
A well-known surgeon of high standing in an unnamed New
England town who had been in the enrollment service, reported
a similar strange incident. 2
"... I found," he wrote two years later, "the death of the
President had been currently reported since noon the day pre-
vious, some ten hours before it . . . occurred. ... a large num-
ber of affidavits were taken, showing that parties here were so
sure the President would be shot that the report became public
... in advance of the catastrophe."
General Butler's committee on the assassination, in 1 867, sifted
whatever evidence of conspiracies there was, but came to no defi-
nite conclusion. It listened to much irresponsible gossip, such as
that a Maryland man had heard in February, 1865, of Lincoln's
threatened assassination during his inauguration; a man in York,
Pennsylvania, had made a bet that Lincoln would be murdered; a
citizen in Bolivar, Missouri, had predicted dire happenings to the
President a few days before his death. There was more of such
drivel, all of the same character. If these reports proved anything
at all, they proved that a personal attack on Lincoln was easy to
imagine. Apparently almost everybody envisioned it, except
those who were responsible for the President's safety.
If the rumor mills were busy grinding out stories of Lincoln's
death before it happened, they naturally were still busier after
the event. People recognized Booth on the streets of the capital,
on trains in Pennsylvania and at other less likely places. Several
innocent persons were arrested and probably considered them-
selves lucky to stay under police protection until their true
28 Chapter II
identity could be established. The authorities heard many un-
usual stories and were asked to follow many quaint clues. -
Here is what one man told the military detectives of Alex-
andria:
Two days after the assassination, a man drove up to his farm
outside of Washington and asked for something to eat. He first
drank a quart of milk and then asked for eggs. The farmer's
wife gave him six. He asked for more and ate another half
dozen. The stranger then became excited and looked out of the
window, in the meantime eating three more hen's eggs and two
large goose eggs. In all, he ate seventeen raw eggs and then de-
clared he was almost crazy. He intimated that he knew some-
thing about the assassination, having stood within ten feet of the
President when he was shot. Then he jumped up suddenly and
asked for his bill. When he was told it was thirty-five cents, he
threw down fifty cents and hurried away.
A postmaster at Detroit, a former member of Congress, im-
parted this priceless bit of information which he had received
through a medium: Booth was secreted in a hogshead under
Ford's Theatre among some old barrels. If the spirits were to
be trusted, actors were feeding him.
One Silas S. Jones of West Troy was still more imaginative.
"From information in my possession," he wrote to the War De-
partment, "I believe J. W. Booth to be secreted in the city of
Chicago, 111., ... in a house of ill fame . . . disguised as a
female." He closed by saying that "this may be the means of
causing the arrest of the assassin."
One of the queerest reports was submitted by a Washington
printer named Hill who knew Booth by sight. About two weeks
after the assassination, as he was walking down E Street, between
Eleventh and Twelfth, he saw a person in the garb of a woman,
with a crutch under one arm. He took this person to be an
acquaintance of his named Kate Robinson and accosted her.
Vox Populi 29
"Kate," he asked, "when did you get hurt?" The supposed
Kate turned her head, and Mr. Hill, horror-stricken, recognized
J. Wilkes Booth. What was still more puzzling was that the
cripple suddenly vanished after this meeting, and Hill had no
idea what had become of him.
A woman canvasser named Shine wrote from St. Louis that
she was a natural born detective "of keen aprihension" ready
to "ferry out" all enemies of the government. She suggested
that the regular detective force, who were known to Booth,
would never catch the criminal, but that she might. It is not
recorded whether Mrs. Shine's ambition to become a sleuth was
gratified.
With so many suspects in the clutches of the government, it
proved a difficult task for the authorities to examine them ade-
quately. Hence, one Dr. Charles E. Cady, a military surgeon,
recommended a novel method for obtaining confessions. Dur-
ing his three years' experience in the army, he had upon numer-
ous occasions procured from Rebel officers much important
information while they were partially under the influence of
chloroform, information which they had positively refused to
communicate in their normal state. The worthy doctor had
even figured out the exact method of procedure. He respect-
fully advised that the experiment be conducted by men thor-
oughly skilled in the administration of chloroform and in a
large room free from furniture. The patient was to be placed
flat on his back with his head slightly elevated. Two or three
windows were to be thrown open so as to insure perfect admix-
ture of air with the vapor of the anaesthetic. Pure unadulterated
chloroform was then to be carefully but rapidly administered,
and while the patient was in a semiconscious condition, he was
to be questioned bluntly and pointedly.
From Lafayette, Indiana, advice was received that Booth was
lying concealed near the town of Middleburg, Virginia. The
3° Chapter II
clairvoyant making this revelation went into great details. "A
little northeast of the Town House,"' he wrote, "there is a one
story building, cottage style, with a very steep roof. In front
of the house is a garden laid out in squares, and the man of the
house is tall and straight, has a sandy complexion and sore eyes."
It would have been unfair to expect a more explicit description
of Booth's hiding place. The correspondent had had previous
experience in foretelling things, but unfortunately, so he added
ruefully, he had been put into prison for some of his predictions.
A woman who signed herself "Justice" warned Secretary Stan-
ton to be vigilant. Booth might be the darkey that washed his
dishes or the old lady who was knitting in an easy chair. Per-
haps he even was disguised as a sick woman with cap and night-
gown, apparently bedridden.
Not all communications received by the War Department
were mere trash. One H. C. Young, of Cincinnati, wrote on
April 20 that he desired to contribute his share towards catch-
ing the villain Booth. He had attended the actor while sick at
the Burnett house a year previously, and he now wanted to
record that the young actor had several scars on his arm and
body and one on the forehead. He also added that he had the
initials J.W.B. in India ink on one of his hands near the thumb.
So far as is known, none of the letter writers were ever favored
with a reply, and in their hopes for local fame they were doomed
to disappointment. The capture of several real conspirators and
others whom the government so designated, helped to dry up
the source of this type of correspondence. By May, 1865, the
influx of letters to the War Department had dwindled to a mere
trickle, and by June of that year it stopped altogether, thus
bringing this chapter of American history to its natural close.
Ill
*
After his bloody deed in Ford's Thea-
tre, John Wilkes Booth fled into Virginia
and was traced to a farm near Port Royal.
A pursuit party of Union soldiers, led by
two detectives, surrounded the little out-
house in which the fugitive had taken
shelter and, so the official report declared,
shot him to death. While the body was
being taken to Washington, strange ru-
mors traveled ahead of it. The remains,
it was whispered, were not those of
Booth. Yet, someone's body was identi-
fied as that of the assassin —
T
III
A Body Is Identified
HE OFFICIAL telegram announcing Booth's alleged death
was short and to the point. 1
WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington,)
Thursday, April 27—9:20 a.m. )
Major-Gen. DIX: J. Wilkes Booth and Harrold [Herold] were
chased from the swamp in St. Mary's County, Maryland, to Gar-
rett's farm, near Port Royal, on the Rappahannock, by Col. Baker's
force.
The barn in which they took refuge was fired.
Booth, in making his escape was shot through the head and killed,
lingering about three hours, and Harrold was captured.
Booth's body and Harrold are now here.
EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War.
The body of the victim at the Garrett farm had scarcely
reached the capital, when rumors became current that the corpse
was not that of Booth. The Constitutional Union, an opposi-
tion paper, published a statement to that effect, 2 and the story
was greedily absorbed by a sensation-hungry public. Even staid
citizens were aware of it.
"After the death of Booth," wrote Dr. John Frederick May,
a leading surgeon of Washington, "strong doubt existed whether
the body brought to the Navy Yard at Washington was that
of the man who had assassinated the President. In fact, it was
33
34 Chapter III
openly asserted it
/ 1<> //* 44 , I ?* t t ' I - i x « A / 6% /l y
1 *" ' c £**<"*<*/ -G-jlJiu*. /'V
/
c
4V X... / .
frl^.-
A page from the original manuscript of Doctor May's "The Mark
of the Scalpel".
(Original in the Library of Congress.)
A Body Is Identified 37
and on his left hand, between the forefinger and thumb, a small
cross, and across the same hand several spots, all in India ink.
Bainbridge, a Confederate soldier, who had been in the as-
sassin's company before he reached Garrett's farm, recalled
twenty-four years later that the "initials 'J-W.B.' [were] done
in Indian ink on his right hand." 13
Nevertheless, an important corroboration of Dawson's testi-
mony was furnished many years later by a former sergeant of
marines named John M. Peddicord. This young soldier had
been ordered to stand watch over the body on board the
Montauk until the inquest began. In a signed article, published
by the Roanoke, Virginia, Evening News on June 6, 1903, he
spoke freely of the events that had then come under his observa-
tion. The important part of his recollections pertains to the
tattooed letters, "J.W.B." He was the only witness, with the
exception of Dawson, who had observed them and, what is still
more poignant, recalled them as "letters in India ink, on the
back of his hand, in pale, straggling characters, ... as a boy
would have done it." This happens to correspond exactly with
a description given by Booth's sister Asia in her memoirs.
These recollections, recorded in her diary, may be taken as
authentic. "He had perfectly shaped hands," she wrote, "and
across the back of one he had clumsily marked, when a little
boy, his initials in India ink." 14
The similarity of these two statements makes up for Mr.
Dawson's lack of accuracy and eliminates other descriptions of
the initials from more remote sources. The testimonies of Daw-
son, Peddicord and Asia Booth, taken in conjunction with each
other, form a strong chain of evidence.
The inquest proceeded. The scar on Booth's neck, which
Dawson had pointed out, called for further investigation, and
38 Chapter III
the officials in charge lost no time about it; they sent for Dr.
John Frederick May, the surgeon who had performed the oper-
ation of which this scar had been the eventual result. He quickly
identified Booth's body by means of this blemish.
Doctor May wrote of this experience in 1889, although the
article was held in abeyance until 1 909, when it was read before
the Columbia Historical Society of Washington. 15 It is a dra-
matic story, well told. According to Doctor May, he was a
very reluctant witness and went to the inquest under duress.
When he arrived on the Montauk the cover was taken from
the corpse.
". . . to my great astonishment [it] revealed a body in whose
lineaments there was to me no resemblance of the man I had
known in life! My surprise was so great that I at once said to
General Barnes, 'There is no resemblance in that corpse to
Booth, nor can I believe it to be that of him.'*'
Now follows the climax. The doctor reflected silently for a
few moments and then asked, "Is there a scar upon the back
of its neck?" There was. Then Doctor May said: "If that is
the body of Booth, let me describe the scar before it is seen by
me;" and he did so with such accuracy that Doctor Barnes
replied: "You have described the scar as well as if you were
looking at it . . ." 16
The soldiers thereupon placed the body in a sitting position,
and Doctor May was finally enabled "to imperfectly recognize
the features of Booth." 17 But never had he seen a greater
change. The skin was yellow and discolored and the "facial
expression sunken and sharpened by the exposure and starvation
it had undergone."
Unfortunately, the stenographic transcription of the inquest,
carefully annotated and corrected by Doctor May himself, does
not fully support his published recollections. In the cold light
A Body Is Identified 39
„,~ .^ r -~»-' ,i *--«-**"' *•■%-»
f "^ J- V*. •**.->. I
oJ— {JUL |^^^>JUAj A-fv^^o *^> Juo-iaM-vI
$Um^u>-^._ VTfr-o-v^ [-jju i,>ni fliA,) , V4^m^A^>^,
Chi»-o^4-4^ IMtft— ^ik<~) Waujt: ^C «jU*** /V-^L-e-^r-cyvO-^A*.
LcAjLaaJL^X . ^ ^-C(o^_e_^^W> g
.3 h
3 Oh
M-i
-^ ..•
u bo
£ C
•si
<
o
X
H
£ >. «
H
t/5 4-> C/3
W
U •-!
X
on
H _C
backg
straigl
•house
.5 rt 3
~ G °
G -G
U T3 ^
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 57
The only one who must have known positively whether it
was Booth or someone else inside the barn with him was his
companion, David E. Herold; and to those who captured him
he asserted with emphasis that the other man had not been Booth.
The first time Herold made reference to this matter was when
he decided to give himself up. Lieutenant Baker testified that
he had heard Herold called a damned coward by his fellow
prisoner in the tobacco house.
"Then Herold came to the door and rapped, and said, 'Let
me out, quick; I do not know anything about this man, he is a
desperate character, and is going to shoot me.' " 9 The young
drug clerk was taken out, but still maintained that he did not
know the man who had stayed behind.
"Did you have any conversation with Herold," Lieutenant
Baker was asked, "at the time Booth was shot, except what you
have stated?"
"No, sir," was the answer. "He . . . said that he . . . knew
nothing of Booth, except that he had fallen in with him as a
traveling companion. That was the only excuse he made for
being with him." 10
Captain Doherty, who was in command of the troops, swore
to a similar conversation between himself and Herold, immedi-
ately after the latter's surrender.
"Said he to me, 'Who is that that has been shot in there in
the barn?' 'Why,' said I, 'you know well who it is.' Said he,
'No, I do not; he told me his name was Boyd.' Said I, 'It is
Booth, and you know it.' Said he, 'No, I did not know it; I did
not know that it was Booth.' " ai
On the 27th of April, one day after his capture, David Herold
made a voluntary statement— at least it is so termed in the official
records— before John A. Bingham, the special judge advocate
who, with Judge Advocate General Holt, had been put in charge
5 8 Chapter IV
of the conspiracy case. 12 This statement was never published,
nor was Herold ever interviewed or given a chance to speak in
court; whatever thoughts on Booth were in Herold's mind can
therefore only be found, if they can be found at all, in the
stenographic version of his examination.
Herold first answered the usual routine questions. He was
twenty-two years of age and had lived until recently with a
druggist named F. S. Ward in Washington, by whom he had
been employed for eleven months. His mother resided on Eighth
Street East, between L and M, but he had not roomed with her
for two or three years. Of late, however, after taking some time
off for partridge shooting in Maryland, he had gone back to his
parental home and endeavored to obtain a position. On the 2 1st
of March (immediately after the kidnaping attempt) Herold
had been given a clerkship at Base Hospital, Army of the James.
Then the more important questioning began.
Q. When, if at all, did you first become acquainted with J. Wilkes
Booth?
A. I do not remember the time exactly. I think I was a clerk with
Wm. S. Thompson, druggist, corner of 15th Street and New York
Avenue, two years ago, the time when Booth had a ball taken from
his neck by some surgeon in Washington. [Booth had his friends
believe that the tumor removed by Doctor May was in reality a
gunshot wound.] I met Mr. Booth, off and on, sometimes once a
week, or maybe two or three times. We would always stand and
have a chat. He left the city, and I did not see him for seven or
eight months.
Asked what correspondence there had been between him and
Booth, Herold answered that he had received only inconsequen-
tial notes and complimentary theatre tickets. Five or six times
the two men had met at the actor's room in the National Hotel.
The conversation had been about coal oil. On previous occasions
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 59
Herold had met the actor John McCullough in Booth's room.
He had also met there the German boatman, Atzerodt.
Q. Did you see him [Booth] on the 14th, last Friday week?
A. No, I don't remember whether I did or not. . . .
Q. Did you see anybody else that spoke to you upon this subject
that day?
A. No, sir; i never had any idea of it that day.
Q. Where did you see Booth after the occurrence?
A. I was in the country, and was coming home.
Q. Where were you?
A. I had been in the country, trying to sell a horse. . . .
Q. Whose horse were you trying to sell?
A. A horse belonging to Atzerodt. . . .
Q. What time did you start from Washington on that journey?
A. I don't know. I was tight. I had been tight nearly all day.
Q. Who asked you to go?
A. No one; I asked myself. . . .
Q. How did you come to go that Friday afternoon?
A. I don't know how, any more upon that afternoon than any other.
. . . On my way home, at the foot of Soper's hill, between seven
and eight miles from Washington, I met Booth. He spoke to me.
Q. What time was that?
A. I think it must have been about half past 1 1 o'clock at night.
Q. The same Friday night you went down?
A. Yes, sir; the same Friday. Says Booth, "Come go back down the
country; we will have a gay old time." I told him I was obliged to
go back home. He said it was impossible to cross the bridge, for the
gates were shut, and he had had difficulty in getting over himself.
I think Booth must have been drinking; I am quite confident that he
had been. He insisted upon my going down to Bryantown with
him. . . . When I refused to go, he insisted upon it two or three
times, saying that his horse had fallen or he was thrown off, and
his ankle sprained. We went to Bryantown, and got there about
day. I rode through the country, and he said he was going to see a
60 Chapter IV
friend of his. I asked him when he was going to Washington. He
said maybe in two or three days, if his foot was well enough. On
Saturday night, I heard that Lincoln was shot by a man named
Booth. On that night I came to Bryantown, and was coming home.
I met him at the crossroads, and said I, "The President is killed, and
either you or your brother did it." Says he, "No, sir, I have not done
it." I then noticed that he had pistols and a knife on. I said, "What
are you armed so for?" That was on Saturday. His leg had been
set, and was all tied up.
Q. Did you stay with Booth from the time you met him until you
were taken?
A. No, sir; I was away from him maybe as much as four hours and
then met him again. He had then got his ankle set. I asked him, he
told me the doctor's name. He said that he represented himself
(Booth) as a Mr. Tyson, living somewhere near Bryantown.
Q. Had he crutches when you met him first?
A. No, sir; Saturday night he had, after we left one another. . . .
Q. Where did you part from Booth?
A. Just at Bryantown.
Q. When?
A. On Saturday morning, a little after day.
Q. From the time you first met him until you parted with him was
there anybody else with him?
A. No, sir; we two were alone. When I met him, he says, "Come,
let us take a ride down the road." I went to a free darkey's and
bought some bread and milk. ... It was about 7 or 8 o'clock. We
went slowly; Booth would not ride fast. When I accused him a
second time of the murder of the President, he said, "I did it"; and
said also, "If you leave me, there are parties in Washington that will
put you through. . . ."
Q. How did you come to hear that the President had been killed,
and that a man named Booth had done it?
A. Who it was told me, I do not know. I do not know the gentle-
man's name. ... I said, "Booth, the President is killed, and a man
by the name of Booth did it, and I don't know whether it was you
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 6 1
or your brother.". . . After he had acknowledged that he had done
this thing, Booth said, if I left him, he would put me through, and
if he didn't do it, there were parties in Washington that would im-
plicate me. I told him no one could do anything like that. He said I
had been with him, and that they were after me. I told him I didn't
believe him. We got lost. He gave a darkey five dollars to show
him across the country, to a gentleman's named Thomas. We went
to Thomas's at i or 2 o'clock on Saturday night, and asked him if we
could get a boat to cross the Potomac. . . .
In the meantime, this gentleman said that J. Wilkes Booth had
killed the President, and that there was a man named Herold with
him; that they were seen at Bryantown. Then I was frightened
nearly to death.
. . . We staid in the pines, and when anything came along or
passed us we would buy bread or meat. On Tuesday or Wednesday
night, I forget which, we started to cross the Potomac.
Herold then described the meeting of the two fugitives with
the three Confederate soldiers who brought them to Garrett's
farm.
Q. Did you go to Garrett's too?
A. I did not. I said I would go to Bowling Green. I wanted to get
away. When we came on the road again, this Capt. Jett asked my
name. I told him my correct name. He gave me a book and asked
my signature. I took the pencil, and wrote my name in it, D. E.
Herold. Says he, "What gentleman is that you have with you?" I
says, "What name did he tell you?" He answered, "Boyd." I says,
"If he told you his name was Boyd, he told you right." That is the
worst thing I have done. I was not at all thinking of the conse-
quences. . . .
In the afternoon Booth and Herold were warned that Union
cavalry was approaching.
. . . Booth sent upstairs for his pistol, and went into the woods. He
begged me to come. I picked up the knife and went with him. I left
62 Chapter IV
him with the rifle in the woods and went up to Garrett's house. I
was willing that they should take me. The cavalry went past the
house, and old Mr. Garrett says, "You had better go down and tell
Mr. Boyd to come up and get his supper." It was then a little after
dark. I called him, he came out of the woods, and I brought the
rifle. He said he was very anxious to get away . . .
Booth and his companion then were locked in the barn.
Just before daylight, Booth waked me up, and said that the cavalry
had surrounded the barn. I said "You had better give up." He said,
"I will suffer death first." Mr. Garrett then came, and said "Gen-
tlemen, the cavalry are after you. You are the ones. You had better
give yourselves up." I am confident that he didn't reply to Mr. Gar-
rett, but laid still. I moved about in the straw. I didn't try to con-
ceal myself at all. Booth says, "Don't make any noise. Maybe they
will go off, thinking we are not here." He had hardly got the words
out of his mouth when the Captain of the party says, "I want you to
surrender. If you don't, I will burn the barn down in fifteen min-
utes." Booth then asked who he was and what he was after. The
Captain said he was after him.
Herold's account of the parley which followed tallies with
that of Baker. What went on inside the shed Herold reported
as follows:
The Captain called upon Booth a second time to surrender, and
told him there were only ten minutes left. Booth got up, and wanted
to know the officer's authority. I told him, "You don't choose to
give yourself up; let me go out and give myself up." He says, "No,
you shall not do it." He spoke low to me and I to him. I begged
him to let me go out. ... I started for the door once, when he
threatened to shoot me and blow my brains out. The Captain then
said only five minutes more were left, and the barn would be burnt
down. I said, "I am going; I don't intend to be burnt alive." I went
to the door and knocked. Booth says, "Let him out; that young man
is innocent." The Captain then said to me, "Whoever you are, come
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 63
out with your hands up." I did so. He took my gloves and a piece
of map; that was all I had. The officer says, "Come, stand up by the
house." He caught me by the collar, and as I turned round I heard
a pistol shot, looked around, and saw one corner of the barn in a
light blaze. They jerked the barn door open. Booth was lying there.
He tried to say "Mother" or something of that kind. He said to me
in a whisper, "When you go out, don't tell them the arms I have."
He had two revolvers, a bowie knife, and a Spencer rifle. . . .
In this statement, made the day after the shooting affray, Her-
old no longer claimed ignorance of his companion's identity, but
constantly referred to him as Booth. Had he forgotten his first
assertions to the contrary, or did he reason that, with the dead
body in the possession of the authorities, further denials would
be useless?
Yet, Herold's statement to the assistant judge advocate is such
a mixture of truths and falsehoods that little reliance can be
placed on it. Two falsehoods stand out prominently. Herold
averred that he crossed the Anacostia bridge in the afternoon
and not in the evening. This is disproved by the stableman John
Fletcher, who recognized horse and rider in the streets of Wash-
ington about 10 p.m., and by Sergeant Cobb, who examined
Herold at the bridge shortly afterward. 13 The other lie centers
on the alleged separation of the two fugitives on Saturday morn-
ing. According to Herold, Booth went alone to Doctor Mudd
to have his leg set and met his confederate later on the cross-
roads; but that Herold was with him at Doctor Mudd's house has
been established beyond doubt. The first falsehood was to serve
Herold himself, by showing that he had not been in Washington
on the night of the assassination; the other was to avoid dragging
Doctor Mudd's name into the investigation. Herold was a loyal
young man, no matter what other faults he may have had, and
64 Chapter IV
this fact adds to the difficulties of analyzing his story to Mr.
Bingham.
Herold's assurance to both Baker and Doherty that he did not
know the man in the barn may have been based on fear. By
denying Booth's identity and any connection with him, he would
shield himself from immediate maltreatment at the hands of the
soldiers. Such a denial could be of no great benefit to his com-
panion, of course, if he was Booth. The climax was close at
hand, and in a few minutes the cripple in the barn would be
out in the open, dead or alive. The lie might do service for a
few moments by preventing the pursuers from setting fire to the
building; but if that was Herold's motive, it would have been
useless to keep up the hoax indefinitely.
Whatever may have been in Herold's mind, the question is
this: when did he speak the truth— when telling his pursuers that
his companion was a stranger, or when telling Bingham that he
was Booth?
By the time Herold confronted the judge advocate he had
had plenty of time to collect his thoughts. The soldiers were
convinced that they had captured Booth and they would stick
to their story. If Herold confirmed it, the real Booth, if he had
escaped, would be the better off for the confirmation. His former
assertion that it was not Booth who had been shot would be
openly ridiculed and secretly resented; the authorities needed a
dead Booth. Why not give them what they wanted? Whether
the man in the barn was Booth or someone else, Herold's state-
ment to Bingham might easily have been the same.
A clerk of the military tribunal whose duties included the
recording of the prisoners' activities and physical condition,
came to know Herold well and heard his confidences.
"If Booth had escaped," he stated many years later, "it is
highly probable that Herold would have told of it. Herold
wasn't a strong character. Loyalty such as his would undoubt-
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 65
edly have wilted in the shadow of the gallows. But so far as I
could observe there was no question in his mind as to the identity
of the corpse . . ." 14
Captain Rath, who had charge of the Arsenal prison, where
Herold was confined, also was convinced that the assassin had
been shot dead.
"Speaking of Booth," he was quoted as saying to a reporter
for the New York Press, 15 "I want to say a word about the silly
reports that he was not killed, and that he is now living. Herold
was with Booth when he was killed. He related to me the de-
tails of their attempt to escape and of the assassin's final ending.
I believed Herold told the truth about the matter . . ."
In all probabilty, and giving due weight to all aspects of the
case, Herold felt certain that it was Booth, and no one else, who
had been shot.
If the man who was shot was not Booth, two possibilities must
be examined. One is that the assassin, having wandered off into
the woods during the afternoon after being warned of approach-
ing Federal troops, never returned; the other is that Booth did
return, but that he later escaped and that his place was taken by
someone else who impersonated him.
Finis L. Bates, in his fanciful tale of Booth's escape, asks,
Can any one . . . believe that Booth did not go and continue to
go? Can any one believe that he would at that time have returned to
the Garrett home? The sane and reasonable answer to these queries
is unquestionably and unequivocably— NO. 16
In spite of Bates' belief, there is very little doubt that Booth
did return to the house and ate supper with the Garrett family.
For one, Herold said so, and he seldom lied when his story could
be easily checked. John W. Garrett, one of Booth's hosts, when
66 Chapter IV
examined during the Surratt trial, also was quite positive about
the matter. 17
Q. Did you know John Wilkes Booth?
A. Yes, sir. ... I saw him at my father's house . . .
Q. How long did he stay there?
A. He remained until after dinner [lunch]; then some cavalry came
along, and he left the house for a short while, and I think returned
again.
Q. Where did he go?
A. I do not know where; he could not have gone far, because he
came back very shortly. . . .
Q. Did you see him return?
A. I did. . . . After supper he went to the barn and staid there
until the cavalry came.
The Garrett family certainly knew whether or not the man
they entertained for supper and locked in the barn afterward
was the same one they had harbored for two days. But if John
W. Garrett would have willingly perjured himself, for one rea-
son or another, such false testimony would have been extremely
dangerous, in view of the fact that there were children around
the house who had witnessed all these happenings; to control
their talk with inquisitive detectives would have been difficult.
As a matter of fact, all the Garretts were certain on this score.
William H. Garrett, writing in the Confederate Veteran in April
192 1, also told of the men retreating to the woods while the
cavalry passed and then returning to the house. Miss Lucinda
Holloway, a cousin of the Garretts who lived with them, ex-
pressed no doubts that Booth had taken supper with them. 18
Another member of the family, the Rev. Richard B. Garrett,
wrote twice about the visitor. In the New York Sun of Febru-
ary 11, 19 1 7, he corroborates William H. Garrett: the family's
distrust of their guest had been aroused, the father refused him
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 67
the use of the house and, after supper, Booth went out to the
tobacco barn to sleep.
The Reverend Garrett's other and earlier story is somewhat
more explicit. Writing to General A. R. Taylor at Memphis in
1907, 19 he refers to a question Finis L. Bates had asked of him:
"How do you know that the same man came back from the
woods that went into the woods? "
"Did he think us a set of fools," Garrett exclaimed, "that we
should not know a man in broad daylight that we had been
entertaining for two days?"
It may be considered a fact then, that Booth returned to the
house and that it was he who was locked in the barn. If some-
one else was shot instead, this other man must have changed
places with the assassin afterward— apparently a far-fetched pos-
sibility; yet, even the sworn statements of the pursuing detec-
tives and soldiers do not preclude it.
Boston Corbett, who said he had fired the shot which killed
the fugitive, did not claim that he had recognized his victim as
Booth. When asked on the witness stand in 1865 whether he
had known the actor, he answered in the negative.
"But," he added, "I was perfectly satisfied from his first re-
marks that it was him; for my commanding officer told me . . .
that his [Booth's] leg was broken ... I knew also from his
desperate replies that he would not be taken alive . . . that it
was Booth. I knew that no other man would act in such a
way." 20
A rather daring inference, one should think. Corbett had
never seen Booth before, yet he identified him by his broken leg
—which was a good point— and by his acting "in such a way"—
about which he knew nothing.
68 Chapter IV
George Alfred Townsend, who had not been an eyewitness,
but who wrote a complete account for the New York World,
added to the confusion. Describing the final act of the drama at
Garrett's farm, he said, "Behind the blaze, with his eye to a
crack, Conger saw Wilkes Booth standing upright upon a crutch.
He likens him at this instant to his brother Edwin, whom he says
he so much resembled that he believed, for the moment, the
whole pursuit to have been a mistake." 21
Now, John did not greatly resemble his brother Edwin and,
if the man in the shed looked like Edwin, he could not have
looked like the assassin. Conger did not repeat on oath the state-
ment which Townsend ascribed to him in his article, nor that
he had thought at one time "the whole pursuit to have been a
mistake." He said something else, however, which is worth con-
sidering; he said that the cripple in the barn spoke "in a singular
theatrical voice." 22 Lieutenant Baker made a similar observa-
tion.
"From the tone of his voice," he testified in 1867, "and his
theatrical style, every word seemed to be studied." 23 Did he
mean to intimate that, in his opinion, someone was playing a part
which had been carefully rehearsed so as to mislead the soldiers?
However, in private papers he wrote for his family, Baker did
not give the impression that there was any question in his mind
about Booth's death. The author was given the privilege of
going through all the memoranda of this officer who played such
a prominent part in Booth's pursuit, and there is in them not
even a hint of anything that differs from the official account.
His son, to whom the former detective talked freely of that
memorable night, feels confident that his father considered
Booth's death at Garrett's farm a certainty. 24
Izola Forrester, in her book This One Mad Act, shrewdly sur-
mises that the long-drawn-out talk between the man in the to-
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 69
bacco shed and the pursuing party was only an attempt at
procrastination.
"He parleyed for time," she writes, "sending the boy Herold
out to surrender, delaying action, finally telling them to prepare
a stretcher for him— the braggadocio of a soldier marking time
... It was not a question of making the supreme sacrifice . . .
It was merely attracting the attention of the officers and soldiers,
until escape was certain . . ." 25
Miss Forrester then relates a conversation she had in 1908
with General James R. O'Beirne who, as major and provost
marshal, had played an important part in the Booth drama. 26
O'Beirne told his interviewer that there had been three men
inside the barn, but that one had escaped through a rear door. 27
He left the identity of the men to the imagination of his listener.
O'Beirne's statement must be taken with caution. It was made
forty-three years after the event and was then withheld from
publication for thirty years longer. Furthermore, Major
O'Beirne was not present at the tragedy, but was scouring the
Zechiah swamp in the neighborhood of Bryantown while the
shooting at the barn took place.
Whatever suspicions O'Beirne harbored must have come to
him in later years. When the rewards were distributed, he ac-
cepted two thousand dollars as his part for bringing the assassins
to bay. 28 None of his papers written at that time or subsequently
expressed the slightest hesitancy as to the identity of the victim. 29
As ex-provost marshal, O'Beirne may have been in an excep-
tionally favorable position to hear backstairs gossip of the event,
but his opinion in 1908 cannot be accepted as history.
O'Beirne's allegation, however, raises two questions: was there
a rear door and, if so, was it used to permit the escape of Booth
and perhaps the entrance of a substitute, either before the arrival
of the soldiers or afterward?
Miss Forrester cites testimony given by Conger as proof that
7° Chapter IV
such a rear door did exist. 30 This is not borne out by the records,
as shown by Conger's words at the conspiracy trial:
He [Booth] came to the door . . . The door was opened ... he
stood with his back partly to me, turning toward the front door.
He . . . turned around, and started for the door at the front of the
barn. 31
Two years later, Conger was on the witness stand again. This
time he related that, "On the front side no men were stationed
—the side the door was." And, "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 near to the position where I stood
... I went around to the front door . . ." 32
Somewhat ambiguous statements, and one could argue them
one way or another.
Doherty said even less than that. "I stood by the door . . .
The door was opened . . ." 33
John W. Garrett in 1867 testified simply and in a few words.
I went to the door and Baker unlocked it. . . . When the barn
was fired the door was unlocked. 34
According to this testimony, then, there was only one door,
and the Garretts had locked it, taking the key with them. If
there had been a rear exit, there hardly would have been any
sense in locking the front door. The Garretts claimed in later
years that they were afraid the fugitives might steal their horse
during the night and that the precautions they had taken were
prompted by this fear. 35 They could not know in the early eve-
ning that Federal soldiers would arrive during the night; other-
wise, it might be surmised that the Garrett family, being
Southern in their sympathies, were putting up a show to throw
dust into the eyes of the pursuers. The reasonable inference is,
therefore, that there was only one door to the barn.
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 7 l
Curiously, there is enough contradictory evidence on hand to
prove the exact opposite. The Rev. Richard B. Garrett, describ-
ing in the New York Sun of February n, 19 17, the events of
that far-away night when he was a boy of eleven, states that
"double doors were on all four sides and in the upper story were
large windows."
William H. Garrett, writing in the Confederate Veteran in
April 192 1, confirms the existence of other doors.
Brother Jack and I went ... to the barn, and after they had en-
tered, fearing they might in the night come out and take our horses,
we locked the door. Not being satisfied with that precaution, as
there ivere doors that fastened on the inside, we concluded to sleep
. . . near by to guard our horses.
Later on this statement occurs:
Brother reported what he [the man inside] said to the officer, who
told him to lock the door. He then told my brother and me to pile
brush near the side door . . . Lieutenant Baker was standing near
the front door . . , 36
In a newspaper interview years after the event, Boston Cor-
bett also referred to more than one door.
The younger Mr. Garrett then got a light . . .; opening a small
door of the barn he went in ... he [Booth] turned away . . .,
going toward the door where Harrold had given himself up. 37
This statement is too vague to be considered of value. That
there was more than one exit to the tobacco house was intimated
by Lieutenant L. B. Baker on June 20, 1867, in a suit for a re-
ward that had remained unpaid.
"The barn was about 50 x 60 feet," he stated. "Only one door
of the barn was opened. The door opened looking towards the
house. . . ," 38
Final proof may be found in the Congressional Globe of July
7 2 Chapter IV
26, 1866. Congressman Hotchkiss, who had the unenviable task
of submitting a report on a just distribution of the reward
moneys, said: "Lieutenant Baker stood alone at the front door
. . . Now, mark another fact. . . . Lieutenant Colonel Conger
had to go, and . . . with the aid of young Garrett . . . get
rails to be propped against the doorsT 39
These doors must have been either at the sides or at the rear
of the shed; at no time were rails propped up in front; the door
there remained free from obstructions and was opened and
closed without hindrance during and immediately after the
parleys.
It therefore follows that the front door was not the only
means of access to and from the tobacco house. If the Gar-
rett boys considered Booth safely locked up, it was probably
because the other doors were either blocked or hard to manipu-
late.
If a man escaped from the barn, another man must have en-
tered it to take his place. Booth may have left through the upper
story windows, but the mysterious stranger who, according to
this hypothesis, chose to act for him, must have used a door,
unless one is willing to assume that the stranger was already
hidden inside when Booth and Herold retired to the barn about
9 o'clock in the evening. As the arrival of a pursuit party could
not be foreseen, this assumption is hardly warranted. It may be
that Booth disappeared before the soldiers came; but if he did,
and if the anxiety of the Garretts for their horse was genuine,
he must have escaped on foot. Crippled as he was, this would
have been foolhardy. Could he have possibly left undetected in
the presence of all the soldiers who surrounded the tobacco
house later and stolen the horse which the Garrett boys thought
they were guarding? Strange as it seems, this would not only
have been possible, but easy; for the troopers were so tired that
they were scarcely awake, and only six men out of twenty-five
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 7 3
could be made to stand on guard, watching three sides of a
fairly large structure. 40
Immediately, another question presses to the fore. Given a
dark night, a lonely building with exits imperfectly guarded,
why did not Herold escape also? The silence that followed
Booth's supposed disappearance into the night should have in-
formed his companion that flight was possible. Then why not
embrace the opportunity? True enough, there may have been
only one horse— the statements of the Garretts differ— but one
should think that escape in any manner was preferable to certain
capture or death.
One man who should have known the true identity of the
corpse was Colonel L. C. Baker. Two detectives of his staff had
been assigned the task of capturing Booth and he must have
received their confidential reports. Moreover, he had all the
opportunity and leisure he could wish for to study the body,
even prior to the inquest. 41 What Baker secretly thought has
not become known, for in his History of the United States
Secret Service he makes only a brief allusion to the proceedings
on the gunboat; but a glimpse into his mind is vouchsafed to us
through the memoirs of a feminine Southern spy, a Mrs. L. J.
Velasquez, who was one of Baker's agents at that time and who
happened to converse with him at a Washington hotel shortly
after the affair at the Garrett farm.
"I . . . retired with Baker and his friend to the private par-
lor," Mrs. Velasquez reported, "where we could talk without
being disturbed." After a little while Baker's friend said, " 'I am
glad that they got Booth.' " 42
"At this remark," the woman operative wrote, "I scanned
Baker's countenance closely. He smiled, and said, 'So am I. /
74 Chapter IV
intended to have his body, dead or alive, or a mighty good substi-
tute for it, for no common criminal is worth the reward.' 43
"This was a very queer expression," Mrs. Velasquez remarked,
"and it set me to thinking . . ."
Mrs. Velasquez' book was edited by a man formerly in the
service of the United States Navy, who vouches for its being
"true ... in every particular." 44 What is more convincing
than the editor's assurance is the date of the publication— 1890.
Half a generation had still to go by before the then dormant
question of Booth's death would be reopened through Finis L.
Bates' book. Mrs. Velasquez was not concerned about Booth
and did not follow up her trend of thoughts. She drew no con-
clusions, and with the few words quoted dismissed the subject.
This nonchalance and disinterestedness makes her recollection
doubly credible.
The real meaning of Baker's remark is not easy to determine.
The only justifiable deduction is that he would not have hesi-
tated to substitute someone else in Booth's place, if the necessity
had arisen. Beyond that it is not safe to go.
A curious fact about the body which was brought to Wash-
ington was the failure of the authorities to preserve any of the
dead man's clothing. The relics at the War Department consist
of a blue necktie, a slit riding boot and an opera glass. The lat-
ter was picked up at a neighboring farm a few days after the
tragedy, the boot was retrieved at Doctor Mudd's house, and the
necktie was the lone piece of clothing which was taken from the
corpse. It probably was taken off when the vertebrae were re-
moved. Suspicious as this omission on the part of the govern-
ment officials seems, it may have the same simple explanation
as the loosely conducted inquest: if the authorities felt certain
about the identity of the dead man, a preservation of the clothes,
involving a disagreeable task at best, would have been con-
sidered superfluous.
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? IS
Contenders for what may be called the orthodox or official
story of Booth's death have sneered at the possibility that any
man could have sacrificed himself, in the cause of friendship, for
fame or for other exalted motives. But if there was a man who
took the assassin's place, he probably did not think he was taking
undue risks. Orders had been given to bring Booth back alive;
therefore a shooting on the spot could not be anticipated. Will-
ful deceit of the pursuing party could have brought about se-
vere punishment, but the man in the barn took great care to
make no misleading statement at any time during the parley.
If the man in the tobacco house was not Booth, he certainly
acted his part well. Had he been taken alive, he could have later
given a good account of his willingness, not to say anxiety, to tell
the detectives who he really was. He probably chuckled in an-
ticipation of the consternation that would follow when his pur-
suers discovered that they had captured the wrong man. He
had tried hard to show them the error of their ways, and it was
only their own arrogance and stubbornness that had kept them
from finding out the truth sooner.
Then someone fired an unexpected shot, and the play which
had been launched as a farce turned into a tragedy. Was it
disobedience to orders that brought about his death? Was it
compliance with them? Or did a sudden doubt as to the fugi-
tive's identity arouse someone in the party to quick action? It
would be easier to pass off a dead body for Booth than a live
impostor, and the reward could yet be saved.
Those who argue that Booth escaped and that someone else
was shot in his place have a goodly number of somewhat vague
points in their favor; but their arguments must rest chiefly, in
the very nature of things, on suspicions and debatable infer-
ences. 45 However, there are two tangible facts which stand out
as contrary to their contentions, and for which they must find
7 6 Chapter IV
a satisfactory explanation; the man shot in the barn was tattooed
and had a crippled leg. One may possibly assume that Booth
was replaced by a friend, and that this friend, actuated by lofty
motives, looked enough like him— at least after death— to lead to
erroneous identification; but that this friend was tattooed like
Booth and was also suffering from a broken leg, is making a
heavy demand on one's imagination and, while theoretically pos-
sible, would border on a mathematical miracle.
Critics have pointed to Doctor May's statement that the
pseudo-Booth showed a broken right leg, while in reality it was
Booth's left leg which had been fractured, as is proved by the
boot found at Doctor Mudd's home. Even with such a discrep-
ancy the coincidence would be far out of the ordinary. Others
have gone farther than that and have put forth the belief that
the man in the barn was sound in limb and that the soldiers,
recognizing their mistake, deliberately broke one of the dead
man's legs so as to substantiate their claim for the reward. 46
Was the man in the barn really crippled, or was it all a sham,
a pretense, to carry the impersonation of Booth to the extreme
limit?
In his testimony before a Congressional investigating commit-
tee, Lieutenant Baker unknowingly answered this question. "I
opened the door quickly," he swore, "and the first I saw of
Booth he was leaning against a hay mow, with a crutch under
each arm, and a carbine resting in this way at his hip. . . . He
did get up, and dropped one crutch . . . He saw the door open,
and he turned and dropped the other crutch and started towards
the door."
Q. How started?
A. With a kind of limping, halting jump. He used his leg, instead
of the crutch. . . , 47
This seems to settle the argument. A man in imminent danger
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 77
of either death or capture would not carry on with the decep-
tion. Death would have made it ridiculous, and capture would
have undone the show of bland honesty displayed heretofore.
Supposing, however, that Lieutenant Baker was mistaken in
his observation, or that the deception was carried on by the man
in the barn, and that he was not a cripple; then everyone on
board the Montauk was fooled, or else conspired to conceal the
truth, including Doctor Barnes, the army's chief surgeon, Doc-
tor May, and all those who were permitted to see the uncovered
body. A leg broken after death certainly would not deceive a
physician; it is doubtful if it would have deceived the war-
seasoned soldiers.
The broken leg of the corpse on the Montauk and the initials
on its hand are manifestly the greatest obstacles with which the
proponents of Booth's escape are confronted. Until they can
explain them more satisfactorily than through a series of al-
most unbelievable coincidences, they must fight a defensive
battle. But if positive proof should be produced that Booth
actually lived after the episode at Garrett's farm, then the burden
of proof will be on the champions of the orthodox version, and
their position will be equally difficult.
The stories of Booth's alleged reappearance, after his death
had been officially proclaimed, are too numerous to mention.
There are in existence stacks on stacks of affidavits from respect-
able people who are sure that they saw Booth in later years
and spoke to him in various parts of the world. Some of these
tales have been investigated, and the men mistaken for the assas-
sin were fully identified. 48 To judge from the numbers of arrests
made by the authorities between April 15 and April 26, quite a
7 8 Chapter IV
few people apparently looked enough like the young actor to
pass as his double.
One story may illustrate the fallacy of placing too much con-
fidence in mysterious doubles. Miss Blanche DeBar Booth, a
niece of John Wilkes, told of a weird experience of John Wilkes*
older brother, Edwin Booth, who was playing in England sev-
eral years after the events of 1865. He had just left the theatre in
a carriage, when his mother, who was in his company, uttered a
cry of anguish: "Johnny! There goes Johnny!" Only with
difficulty was she restrained from jumping into the street. Ed-
win followed the strange apparition. He overtook the man of
mystery and spoke to him, but never revealed what he had
found out, nor would the Booth family discuss the incident
afterward. 49 It was easy to argue that the man must have been
the escaped assassin, because no mother could be mistaken in
identifying her son.
Nonetheless, there may be a simple explanation even to this
persuasive story. In 1920 the New York World published an
interview with the widow of a Civil War veteran, one Lieuten-
ant William C. Allen. 50 Mrs. Allen told the reporter that her
husband had been the living image of Wilkes Booth. They
were both handsome, had the same features, "even the same soul-
ful eyes." Several years after the assassination, Lieutenant Allen
found himself in London at the same time that Edwin Booth was
playing in the British metropolis. Allen and a party of friends
had attended one of Booth's Shakespearean performances and,
on leaving the theatre, decided to play a practical joke on the
actor. The group went around to the stage door, where a cab
was waiting to take away the star. When Booth came out to
seat himself in the cab, a solemn face appeared for a moment at
the window. It was "a face from the grave— hatless it was, with
wavy hair, the luminous brown eyes, the aristocratic features"
of his younger brother.
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 79
" 'Wilkes!' gasped the actor. 'Wilkes.' "
But the vision faded into the fog of London.
Whether Mrs. Allen's story is true or not has not been es-
tablished; 51 but it demonstrates that an apparently convincing,
mystifying occurrence may have an explanation which is both
natural and conclusive, once it is known.
Of all the claims that Booth lived long after the tragedy in
Virginia, two have aroused wide attention. One is what may be
called the Enid legend, the hero of which is one David E. George
who died in Oklahoma in 1903, and whose mummified body is
being shown at various exhibits as that of the assassin. 52 The
other concerns the grandfather of Izola Forrester who, she is
convinced, was none other than Booth. Her impressions have
been embodied in a recently published volume. 53
The alleged mummy of John Wilkes Booth, embalmed at
Enid, Oklahoma, in 1903, has been examined by many people,
but with indifferent results. X-ray photographs taken in 193 1
were submitted by the author to the late Dr. Otto L. Schmidt
(at one time president of the Chicago Historical Society) and to
an X-ray specialist, the late Dr. Lewis L. McArthur of Chicago.
Neither would offer a definite opinion regarding the leg injuries
shown on the picture, by which light was to have been thrown
on the mummy's identity. The existence of a scar on the neck
is positively affirmed by James N. Wilkerson of Kansas City,
and denied with equal emphasis in a letter to the author by Mr.
Leonarde Keeler and Dr. C. W. Muehlberger, of the North-
western University Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory.
About December 31, 193 1, Messrs. Keeler and Muehlberger of the
Northwestern Crime Detection Laboratory staff were invited . . .
to make an examination of a mummified body. This examination was
80 Chapter IV
to be made at the x-ray laboratory of Dr. Orlando Scott, 330 So.
Wells Street, Chicago, and was for the purpose of detecting scar
tissue on the back of the neck of the mummy. Mr. Keeler and Mr.
Muehlberger went to Dr. Scott's laboratory that evening bringing
with them a Hanovia quartz mercury vapor lamp fitted with a
Woods filter for the purpose of absorbing those rays emitted by the
glowing mercury vapor which are visible to the eye. It has long
been known that scar tissue when examined in filtered ultra-violet
light fluoresces a lighter color than normal skin and takes on a pale
lavender color.
On arriving at Dr. Scott's office they . . . were shown the
mummy. This mummy was suspected of having been that of John
Wilkes Booth . . . Inasmuch as John Wilkes Booth was said to have
had a scar on the back of his neck, the examination was made to
confirm the identity of this mummy. At the time of the examina-
tion, the back of the neck of the shriveled and dry brown body
showed no gross evidence of a scar when examined by the naked
eye in ordinary artificial light. When examined in ultra violet light
there was no difference in fluorescence of any part of the back of the
neck. . . .
(Signed) Leonarde Keeler
July 1 8th, 1936. C. W. Muehlberger
On the other hand, certain characteristics of Booth, such as
his size, the shape of the head, the position of the ears, and the
long hands are also evident in the mummy.
An attempt has been made to solve the mystery of the Enid
mummy by comparing the size of its feet with the size of the
riding boot taken from the fleeing assassin at Doctor Mudd's
house. This comparison involved some intricate problems. Pos-
sible shrinkages of an embalmed limb as well as that of a boot
over a period of seventy years had to be considered. So far as
the latter problem is concerned, it is complicated by lack of
knowledge of the tanning methods used on the leather which
went into this particular piece of footwear. The boot was made
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 8 1
in 1864, just when the United States had begun to free itself
from the importation of French leather, due to wartime condi-
tions. Moreover, the exact atmospheric conditions under which
it was stored are unknown, and finally, no comparative data on
other shoes are available for such a length of time. An evalu-
ation of all these factors is necessary, and the conclusion is
therefore subject to some errors; but at the worst the shrinkage,
if any had occurred, would, in the minds of experts, be negli-
gible. 54
The opinion among medical authorities is general that human
bones do not shrink except under extraordinary conditions.
If the foot of the mummy and the boot at Washington dif-
fered by inches, as was possible, the controversy would have
been at an end. The measurements showed, though, that the
foot fits exactly into the boot. A negative result would have
been decisive; a positive one is meaningless. Millions of men who
have died since the turn of the century would show foot sizes
to fit the relic in the War Department at Washington.
Another item of importance which should help toward a cor-
rect appraisal of the Enid mummy is the tattoo mark on Booth's
wrist. According to his sister Asia, this India ink marking had
existed since his childhood days, and it was admittedly fully
preserved when the actor was twenty-seven years old. The
mummy shows no trace of any such markings on either hand; yet,
tattooed India ink marks cannot be eradicated without leaving
visible tracings. 55
Investigations into the identity of the Enid mummy were
made by William Shepard for Harper's Magazine 56 and by Fred
L. Black for the Dearborn Independent. 57 Shepard's effort may
be classed as a brilliant journalistic exploit, but without much
historical value. After interviewing Finis L. Bates and seeing
the corpse, he conceded Bates' sincerity; but in the end he con-
82 Chapter IV
eluded that the claim was false, because the signature on a check
written by the supposed Booth shortly before his death did not
resemble the handwriting of the real Booth, as reproduced from
the latter's diary.
"Putting the check and the diary side by side, I had my
proof," Shepard announced. 58 "Different hands wrote that
check and that diary. . . . That afternoon ... I ended, to my
own satisfaction, the Enid legend. . . ."
It is true that the two handwritings bear no resemblance to
each other. But does this end the argument? We are dealing
here with an accomplished actor, trained to dissimulation, in the
habit of assuming the characters of other people, with forty
years' time in which to practice a new handwriting. Not ap-
plause from an audience, but his very life depended on success.
Booth was a man of both intellect and will power and could
conceivably have accomplished a complete change in his hand-
writing. On these grounds Shepard's conclusion cannot be ac-
cepted as final.
Black's work was of a much more thorough nature, and
brought to light many pertinent facts. Unfortunately, he spent
a great deal of his time and space on the man Bates and his unre-
liability; he even showed that the erstwhile friend of John St.
Helen (the name under which Bates claims to have known
Booth) had not hesitated to misquote if it suited his purpose.
The investigator for the Dearborn Independent showed that St.
Helen, in his opinion, was not Booth; but he devoted only a small
portion of his published results to the problem of the Oklahoma
suicide who, it must be admitted, could have been Booth with-
out having been St. Helen.
Nevertheless, the facts which Black unearthed are interesting.
First he discovered a letter written by the mysterious Mr.
George, and disposed of it by saying that "a careful comparison
shows no similarity in the handwriting," using a page from
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 8 3
Booth's diary as his standard. This deduction, as has been noted
before, is questionable. It is the more so as the handwriting on
the letter differs as much from that discovered by Shepard as
both of them differ from Booth's. Even D. E. George's ac-
knowledged signatures do not show much resemblance to each
other.
Black obtained a statement from the former chief of police
of El Reno, Oklahoma, who remembered George well. He de-
scribed him as tall, with evenly matched eyebrows and as walk-
ing without a limp. As the mummy is not that of a tall man, has
uneven eyebrows and shows one leg to be shorter than the other,
this testimony must be ruled out. The most damaging fact to
Bates' theory unearthed by Black relates to the color of the dead
man's eyes. One William J. Ryan, who embalmed the body of
George, assured Black that the eyes of the corpse were blue or
blue-gray. 59 Booth is known to have had black eyes, and as the
color of black eyes is caused by pigmentation, their appearance
does not change after death. Black also comments correctly on
the allegations that one of Booth's thumbs was deformed and
that one eyebrow was arched. Neither of the injuries which
were said to have caused these abnormalities are thoroughly au-
thenticated, and they were not mentioned in any newspaper
accounts at the time of the assassination.
Izola Forrester's claim to be Booth's grandchild lacks proof;
yet, her book brings forth many strange and interesting coinci-
dences. While it is impossible to disprove her thesis, Miss For-
rester finds it equally difficult to present her case as anything
more than a family tradition.
"I realize that there are gaps in my story," she admits.
Of known evidence, a letter to Booth from his mother writ-
84 Chapter IV
ten in 1865, throws doubt on her story. In this letter Mrs.
Booth told the young actor to marry his fiancee, Miss Hale, if
he were sure of his love for her. If Booth had actually been
married since 1858, as Miss Forrester contends, his engagement
to Miss Hale in 1865 and the fact that he misled his mother and
the rest of his family, are contrary to his recognized honorable
conduct toward all women. 60 In spite of these arguments, Miss
Forrester's book can not be dismissed by a wave of the hand and
deserves further investigation.
The champions of the Enid theory and those who accept that
of Miss Forrester, have on their sides some points which, when
strung together, lend some plausibility to their contentions.
Both base their beliefs on alleged identifications and queer inci-
dents which form a definite pattern.
If either Bates or Miss Forrester is right, the other must be
wrong. This alone undermines the soundness of both cases; and
how dangerous it is to build theories on circumstantial evidence,
especially where identifications are involved, is proven by a
strange episode which happened in Washington at the end of
the civil war.
An unknown man, apparently suffering from loss of memory
and power of speech, was found in Tallahassee, Florida, when
the United States troops occupied that place. He had been there
about fifteen months and nothing of his history was known at
the Southern state capital.
The man was transferred to the government hospital for the
insane at Washington, and his description published in Northern
papers. In August 1867, a Mrs. Houghton from upper New
York identified him as her husband. Thereupon a commission
consisting of Surgeon General Barnes, Assistant Surgeon Gen-
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 85
eral Crane and Doctor Nichols, superintendent of the hospital,
was appointed to look into the case. General E. D. Townsend,
Adjutant General of the United States Army, and Mrs. Hough-
ton were also present. The result of the examination was em-
bodied in a certificate signed by all the medical men: they were
satisfied that the unknown man was Thomas B. Houghton, late
a private in the 104th New York Volunteers.
The alleged Mr. Houghton possessed more singular marks of
identification than did even John Wilkes Booth. He had a mole
on his back, and the woman claiming to be his wife put her
finger on the exact spot of his outer garment, describing with
complete accuracy the size, shape and appearance of the "mother-
mark", as she called it. She then described a scar under the man's
hair, and one on the foot, both of which were verified. The
doctors had been puzzled by three remarkable scars across the
upper part of one shin. Mrs. Houghton recalled that her husband
had at one time slipped from a stool while holding a saw and had
thus injured his leg. She further explained some clusters of small
scars on the man's breast and back as marks of a skin eruption.
Locks of hair from Mrs. Houghton's husband, when compared
under the microscope with the hair of the patient, were found
identical in tint and texture. The color of the eyes, a singular
light blue, was the same as in a picture of her husband which
Mrs. Houghton produced. The daguerreotype also showed a re-
markable taper of the fingers; the thumbs were long and deli-
cately pointed— an exact counterpart of the unknown man's
hands. Mrs. Houghton mentioned that her husband had a habit
of twirling his thumbs, and the mysterious stranger was found
to have the same inclination. The woman further stated that
her husband's toes were bent; examination revealed the same
deformation in the patient.
There was only one fly in the ointment. The stranger would
not recognize Mrs. Houghton, nor could he be induced to talk.
86 Chapter IV
But after a year and a half he spoke, affirming with some hesita-
tion that his name was Houghton and that he thought he hailed
from New York.
By request of his wife the patient was left in the hospital until
he grew robust in health. Then one day he suddenly regained
his memory. He scoffed at the idea that his name was Hough-
ton. He was an overseer of a plantation in Georgia, he said, had
gone to Florida on business, and had lost his mind while there.
The shocked authorities in Washington notified the Southern
friends whom the recovered patient had mentioned and found
to their amazement that his claims were correct. In fact, eventu-
ally all his assertions were fully borne out, and soon the alleged
Mr. Houghton went home, taking with him an almost unbe-
lievable record of misleading coincidences. 61
Summarizing all factors bearing on the puzzle of whether
Booth escaped or was killed at Garrett's farm, only a few facts
stand out as either proven or even well authenticated.
Booth was a guest of the Garrett family and returned there
for supper on the evening of April 25.
It was Booth who retired into the tobacco warehouse with
Herold.
The tobacco warehouse had more than one door.
Booth could have escaped from there during the siege or
previous to it.
The preponderance of Herold's testimony shows that he
thought Booth had been killed.
The man who was shot in the tobacco shed had a broken leg.
The body on the Montauk had a broken leg.
The body on the Montauk had the initials J.W.B. tattooed on
Did John Wilkes Booth Escape? 87
one hand. These tattoo marks tally with those Booth is known
to have had since his childhood.
The body on the Montank had a scar on the back of the neck,
similar to the one Booth was known to have, but one witness
described the face of the dead man as freckled, and Booth had
never been known to have freckles.
The body of the suicide at Enid, Oklahoma, presents some
similarities to that of Booth, but lacks other identifying features.
The story of Izola Forrester that Booth escaped is plausibly
presented, but not proven.
There remains today only one apparent possibility of settling
the identity of the man who was buried as John Wilkes Booth
in the family plot at the Baltimore cemetery. If the body were
disinterred and decomposition of the cavalry boot on the sound
leg has not proceeded too far, a comparison of this piece of foot-
wear could be made with the one taken from the fleeing actor at
Doctor Aiudd's house and now preserved at Washington. If the
two boots should be exact mates, and if both should show Booth's
name and that of the manufacturer inscribed in identical man-
ner, all further controversies on this intriguing subject would
come to an end. This test would have been easy in 1865 and
again when the body was reinterred at Baltimore. That it was
not made is unfortunate, but it may not be too late now to carry
the thought into execution, should anyone be interested enough
to undertake it.
Pending further developments, the contenders for the ortho-
dox theory have by far the better case, although it does not
stand proven. The man identified on board the Montauk had,
just like Booth, a scar, a broken leg and singular tattooed initials
on his hand. Together these three outstanding features justify
a strong, although not necessarily unassailable presumption that
the corpse was really that of the assassin. The riddle of the un-
explained freckles is perhaps its most serious defect. There are
88 Chapter IV
other factors of moment which partly weaken and partly
strengthen this presumption. But those opposed to it cannot ex-
pect to rest their cases on the weak points of the other side; they
must bring forth positive evidence of their own, such as a photo-
graph of Booth, unquestionably taken after April 1865, or a let-
ter written by him at a later date. Provided those who declared
having seen the actor or entertained him following his official
burial have the truth on their side, supporting evidence of a tan-
gible nature must exist. If it is ever presented, it should be care-
fully weighed and judged according to whatever merit it may
possess.
V
* \/ a
Among those who were tried for the
crime of Lincoln's death, the outstanding
figure was that of a woman. Her name
was Mary E. Surratt. At the time of the
assassination she anas conducting a board-
ing house which she had opened only a
few months before; her previous married
life and widowhood had been spent in
operating a farm tavern at Surrattsville,
some ten miles south of the capital.
A combination of events, harmless in
themselves, wove a net of circumstantial
evidence around this unfortunate woman
and carried her from contented obscurity
through the limelight of a military trial
to an inglorious death.
V
Mrs. Surratf s Boarding House
MRS. SURRATT'S life on the farm had not been a bed of
roses. The little settlement of Surrattsville, lying on a
back road through a sparsely settled country, offered few attrac-
tions. Louis Wiechmann, a schoolmate of Mrs. Surratt's younger
son John, visited there in March, 1863, 1 and gave his impressions
to a reporter a few years later. 2
"It was on a Friday afternoon in March," he said, "rainy and
dreary, when ... I went down to Surrattsville with John. He
came for me in a buggy, and the road was so rutty and miry
that we were four hours on the way. On coming in sight of the
house I was miserably disappointed. The theme of so much
panegyric was a solitary farm tavern at a crossroad, a few sheds
and barns around it and a hitching stall, and a peach orchard
reaching behind. The farm consisted of 300 acres, and it was
afterward let, with the tavern, for $600 a year. A small porch
stood in the middle, on which opened a hall reaching quite
through the house. At the foot of this hall . . . was the bar-
room and post office, with a door opening upon one of the cross-
roads . . . Altogether there were eight rooms comfortably
furnished."
The stage coach from Bryantown to Washington passed by
the lonely country tavern, and a postman would come that way
on his regular rounds, bringing with his mail such gossip as he
had gathered in the out-of-the-way southern Maryland counties.
91
92 Chapter V
After the death of the elder Surratt, John, then a lad of only
eighteen, became postmaster of Surrattsville. He had studied at
St. Charles College, near Baltimore, but had left school in 1862 in
order to help conduct his mother's affairs. His character had been
excellent. On leaving college, he shed tears, but the president
told him not to weep; that his behavior had been so fine during
the three years he had been there that he would always be re-
membered by those in charge of the institution. 3
The elder brother, Isaac, had joined the Confederate army in
1 86 1 and was then reported fighting in Texas. In the same year,
the youngest of the three children, Anna, returned from her
school in Bryantown where she had been since 1854.
That John did not like his surroundings is plain from letters
which he penned from time to time. On November 12, 1864, he
wrote to Wiechmann: 4
. . . Been busy all the week taking care of and securing the crops.
Next Tuesday, and the jig's up. Good by, Surrattsville. Good by,
God forsaken country. . . .
And this to a cousin at Steubenville: 5
You ask me if we have warm weather in Maryland, My Mary-
land. If you have it to such a degree as you represent it, up North,
what must it be in our hot-headed South? . . . Yes, Cousin Bell, it is
so warm, that we can neither eat, sleep, sit down, stand up, walk
about, and in fact ... it is too warm to do anything . . .
John also had to keep the bar for his mother and apparently
detested this occupation and the associations it brought with it. 6
Eventually he became a dispatch-bearer for the Confederate
government and thereby escaped the monotony of life at Sur-
rattsville.
Mrs. Surratt was a good-hearted woman. One of her colored
servants, Eliza Hawkins, who had lived with her six years, so
Mrs. Surratt's Boarding House 93
testified at the Surratt trial. 7 Eliza was a slave, but did not belong
to Mrs. Surratt and had only been hired out to her.
"You were attached to them [the Surratts]?" the colored
woman was asked by a hostile prosecutor.
"Very much attached to them," she replied. "I would have
been with them till this day if I could. . . . they treated me
right; I certainly had the right to be so." 8
Another colored servant, Rachel Semus, who also had lived
at the Surratt tavern for six years, stated that all the help had
been treated with great consideration and that Mrs. Surratt's
kindliness had extended beyond the family circle. When Union
soldiers passed through the lonely settlement, the widow fed
them, and fed them well.
"I know she always tried to do the best for them," declared
the negro girl and elucidated the remark with pardonable pride,
". . . because I always cooked for them." Then she added,
"very often she would give them all she had in the house . . .
I recollect her cutting up the last ham she had ... I never
knew of her taking any pay for it. . . ." 9
Mrs. Surratt's brother confirmed her hospitable traits.
"I have known her frequently to give milk, tea, and such re-
freshments as she had in her house, to Union troops when they
were passing," he testified. "Sometimes she received pay for it;
at other times she did not." Even dumb animals in distress would
arouse his sister's sympathy. "I recollect," he said, "when a large
number of horses escaped from Giesboro [a market place and
hospital for horses near Washington], many of them were taken
up and put on her premises. These horses were carefully kept
and fed by her, and afterwards all were given up. She . . .
never got any pay, to my knowledge." 10
Mrs. Surratt was a religious woman and counted her beads a
great deal. She was not a born Catholic but a convert, and her
husband had been a Protestant until his death in August, 1862.
94 Chapter V
There were three or four negroes about the place, but few
near-by neighbors. Mrs. Surratt's brother, J. Z. Jenkins, lived
a mile and a half away on the way to Washington. The road
which passed the tavern led to no large settlements and was
quite deserted. "It was a dull, crossroads' existence . . ." Wiech-
mann concluded after his first visit. 11
Yet, it was probably not dullness, but lack of income, that
made Mrs. Surratt leave for Washington where, on November i,
1864, she opened a boarding house at 541 (now 604) H Street,
N.W. It was a house containing ten rooms. The two rooms
on the street level were respectively the dining room and the
kitchen. The remainder were used as bedrooms. 12
The first roomer in the new boarding house was John's erst-
while chum at college, Louis J. Wiechmann who, a few months
later through his testimony at the conspiracy trial was to bring
death and disgrace to the Surratt family. He had quit his studies
for the priesthood in 1862 and taken a position at St. Matthew's
College in Washington where he had taught for about a year.
It was not much of a school, in his opinion. 13
"I received only thirty-five dollars there," he recalled later,
". . . the duties of a teacher were not only exacted of me, but
there was no man there to sweep the room, and the students
under my charge . . . were compelled to sweep up. . . ."
There was only one other instructor at the school, but "I con-
sidered myself the principal teacher," Wiechmann declared, "be-
cause I taught up stairs and he taught down stairs. ... he had
the little boys with bare feet."
On January 9, 1864, Wiechmann obtained a position paying
him eighty dollars a month as clerk in the office of the Commis-
sary General of Prisoners. This made it possible for him to move
into the Surratt boarding house. He had no reason to regret his
choice, for he was immediately accepted as a friend of the family.
The Surratt Tavern in 1867.
(From Harper's Weekly, 1867.)
The former Surratt Tavern at Clinton (Surrattsville), Md., 1933. Rear view.
(Front the author's collection.)
Mrs. Surratt' s Boarding House 95
During the trial of John Surratt in 1867 he was asked how his
landlady had treated him.
"She treated me kindly," was his response.
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?
A. Yes, sir. 14
"Mr. Wiechmann was . . . but too kindly treated . . ." com-
mented Anna Surratt sadly. "It was my mother's habit to sit up
for him at night, when he was out of the house; she would sit up
and wait for him the same as for my brother." 15
The intimacy between young Surratt and his college friend
made them share not only room and bed, but also many of their
belongings. Wiechmann was in the habit of bringing office sta-
tionery home, and Surratt was not loath to use it for his private
correspondence. Perhaps he thought it would impress his female
friends if they received epistles under the caption, "Office of
the Commissary General of Prisoners, Washington, D. C." At
any rate, he did use these letterheads. 16
By December 1, Mrs. Surratt was ready to serve meals— only
two of them daily— and want ads for boarders were inserted in
the Washington Evening Star on November 30, on December 8
and again on December 27. They were evidently successful, for
no further solicitations for customers appeared after that. Every
available space in the house was used. Mrs. Surratt occupied the
back parlor as her bedroom; it was separated from the parlor
only by a folding door. She slept in one bed with her daughter
and with another young lady of about seventeen, Miss Honora
Fitzpatrick. When, shortly before the Easter holidays, another
lady visitor put in an appearance, the two girls and one of Anna's
9 6
Chapter V
cousins, Olivia Jenkins, were moved to the garret, which was
sometimes politely referred to as the third story. 17 Wiechmann's
room contained a bed, a table, a closet and a mirror. Three
trunks made up the rest of the furnishings. 18 The front parlor
of the floor was in possession of a Mr. and Mrs. Holahan, who
were considered wealthy, and whose little daughter had a room
on the same floor, while the colored maid slept sometimes in the
attic, in a little room next to the young ladies, and sometimes in
the kitchen. It must have been a crowded place, this drab-
colored brick boarding rouse on H Street, 19 devoid of modern
sanitation and of many luxuries, although the parlor boasted a
piano on which Anna would occasionally play for the entertain-
ment of the guests.
,dec8 2t*
pWO FURNISHED ROOMS, *oitab1e for two or
L four gentlemen, at 541 H street, between 6th
a nd 7th eta . d 3-3t
iBRBNT-A three story brick HOU8M,
Jof]
ube
3bcnB sm
>eets T ert&s jgodens t g. Ap ply withi n, de 27* *T
tfR UKNf^Two FUHNlSHBD ROOM8 <>n »ee-
id boor, suitable for two or four gentlemen,
>lea*ai>t locality. Terms moderate. Apply
street , between ot h and 7th sis, d* <7 to t
i*OR KfiNTr-Two handsomely fUBBUSHKD
Icr a n}L Bedro om ♦ t*get]
. coU
and 18th streets,
FeTw*SeL
nov 30-2t*
FOR RINT-Two FURNIJHSD BOOMS in a
wfyate family, at $41 H street, between 6th
a nd Ttb, suitable fori gentlemen. n 30 3t»
|BS FRONT ROOM #OR REW
•nlshed or
Mrs. Surratt advertises for roomers (Washington Evening Star, November
30, December 8, December 27, 1864).
Mrs. Surratfs Boarding House 97
The rooms were adorned with many small pictures, some of
which stood on the mantelpieces, while others formed the con-
tents of three or four albums that were lying about. 20 Photo-
graphs of Jefferson Davis, Stephens and Beauregard were among
them, but the opposing side was also represented by likenesses
of Grant, Hooker and McClellan. One day Anna Surratt and
Honora Fitzpatrick saw two pictures of Booth in a photog-
rapher's gallery and bought them. When Anna's brother John
found out what the young ladies had done, he told his sister to
tear up the pictures of the actor, else he would take them from
her. Anna pretended to give in, but hid her precious possessions
behind a lithograph, "Morning, Noon and Night," where detec-
tives later found them. 21 It would have been well for Anna had
she obeyed her brother's injunction for, unfortunately, there also
was hanging on one wall a picture in colors with the arms of
the State of Virginia, showing two crossed Confederate flags
and flaunting the inscriptions,
"Thus will it ever be with tyrants."
"Virginia the mighty."
"Sic semper tyrannis." 22
Lincoln's assassin had used these last three words on the fatal
night, and therefore they, in conjunction with Booth's photo-
graphs, undoubtedly carried much weight with the detectives
of the War Department.
The Holahans moved in about February i, at which time
Wiechmann and a little girl named Dean were the only paying
boarders, although others were also staying in the house as
guests. 23 Mr. Holahan was evidently a man of many money-
making talents. During the war he was what was known as a
bounty broker, procuring substitutes for drafted men, but later
he worked in the Treasury Department, in the Patent Office
and at the Insane Asylum. After these experiences he went to
the Government Printing Office, and when work there became
9 8 Chapter V
scarce, he took to peddling tea, sugar, bread and liquor. In 1867
he was in the stonecutting business, making tombstones. 24
An Irishman by birth, Holahan proved to be one of the most
entertaining of witnesses at the conspiracy trial and in the Surratt
case. He was afraid of no one and often disarmed his adversaries
by a real or assumed ingenuousness. At one time, when he was
constantly interrupted by objections, he said lightly,
"I will make my statement, and then you can object to what
I have said." Everyone in the courtroom joined in the ensuing
laughter. 25
Mrs. Surratt's hospitality was a constant obstacle to the finan-
cial success of her establishment. Persons were in the habit of
coming from the country and stopping at her house; sometimes
they paid for their accommodations, sometimes they didn't.
Even Wiechmann admitted his landlady's generosity.
"Mrs. Surratt was always very hospitable," he said, "and had
a great many acquaintances, and they could remain as long as
they chose." 26
Anna Surratt once described in quaint phraseology the lack of
system in the conduct of her mother's affairs. "A great many
[guests]," she said, "came . . . for rooms . . . some stayed a
few days and some did not come at all." 27
Visits by strangers were often of a political nature, and even
though Mrs. Surratt may not have been aware of it, Wiechmann
was.
"This Weichman [Wiechmann]," wrote a government agent
later, "furnished to the sympathizers of the Confederacy all the
data or information attainable in that office, and for this reason
blockade runners and others would call at Mrs. Surratt's resi-
dence to receive the information from Weichman." 28
Mrs. Surratt must have felt quite lonely in her new surround-
ings. There were few social callers. Father Wiget of St. Alo-
Mrs. Surratt* s Boarding House 99
ysius Church and other priests would come at intervals, as did
sisters of charity. Mrs. Dean, whose eleven-year-old daughter
was boarding with Mrs. Surratt, dropped in once in a while,
or the Kirby's, neighbors and relations by marriage. 29 Regular
attendance at the nearby St. Patrick's Church on ioth and F
Streets brought some inspiration to Mrs. Surratt's pious soul,
and on Sundays it was a special treat for her to walk all the
way to St. Aloysius Church, near the railroad station.
Now and then an unusual visitor would bring some little
excitement into the household. In February, 1865, a blockade
runner named Howell came and went, probably telling the
household of his travels and narrow escapes. He treated the
male members of the house to liberal portions of whiskey which
the obliging Wiechmann brought in, hidden under the cape of
his military cloak. 30 A female blockade runner, one Mrs. Slater,
made Mrs. Surratt's her stopping place for one night in March. 31
She was a slim, delicate woman, with black eyes and dark hair
and wore a veil down to her chin. Mrs. Slater was a North
Carolinian by birth, but spoke French well and could therefore
invoke the protection of the French government if she played
her role properly. She departed in a carriage drawn by two
white horses, accompanied by Mrs. Surratt and her son. Mrs.
Surratt returned the next day, but the young man continued on
with Mrs. Slater to share her adventures, of which there were
many in store for them— barbarities even, if we are to believe a
somewhat unreliable witness. 32 According to him, Mrs. Slater
and her escort, joined by four or five others, managed to cross
the Potomac after some trouble. A gunboat stopped them and
sent out a dinghy to investigate; the blockade runners waited
until the little vessel came alongside of them and then fired right
into the faces of the crew, escaping to the shore in the resulting
confusion. After that they traced a solitary Union telegraph
operator through the ticking of his instrument and killed him.
i oo Chapter V
When they got south of Fredericksburg and were being pushed
on a flat car along the railroad, they saw coming toward them
some starved Union prisoners who were painfully making their
escape toward the Federal lines.
"Let's shoot the damned Yankee soldiers," the little lady is said
to have exclaimed. Everyone in the party then drew a revolver,
and when the slaughter was over the bodies were left where they
had fallen.
There was one boarder in her house of whom Mrs. Surratt did
not approve, and that was George Atzerodt, 33 one of the con-
spirators in Booth's pay. To Mrs. Holahan she confided that
the slovenly German aroused her dislike, and that she would
rather not have him board with her. She had found a bottle of
whiskey in his room, and this was against the rules of the house.
After he had left, mother and daughter both voiced their desire
not to have him return. Anna's expression was that she did not
care about having such sticks brought to the house, they were
not proper company for her; but in spite of her aversion to this
uncouth German, Mrs. Surratt at one time was seen to lend him
the last five dollars she had in her pocket. 34
One day in March an unusual-looking man stopped at the
establishment. He was tall and straight and of an athletic build.
His eyes were wild and slightly crossed, his black strands of hair
long and unkempt. He brought no baggage and represented
himself as a Baptist preacher by the name of Wood. But when
he died on the gallows a few months later he was known as
Paine. There was quite a discussion among the women why a
Baptist preacher should seek out a Catholic boarding house. In
the end, they decided that the circumstances were just as odd
as the man himself and laughed about it. Mrs. Surratt thought
he was a great looking preacher and that he would not save
many souls. 35
C/3
x 7
Si
X
02 &*
u rt cq
u
Mrs. Surratfs Boarding House * o i
When John Wilkes Booth stepped into this commonplace
household he must have brought with him the halo of a fairy
prince.
u But hark! the doorbell rings, and Mr. J. W. Booth is an-
nounced," wrote John Surratt to one of his cousins. "And listen
to the scamperings . . . Such brushing and fixing." 36 Small
wonder. The famous theatrical idol would conquer anywhere,
what with his easy grace, his beauty and his generous distribution
of free tickets to the Washington playhouses.
With the conspirators meeting at her house, the clouds over
Mrs. Surratt 's head were beginning to gather, though she was
unaware of them. She had no inkling that her son's visitors were
laying plans for the abduction of the President. Had she known
of the plot, she might have reported it to the authorities. On the
day before his execution, the conspirator Paine expressed the
desire to make a complete statement to that effect, to be taken
down by an official court reporter.
"He desired," so one of the reporters wrote, 37 "to exonerate
Mrs. Surratt from any connection, near or remote, with either
the conspiracy to abduct or kill the President. This statement,
we were told, he would swear to, knowing he was about to die.
"On one occasion, it seems, Booth, Atzerodt, and other con-
spirators were the guests of John Surratt, and were discussing
plans for the abduction. Mrs. Surratt entered the room just as
some remark was made that might excite her suspicions. John
Surratt, who was sitting by the door through which she entered,
her back being toward him, sprang to his feet, and, with fore-
finger to his lips, motioned for silence. The moment Mrs. Sur-
ratt left the room he cautioned the party to be more careful, and
under no circumstances even to hint at anything which was
going on, for his mother, if aware of the plot, would give the
whole thing away and ruin them all."
Then some commonplace business matters, as if directed by
102 Chapter V
an unkind fate, came to a head just at the time of Lincoln's as-
sassination and wove some more meshes into the net which was
closing in on Mrs. Surratt.
Mr. Surratt, ten years before his death, had sold some real
estate to one Mr. Nothey and the latter still owed Mrs. Surratt
a balance of $479.00. On the other hand, Mrs. Surratt had in-
herited an indebtedness of her own on some land which her hus-
band had acquired from a Mr. Calvert, and the latter had
obtained two judgments against her in the county court.
On April 1 1, three days prior to the tragedy in Washington,
Mrs. Surratt drove out to see Mr. Gwynn, her business manager,
who lived near Surrattsville, and both of them had a conference
with Mr. Nothey at the Surrattsville tavern about the payment
of the overdue sum of money. 38
The next day, Mr. Calvert's son, who had inherited his father's
estate, mailed an urgent request to Mrs. Surratt.
"However unpleasant," he wrote, "I must insist upon closing
up this matter, as [it] is imperative . . . You will therefore
please inform me at your earliest convenience as to how and
when you will be able to pay the balance . . ." 39
This missive reached Washington on the 14th and caused Mrs.
Surratt's ill-fated trip to her farm on that day. There she handed
Gwynn a letter, with a request to read it to Nothey. In this
communication she threatened to bring suit against her delin-
quent debtor unless he would settle within ten days; on her own
part, she said, she intended to pay Mr. Calvert without further
delay.
It was when leaving the tavern in the afternoon that her tenant
Lloyd returned and talked with her for a few moments, swearing
afterward that Mrs. Surratt had told him to get some shooting
irons ready; even so, no conversation with the drunken inn
keeper would have taken place, had not the buggy broken down
I U.%*6f
Ufr-
«n*4
/t&e^/z*?-**-- est 4e£-/*^/--€+
/^c tr+* $ ds/ttz- .
Ur— t*^*F*%-~
'r^ /fry /far 1 - > >^1 U^-i £~ *Z^>us/*
f'lAi /hep? Cu fz~ik. t 4 ftcti fn-^f ^-zt? V^^s
&4^Usi^ J /^c /fat cJ? /U^i ^ £jr^l_
/4%A^ /hSh rf^tsou j As*. / /^CLA t^zL^u^
&
The Secretary of War requests that the prisoners on board the Montauk
be hooded. (Reproduced by courtesy of the Huntington Library, San
Mareno, California.)
130 Chapter VII
Wood intimated that these guarantees were given in exchange
for information by Mrs. Surratt's brother regarding Booth's
probable course of flight. The fact that the War Minister made
such a promise gives food for thought. Very likely, he had at
no time intended to live up to his promise. Whatever his early
intentions were, however, Wood is concise in pointing out the
betrayal:
. . . these conditions were violated, and . . . this deplorable execu-
tion of an innocent woman [followed]. 5
According to Colonel Wood, who had first-hand knowledge,
it was true then that a promise of mercy had been made to Mrs.
Surratt which would, of course, insure her silence. Another
point now immediately arises as a necessary complement: if the
widow had been tricked, her execution would have to follow
the death verdict without delay, for the prisoner's natural im-
pulse would be to avenge herself by talking freely. Hence the
sentence would have to be carried out immediately.
The records show that the court announced its verdict on the
morning of July 6. The order was not read to Mrs. Surratt until
midday, 6 and the hanging took place shortly after noon the next
day. Such a short space of time between a sentence and its
execution is practically unheard of.
"To act so hastily in a matter of this kind," was Father
Walter's bewildered comment, "was certainly strange on the
part of the Government." 7
In vain did the spiritual advisers of the condemned woman
fight for a reprieve of at least a few days, to give their charge an
opportunity to prepare for eternity. They were met by the
frivolous but significant reply that the prisoners had had time
from the beginning of the trial to prepare for death. 8
Heartbroken, Anna Surratt asked only for three days' grace,
after commutation of her mother's death sentence appeared be-
The Silencing of Mrs. Surratt 1 3 1
yond human hope. But these three days were not granted.
Manifestly, it was safer to brave criticism than to wait.
The Washington correspondent of the New York Tribune
was probably in possession of accurate information when he ad-
vised his paper on July 6 that, "notwithstanding the request of
Mrs. Surratt for additional time, it is not believed that her execu-
tion will be postponed."
However, there was still a whole day left before the hanging;
much might be said by the woman prisoner in that time. But
the very unexpectedness of the verdict eliminated this danger.
"The regular physician of the arsenal," the New York Times
announced on July 7, "had just made his report of the condition
of the prisoners. Mrs. Surratt was, and had been since the sen-
tence was read to her, dangerously prostrated, and the physician
had prescribed wine of valerian." This prostration was propi-
tious; how long it would last no one could tell, but to take
chances on its termination would have been foolhardy.
An almost palpable nervous tension pervaded the War De-
partment on the day before the execution. Major A. E. H.
Johnson, Stanton's devoted private secretary, related a scene he
witnessed which illustrates the fanatical determination on the
part of his chief to brook no interference in favor of Mrs. Surratt.
A committee of residents who had been opposed to the war
visited Stanton in her behalf.
"The Secretary," Johnson wrote, "noted an officer of the army
wearing a surgeon's uniform, and this so aroused his anger that,
looking at the surgeon he said: 'You had better take off those
epaulets; they are not an honor to you on this occasion.' The
spokesman of the committee stated that they had come on a mis-
sion of mercy . . ." 9
That the condemned woman, so suddenly confronted with
the shock of her sentence, would be paralyzed, was to be ex-
pected. Nevertheless, the shock might wear off and make her
i3 2 Chapter VII
cast aside all restraint. The government had broken its bargain.
She might summon her last strength and talk, if necessary, from
the steps that led to the gallows. It was a contingency which
had to be prevented at all hazards.
John T. Ford, the owner of the ill-fated theatre bearing his
name, followed the conspiracy drama with intense interest as
long as he lived. Gathering together what facts he could, he
made the astounding statement in 1889, that, "The very man
of God who shrived her soul for eternity was said to be con-
strained to promise that she should not communicate with the
world. As the poor martyr walked in her shroud to the scaffold,
it is also said that she begged the ministering priest by her side
to let her tell the people 'she was innocent.' She was told that
'the church was permitted only to prepare her soul for eternity;
that already she was dead to all else/ " 10
One of Mrs. Surratt's lawyers, Mr. Clampitt, who had seen
the priest, Father Walter, shortly before, gave out a statement
which confirmed Mr. Ford's assertion. 11 "This woman on the
scaffold," he said, "shrived for eternity, turned to her spiritual
adviser and said:
" 'Holy Father, can I not tell these people before I die that I
am innocent of the crime for which I have been condemned to
death?' Father Walter replied: 'No, my child, the world and
all that is in it has now receded forever; it would do no good,
and it might disturb the serenity of your last moments.' "
According to Clampitt, Father Walter also stated that he had
pledged "his faith and honor as a priest of God that after he had
absolved her and she had received the sacrament he would pre-
vent her from making any protestation of her innocence. . . ."
Father Walter himself strenuously denied this accusation. "I
must positively deny that I prohibited Mrs. Surratt from asserting
her innocence," he wrote. 12 He claimed that, shortly before the
condemned woman was carried to the gallows, she was placed
!
The Silencing of Mrs. Surratt 1 3 3
on a chair at the doorway of her prison and there she said to
the priest in the presence of several officers: "Father, I wish to
say something." "Well, what is it, my child?" was the rejoinder.
"That I am innocent," were the words with which she replied.
Whether or not Mrs. Surratt was permitted to utter this feeble
protest in the presence of a few soldiers is of no great moment.
Persons about to be executed have sworn to their innocence
from time immemorial, and no one has paid much attention to
their half -crazed pleadings. Certainly the government officials
in Washington could hardly be concerned about such a trivial
matter. What was vital was this: the condemned woman must
not be permitted to harangue the crowd from the scaffold.
There she might go beyond the mere question of her guilt, and
every one of her words would be broadcast by news-hungry
journalists. Curiously, Father Walter does not deny this. He
had not prohibited Mrs. Surratt from asserting her innocence, he
declared. He had allowed the prisoner's plea in front of her cell.
But the young priest failed to refute the accusation that he had
restrained his spiritual charge from speaking out later, when her
message would have been heard around the world.
As things turned out, there was no necessity of enforcing
silence on the condemned woman. "I doubt whether she knew
much of her execution," wrote a spectator. 13 "She behaved as
one that was three-fourths dead."
Another weighty problem confronted the Bureau of Military
Justice. Would Mrs. Surratt, during her incarceration, talk to
religious advisers about more than mere spiritual matters, about
things not connected with eternity, but with the conspiracy of
which she was accused? Here was danger indeed. If the au-
thorities were not afraid of anything she might reveal, they
were either grossly negligent, or else they were innocent of de-
liberately muzzling the other conspirators for the sake of silence.
134 Chapter VII
But if the officials were concerned, the safest course was to keep
religious advisers away from the prisoner altogether, at least un-
til the last day. If they had to be admitted then, a way to silence
them afterward had to be found.
Father Wiget having died soon after the execution, Father
Walter was the only man left to furnish testimony on this point,
but whether he would ever speak out was doubtful. Fortu-
nately, he had been nettled by Mr. Ford's accusation in 1889;
and when an open letter in the Century Magazine of April,
1890, 14 referred once more to this subject, he was roused to a
reply. In a paper entitled "A True Statement of Facts Con-
cerning the Surratt Case", read before the United States Catholic
Historical Society, he gave a complete account of his connec-
tion with that cause celebre. Father Walter's story is of absorb-
ing interest.
"I was not acquainted with her [Mrs. Surratt]," he said, "and
never spoke to her until the evening of [preceding] her execu-
tion. I received a letter from her dated Sunday, April 23, 1865,
asking me to come and see her. She was then in Carroll Prison.
I went on Tuesday morning, April 25th, but she had been re-
moved to the penitentiary and I was told by those in authority
at Carroll Prison that no one would be allowed to see her" 15
Thus, the government did adopt the safe course. No clergy-
man was permitted to see Mrs. Surratt before or during her trial.
The day before Mrs. Surratt's execution, Father Walter be-
thought himself of her former request to act as her spiritual
adviser and obtained a passport, signed by General Hardie of the
War Department. As he gave the usual receipt for it to the
orderly, he remarked that a Catholic woman could hardly go to
Communion on Holy Thursday (April 13, 1865) and be guilty
of murder on Good Friday. When this remark was repeated to
General Hardie, he became greatly excited. Hastening to the
priest's house, he brought with him a pass signed by Secretary
The Silencing of Mrs. Surratt 1 3 5
Stanton, as he "was afraid that the pass . . . sent . . . would not
answer . . ."
A pretty admission, this. Father Walter had been given a
War Department pass which was worthless. At the last mo-
ment he would have been refused entrance to Mrs. Surratt's
cell. But the young priest had shown fighting qualities and was
not to be ignored. The oversight, if such it had been, was there-
fore quickly corrected.
The countersigned pass was not handed over immediately,
though. This time General Hardie imposed a conditon. "/ ivant
you to promise me" he demanded, "that you ivM not say any-
thing about the innocence of Mrs. Surratt." These were the
exact words as Father Walter remembered them. The priest
bowed to force. "I cannot let Mrs. Surratt die without the sacra-
ments," he said, "so if I must say yes, I say yes."
But Father Walter's word was not good enough in a matter of
such importance. "Evidently some one at the War Department
must have been alarmed," he mused, "for Major General Han-
cock [commander of the District of Columbia] was telegraphed
to go and see Archbishop Spalding, so as to prevent me from
asserting the innocence of Mrs. Surratt. / received a telegram
from the Archbishop's secretary, asking me to keep quiet, and
saying that the Archbishop would write me a letter by the
evening mail. The letter came. It was no order, but simply a
request that I should keep quiet in regard to the innocence of
Mrs. Surratt. . . ." 16 To keep quiet— that was the point at is-
sue. No one knew what other matters, aside from her protesta-
tions of innocence, the condemned woman had confided to her
priest. Why else should someone at the War Department have
become alarmed because a prisoner condemned to die had
averred that she was not guilty and her father confessor believed
her?
1 36 Chapter VII
Whispers of these strange happenings penetrated some edi-
torial offices.
"One of the prominent counsel engaged on the late conspiracy
trial," reported the New York Tribune on July 12, 1865, "asserts
positively that spiritual attendants were denied admission to Mrs.
Surratt on the day of the execution until Secretary Stanton had
received from them a promise that they would not on the scaf-
fold proclaim their belief in her innocence." 17
On the previous day the Tribune had written this short para-
graph:
When about to rise from her chair for the purpose of being
pinioned, Mrs. Surratt enquired of her spiritual advisers what she
should say on the scaffold, and upon being answered, "O, nothing—
what do you desire to say?" replied, "That I am innocent."
There would have been no harm in that little speech, surely.
But what if the condemned woman had suddenly cried out, "I
have been deceived, and now I am willing to tell all"? The
thorough precautions against the breaking of her silence point
to fear of developments far more damning than stammering
assertions of innocence in the shadow of the noose.
The New York Tribune, angered at being denounced by the
Administration press for the publication of these news items,
decided to delve further into the matter. Two of its reporters
called on Father Walter on July 16, and he affirmed in later
years that what they had published was a verbatim report of
what had passed between General Hardie and himself. 18 This
raises the value of the Tribune story to that of an historical
document. 19
Washington, July 16, 1865.
On the publication of the statement in The Tribune a few days
ago that the Secretary of War had interfered with the attendance of
Mrs. Surratt's spiritual adviser, The New York Times and an ob-
The Silencing of Mrs. Surratt 1 37
scure Philadelphia journal 20 took occasion without any knowledge
of facts, to denounce it as a malicious fabrication. The subjoined
statement was obtained from the very best authority, and neither
The Times or the Secretary of War dare deny it.
On Thursday morning, the 6th instant, the Rev. Father Walter,
pastor of St. Patrick's Church, in this city, went to the War Office
to ask for a pass to visit Mrs. Surratt, ignorant of the fact that she
had already been condemned to suffer death on the following day.
He had never previously visited Mrs. S., nor did he know her except
by reputation. On application, he was informed by Gen. Hardie,
A.A.G. [Assistant Adjutant General] to Sec. Stanton, that he could
not give him a pass without first consulting Mr. Stanton, who was
out at the time. Father Walter returned home, and at 10 o'clock
p.m. on the same day received a pass to visit the prison, signed, by
order of the Secretary of War, Gen. Hardie, A.A.G.
The messenger who brought the pass to Father Walter, being an
intelligent Irishman, Father W. entered into conversation with him
on the subject of the execution, firmly asserting his belief in Mrs.
Surratt's innocence. In half or perhaps an hour afterward, Gen.
Hardie himself called at the residence of Father Walter, and after
some irrelevant conversation, said: "Father Walter, you made quite
an impression on the mind of my messenger in regard to the execu-
tion of Mrs. Surratt," to which Father W. remarked that he was
firmly impressed with her entire innocence. Gen. Hardie then said:
"Father Walter, the pass you have will not admit you to the military
prison to-morrow, because it is not signed by the Secretary of War.
I want you to make me a promise to say nothing of Mrs. Surratt's
innocence, and I will give you the necessary pass."
Father Walter, naturally indignant, immediately refused to accede
to Gen. H.'s demand, giving him to understand, in the plainest kind
of language that no official, civil or military, could enforce silence
on this point; and remarking that he knew under whose authority he
(Gen. H.) was acting. Gen. Hardie— a converted Catholic, by the
way— then said, patronizingly, that as yet there were no charges
lodged against him, Father W., at the War Department, to which
138 Chapter VII
the latter rejoined that he might tell his master, Stanton, that he con-
scientiously believed Mrs. Surratt guiltless; that he should proclaim
his belief, and that the War Department might hang him if it
thought proper.
General Hardie was about to go without giving Father W. the
pass, when the latter said: "Gen. Hardie, I cannot suffer Mrs. Surratt
to die without administering the sacrament; I say yes to your propo-
sition; give me the pass." Gen. Hardie then drew from his pocket a
pass duly filled up and signed by Edwin M. Stanton, admitting him,
Father W., to the prison until after the execution.
Previous to the removal of Mrs. Surratt from the Carroll to the
Military Prison, Father W. had made application to the War Office
for a pass to visit her, she being very ill, but in every instance his
applications were denied, and up to the very day before the execu-
tion Mrs. S. was deprived by the Secretary of War of spiritual at-
tendants.
General Hardie's scarcely veiled threats, added to the re-
mainder of the proceedings, make it difficult to believe that the
scene for this drama was Washington and the year 1865.
Even Stanton's friend Wood, whose prisoner Mrs. Surratt
had been a few weeks previously, expressed similar thoughts.
"The story of the cruel execution of Mrs. Surratt," he wrote
later, "is better fitted for the pages of the history of those eras
regarded as the dark ages than the period in which the advocates
of universal liberty were making the continent noisy with their
howling." 21
The priest's visit to Mrs. Surratt on her last agonizing day
had been reduced to a few hours. His previous requests to give
comfort to the sick woman prisoner had been brusquely denied.
After attending her, his lips were closed by his solemn promise
and, to make doubly sure, by an injunction from his superior. 22
Such unusual orders were not likely to be issued without weighty
reasons.
The Silencing of Mrs. Surratt 1 39
Altogether, it seems that Father Walter was as effectually
gagged as if he, too, had been sent to solitary confinement on the
Dry Tortugas. 23
The next person to attract the attention of the authorities was
Miss Anna Surratt. This young lady had been in her mother's
company while she was in prison; accounts differ as to how
much time the two women were allowed together. Fragmentary
reports make it appear that most of these precious hours were
given over to weeping and praying. Nevertheless, it would not
have been safe to overlook Anna Surratt, for she was a young
woman of courage and spirit.
What, if anything, was done to keep Mrs. Surratt 's daughter
quiet is not known. Were the same vague threats brought to
bear on her that had so aroused Father Walter's indignation?
Anna had seen what the War Department could do. She had
witnessed her mother's agonies; she had been in prison herself.
There was danger to Mr. Jenkins, her mother's brother, and to
his daughter Olivia, both of whom had spent some time behind
bars. Furthermore, Anna's two brothers were possible victims
of Stanton's vindictive anger— John in hiding, hunted as a con-
spirator, Isaac somewhere in Texas or Mexico.
Yet, it is doubtful whether threats of any kind were needed
against Anna Surratt. Even if her mother knew some damaging
secrets, the danger was small that she would share them with her
daughter. In the first place, Mrs. Surratt, deluded to the last day
that she was to go free, would not have broken her silence before
then; and when she might have talked it was too late. Prostrated
and feeble, she could not have talked coherently. Morever,
would she have confided in a mere child? Anna was a girl of
seventeen; her examination by the officers of the War Depart-
ment had revealed that Mrs. Surratt had not even discussed
ordinary household affairs with her daughter. If Mrs. Surratt,
i4° Chapter VII
contrary to all evidence, had been of the conspirators, she proba-
bly would have died before letting her daughter know of it.
There remained the three lawyers who had defended Mrs.
Surratt— Reverdy Johnson, John W. Clampitt and Frederick
Aiken. They all must have spoken to her during the trial and
they could not be successfully hooded, hanged, or deported to
a far-away island. Unless their silence could be assured, all other
precautions were wasted.
Reverdy Johnson was an elderly senator from Maryland, a
veteran of the bar, and considered one of the foremost legal
talents of his day. He had been Attorney General of the United
States in 1849. His name had appeared in the famous New
Almaden Mine case. He had confronted Lincoln and Stanton
in the contest over the McCormick reaper patents. He had de-
fended General Fitz-John Porter before a court-martial and had
then crossed swords with Joseph Holt who, as Judge Advocate
General, now opposed him as head of the government prosecu-
tion against Mrs. Surratt. Reverdy Johnson was on a par with
the best of them and stood, at least in prestige, head and shoulders
above the other defense counsel. Johnson would dig down to
the roots of the case, and no one would dare interfere. There
was only one way to separate him from his client: to pry him
loose from the case altogether and, if possible, to do so on the
first day of his appearance in court. Up to that time not much
harm could have been done, for the alleged conspirators had not
been allowed to engage counsel until the trial was about to start.
Johnson declared in court during the opening session that he
had met Mrs. Surratt for the first time the day before. 24
The incredible happened. The proceedings had scarcely
opened when General Hunter, the presiding officer, arose in all
The Silencing of Mrs. Surratt H 1
his dignity and read an objection by one of the judges, General
T. M. Harris, to the presence of Reverdy Johnson, on the
grounds that the latter did not recognize the moral obligation of
an oath. This referred to a controversy which had risen in 1864,
when the State of Maryland had called a convention and John-
son had advised his constituents to take the prescribed oath, al-
though he questioned the right of the convention to impose it.
Mrs. Surratt 's attorney, stung into fury by such an open insult,
hit out at his assailants with full force. Asserting first that his
advice "could not be tortured by any reasonable man into any
such conclusion," he quickly changed from defense to counter-
attack. Who gave the court jurisdiction to decide upon the
moral character of the attorneys appearing before them? and
what did his own moral standing have to do with the case on
hand? Supposing he did not recognize the validity of an oath,
what authority had the court to rule him out?
But, he continued, his oath was still considered valid before
the Supreme Court of the United States. It would be singular if
he could appear before the highest tribunal of the land and not
before a court-martial. And as a last shot he reminded his hearers
that he was a member of the United States Senate, the very body
which created the laws that make judges, generals and courts-
martial.
The court thereupon lifted its objection to Johnson's presence,
although with ill grace. Johnson, however, in spite of having
won his argument, at once withdrew from the case, unaccounta-
bly, indefensibly. He had no moral right to abandon his client,
no matter how badly he had been treated. After establishing his
rightful position in courageous and effective fashion, he suddenly
collapsed. His action can neither be understood nor condoned
on any known grounds.
That the challenge to Reverdy Johnson had its origin in
General Harris's own mind is improbable. Harris was a West
H 2 Chapter VII
Virginia physician and had been engaged in the field on October
7, 1864, the day on which Reverdy Johnson gave his opinion
to the Maryland voters. 25 He would scarcely have taken an in-
terest in constitutional problems of another state. Moreover, as
a physician he would not likely be intrigued by finely drawn
legal questions.
On the other hand, the Judge Advocates were bound to have
kept themselves posted on this matter, being lawyers, profes-
sional politicians, and residents of Washington. The suspicion
that they were behind this maneuver is strengthened by the dec-
laration of General Hunter, president of the military commission,
that if General Harris had not raised the objection he would
have done so himself. Evidently, the War Department was de-
termined to have Reverdy Johnson insulted by either one judge
or another. All members of the commission were army officers
and in the habit of obeying orders.
It has been said in Reverdy Johnson's defense that his alterca-
tion with the military court had damaged his usefulness to such
an extent that he would have been more of a liability than an
asset to his client. This argument is unsound. All the defense
attorneys took a terrific tongue-lashing throughout the trial, but
none left their posts; that they were more assets than liabilities is
proved by the fact that four of the eight accused escaped the
death penalty. But against the mere supposition that he had
antagonized the military judges to the point of retaliation against
his client, Reverdy Johnson should have realized that his deser-
tion left Mrs. Surratt in the hands of two young men who were
no match for the wily Holt, supported by the able Bingham and
the seasoned Colonel Burnett. Clampitt was just twenty-four
years old and had been admitted to the bar only the year be-
fore. 26 Aiken was even younger than his partner. The trial
showed the one-sidedness of the legal battle. Cross-examina-
tions were not conducted with the thoroughness they de-
The Silencing of Mrs. Surratt H3
manded; slips made by the prosecution went unnoticed, and
finally, in the absence of Johnson's imposing presence, the at-
torneys for the accused began to squabble among themselves.
Mrs. Surratt herself felt that she was no longer properly de-
fended after Johnson's defection. In the midst of the trial, she
sent a message to Frederick Stone, who was representing Doctor
Mudd and Herold, and begged him to take charge of her inter-
ests also. "It was from her own sense, plain as that," wrote Stone
later, 27 "that Mrs. Surratt felt she was being sacrificed by the
incapacity of her counsel. She then made the appeal for help, but
the man to whom she made it had double work already . . . Mrs.
Surratt," Mr. Stone added in recollection of these tragic days,
". . . had two men named Aiken and Clampitt, neither fit to de-
fend a case of that importance. . . .
"I think that Mrs. Surratt could have been saved with proper
counsel . . ."
Another defense counsel, William E. Doster, going a step
further, thought that Reverdy Johnson's withdrawal was a direct
blow against Mrs. Surratt's chances.
"I cannot help believing," he wrote, "that Johnson's absence
during the rest of the trial had a bad effect on his client's cause,
on account of the conclusion drawn by many, that he had given
up her case." 28
Mr. Stone was still more scathing in his comments on Johnson.
"He came forward," he said, "and made an argument against the
jurisdiction of the military court, to be read and applauded by
the people, and then abandoned the woman."
The sympathies of the Maryland Senator for the prisoners
ceased abruptly when the case was concluded. John T. Ford
engaged Johnson's services for his former stage carpenter, Ed-
ward Spangler, who had been sentenced as a conspirator, after
the Supreme Court in the Milligan decision of 1866 had declared
trials of civilians before military commissions illegal. Mudd's
1 44 Chapter VII
relatives did likewise in behalf of the imprisoned physican. But
Johnson accomplished nothing for his clients on the Dry Tortu-
gas; he probably tried his best legally, but beyond that he did
nothing to ameliorate their deplorable condition. Yet, his politi-
cal intimacy with the President got him almost anything he
wanted otherwise. In March, 1867, for instance, after voting
against the President's wishes, he calmly requested the appoint-
ment of his son-in-law as United States Attorney for Maryland.
"This," the President remarked, "was about as cool a piece of
assurance as he had ever witnessed." 29 The usually fastidious
Secretary of the Navy referred to Senator Johnson as an "old
political prostitute . . ." All of which did not in the least hurt his
further advancement. In the spring of 1868 the President ap-
pointed him minister to the court of England, an honor generally
conceded to be the richest plum within the power of the Chief
Executive, and ordinarily offered only to those deserving of ex-
ceptional gratitude.
The danger of having the accused conspirators talk to their
attorneys was ever present, but not much opportunity for
private intercourse was given them. Samuel Arnold in his recol-
lections does not mention any consultation with his legal repre-
sentative at all. 30 One of the defense lawyers avowed that
"The prisoners . . . could only communicate [with their counsel]
sitting in chains, with a soldier on each side, a great crowd sur-
rounding them, and whisper through the bars of the dock . . ." 31
Mr. Stone, another counsel for the defense, confirmed that the
military commission had established a rule that none of the
accused could talk to their legal representatives in confidence.
The account he gave of his only interview with Mrs. Surratt
shows that the government did spy on the privileged talks be-
tween the prisoners and their lawyers. "There was a soldier in
the room," he recalled, "and General Hartranft, . . . seeing the
The Silencing of Mrs. Surratt H5
counsel come into the room shook his head at the guard, in-
timating for him to go out. Hartranf t, without saying a word or
nodding his head to the prisoner and counsel, then retired to the
distant end of the room and looked out of the window, thus
keeping the letter of the severe law but relaxing its spirit." 32
The letter of what severe law, one would like to know? Was
there ever a law which forbade free and private speech between
persons tried and their legal protectors? If Stone was grate-
ful for General Hartranft's gentlemanly behavior, he had com-
pletely forgotten that there were constitutional rights which
would have made such personal favors unnecessary.
At any rate, the impression one gains is that under the pre-
cautions taken to prevent confidential speech between the
accused and their lawyers, neither Reverdy Johnson, nor Clam-
pitt, nor Aiken, could have obtained much information from the
woman prisoner.
If Reverdy Johnson's rising political influence after his with-
drawal from the case has any significance at all,— and there is no
proof that it had— the government must also have taken some
steps to protect itself against subsequent disclosures on the part
of his junior associates. But here all investigations came to a
hopeless halt. There appeared to be no way of tracing the
careers of these two young and inconspicuous Washington at-
torneys after the conclusion of the trial.
Then a lucky accident brought to light a Chicago newspa-
per 33 of March 23, 1897. I* 1 lt there was an item with a tantaliz-
ing headline: "Proofs Go In Fire. . . . Colonel John W. Clam-
pitt's . . . Residence . . . Burned Down." John W. Clampitt.
Could it be that Mrs. Surratt's lawyer had at last been found? A
quick raid on old newspaper files revived a forlorn hope. It was
really the former Washington attorney whose house had been
destroyed in a Chicago suburb. Together with all his belongings,
H 6 Chapter VII
the conflagration had consumed his library and a manuscript in
which he had set out to prove the innocence of Mrs. Surratt. Yet,
there was nothing in any of the reports to show that the govern-
ment had made any efforts to muzzle him, and in his interviews
Clampitt gave no hints that anything like it had been attempted.
There remained only a single clue. One of the reporters had
remembered that Clampitt was the author of the well-known
book, Echoes of the Rocky Mountains. From it was gleaned
some interesting information. Clampitt had been hired by the
government in i86j to go out West. The safety of the over-
land mail service had been endangered by desperate marauders,
and the marshals of the territory affected did not seem anxious
to assist the Post Office Department. "And so it became neces-
sary," wrote Clampitt, 34 "that someone should give his whole
time ... to this matter ... I was gratified . . . when in-
formed that I had been chosen . . ."
Then some misgivings came to the young attorney. "I must
confess, however," he reported, "that ere my departure . . . my
ardor was somewhat dampened when one day, upon visiting the
postoffice department ... I beheld a remnant of the bloody
clothing of a special agent who had just been murdered by the
Indians . . ."
It was August 13, 1867, when the government engaged its
erstwhile opponent, and he left for Utah in September. The day
of the appointment is intriguing.
On August 10, 1867, the trial of John Surratt had come to a
close. The whole Surratt affair was at everyone's tongue. Father
Walter had been on the stand and had intimated that Mrs. Sur-
ratt had been judicially murdered. The unsavory conspiracy
trial might easily have again become the topic of the day. But
Clampitt could not have become the center of any controversy.
By the time the verdict in the John Surratt case was being dis-
cussed by the public, Clampitt was on his way West; for three
The Silencing of Mrs. Surratt H7
years he stayed thousands of miles away from Washington and
then settled in Chicago.
There remained now only Frederick Aiken, Clampitt's asso-
ciate. If Clampitt had been removed from the opposition ranks
by way of a government position, Aiken could not have been
left out in the cold. If the government needed Clampitt's serv-
ices, it also needed those of Aiken. An investigation of Wash-
ington payroll sheets furnished the answer. On May 23, 1867,
Aiken was appointed a clerk of the first class in the office of the
Third Auditor of the Treasury. His appointment, so the rec-
ords show, was recommended by Andrew Johnson, President of
the United States; and a clerk in the Treasury Department Mr.
Aiken remained until he resigned on April 1, 1869.
Summarizing the evidence, what is there to show? Mrs. Sur-
ratt was promised clemency and was deluded at the last moment;
her execution followed the sentence within one day; she was not
allowed to proclaim her innocence in public; the attending priest
was admonished to keep quiet; her lawyers were not allowed to
converse with her in privacy; the leading attorney abandoned
his client and later was rewarded politically; two junior lawyers
who might have been indiscreet were given government
positions.
Further historical research should determine whether these
facts are more than just a series of bizarre coincidences.
the city formore^mrtrtwo weeks.
MBS. SUBBATT'S COUNSIIi.
Mrs. Subbatt's counsel are now both in Gov-
ernment offioes. Aiken is in the Treasury De-
partment, and Clampitt has just been appointed
a8peciaIAgent of the Post-office Department
for Utah, Montana and other localities.
AT
An item in the New York Times of August 15, 1867.
VIII
* \/ *
BEHIND THE SCENES
OF THE
CONSPIRACY TRIAL
i. What Counsel for the Defense Remembered.
2. The Prosecution Presents Its Side.
3. Two Judges Review the Case.
4. As the Court Reporters Saw It.
5. Colonel Wood Speaks Out.
1 he trial of those whom the government held guilty for
Lincoln's death was held before a military court which had been
appointed by Presidential order. Major General David Hunter
presided, and there were eight other members, of whom Gen-
eral Lew Wallace and General T. M. Harris are best remem-
bered.
The prosecution was in the hands of Judge Advocate Gen-
eral Joseph Holt, to whom had been assigned two assistants,
Congressman John A. Bingham and Colonel H. L. Burnett.
Eight defendants were on trial for their lives, Mrs. Surratt, Dr.
Samuel A. Mudd, David E. Her old, George A. Atzerodt, Lewis
Paine, Samuel Arnold, Michael O'Laughlin and Edward Spangler.
Mrs. Surratt was defended by Senator Reverdy Johnson of
Maryland and two young Washington attorneys, John W.
Clampitt and Frederick Aiken. Doctor Mudd was represented
by Frederick Stone and Thomas Ewing, Jr.; Mr. Stone also took
care of David E. Her old's defense, while Atzerodt and Paine
had engaged a former provost marshal named William E.
Doster. Counsel for Arnold and Spangler was General Ewing,
and O'Laughlin was represented by Walter S. Cox.
Of the defendants, Mrs. Surratt aroused the greatest interest.
The key witness against her was the former friend of her family
and boarder at her house, Louis Wiechmann, and it was his testi-
mony which told most heavily against her.
The trial lasted from May 12 to June 30, i86j, and ended in a
verdict of guilty for all the accused. Mrs. Surratt, Paine, Herold
and Atzerodt were condemned to death and were hanged on
July 7. The remaining four were sentenced to prison, Spangler
for six years, the others for life.
While the daily press printed fairly complete reports of the
trial, much of what went on behind the scenes of the great drama
was not told and probably will never be told. Yet, some actors
and some spectators left behind them memories which permit
fleeting glimpses into what lay hidden behind the performance —
VIII
Behind the Scenes of the
Conspiracy Trial
1
What Counsel for the Defense Remembered
JOHN W. CLAMPITT, senior member of the firm of Clam-
pitt and Aiken, of Washington, D. C, and one of the at-
torneys for Mrs. Surratt, remained convinced to the end of his
life that his client had been murdered by judicial decree. Fifteen
years after the trial he gave public utterance to this thought. In
his opinion none of the so-called conspirators had been given a
fair chance for his life.
"The state of the public mind was such," he stated, "that the
desire for revenge had taken the place of justice, and, for a time,
a reign of terror prevailed. In the words of the New York Her-
ald, 'a thirst for vengeance seemed to have taken possession of
every soul. It was felt that some one ought to be hanged, and
there was a disposition to begin upon the first available
person.' " 1
Mr. Clampitt told how Judge Wylie had issued a writ of
habeas corpus in behalf of the condemned woman, how it had
been defied by General Hancock, who was backed by President
Johnson, and how the Chief Executive had refused to see any-
one in Mrs. Surratt's behalf. Together with Miss Surratt, the
151
i5 2 Chapter VI 1 1
young lawyer then had implored Judge Holt to intervene, if not
for mercy, then at least for a three day respite. ". . . the Judge
Advocate General agreed to meet us at the Executive Mansion
at a given hour. We reached there at the appointed time. He
had gone before us, and was just emerging as we came.
"He said: 'I can do nothing. The President is immovable. He
has carefully examined the findings of the Commission, and has
no reason to change the date of execution, and you might as well
attempt to overthrow this building as to alter his decision.' " 2
In 1883 a reporter for the New York Tribune journeyed
through the southern counties of Maryland. His enterprise
brought to light the reminiscences of another defense lawyer
who had battled in the conspiracy trial. 3
"Among the persons I visited," he wrote, "was Judge Frederick
Stone who belongs to one of the most honored families in the
state. . . . The present judge . . . was a Southern sympathizer
in the war, but he lived to regret the Rebellion as a work of
folly, and to throw his efforts into the line of progress and liber-
ality. Mr. Frederick Stone was the counsel for Dr. Samuel
Mudd as well as for David G. Herold . . .
"Said my informant above: 'Revueing the trial of the conspira-
tors against President Lincoln's life, I have to say that, consider-
ing it was a military court, it was a fair court and one of ability.
Judge Holt, the Advocate General, was a very able man. The
Court was courteous toward the defense. ... It was manifest
to me from the start that this court meant to find guilty any per-
son connected with the murder or the intended murders, but
they only meant to imprison or to give lighter punishments to
accessories and those playing the spy or in the abduction plot.
. . . The court very nearly hanged Dr. Mudd. His prevarications
were painful; he had given his whole case away by not trusting
even his counsel or neighbors or kinfolks. It was a terrible thing
o 5
>* -8
h
H 2
> b
Q ".?' Q
fa- fell X
•5! ^* H
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial i 5 3
to extricate him from the toils he had woven about himself. He
had denied knowing Booth when he knew him well. He was
undoubtedly accessory to the abduction plot, though he may
have supposed it would never come to anything. He denied
knowing Booth when he came to his house when that was pre-
posterous. He had been even intimate with Booth. The procla-
mation of the Government was straightforward, that death
should be the penalty of any man who could give information
about the convicts and would not do it. Yet Dr. Mudd was
saved, and it is understood that the vote stood five to four. One
more vote would have hanged him, as two-thirds of a court-
martial is necessary to allot the death penalty.' "
In reading this statement one would hardly suspect that it
came from the mouth of one who once had sat with counsel for
the defense. The bitterest opponent of Doctor Mudd could not
have shown stronger prejudice. "Dr. Mudd was a well-balanced
man," Stone added gratuitously, "of very slight force of char-
acter, but little moral courage, a petulant temper, and it is hard
to denote his ability anywhere. . . ."
If Mr. Stone had kept himself posted on current history he
would have known that Doctor Mudd, a delicate man of great
nervous sensibility, had borne his tortures on the Dry Tortugas
with a courage that was extraordinary; and in what position was
Stone, a lawyer, to pronounce judgment on Mudd's ability as a
physician? When the exiled practitioner had taken charge of
the fever-infected island, he had instituted measures which had
shown not only medical but also executive ability of a high
degree.
All this was a matter of record when Stone, who may have
been influenced by political considerations, granted his inter-
view to the New York Tribune. His judgment, based largely
on surmise, divulges a lamentable lack of generosity. 4
154 Chapter VIII
One attorney who undertook to defend two real conspirators
was William E. Doster. A major in the Fourth Pennsylvania
Cavalry in 1862, he had been assigned to the duty of provost
marshal of the city of Washington 5 and as such had shown
considerable pluck and independence of spirit. At one time he
had come into violent collision with the notorious detective
Colonel L. C. Baker who had preferred several charges against
Doster, one of which was connivance in smuggling liquor to the
army. Doster was able to prove that the liquor pass on which
this charge rested was a forgery. The result was that the War
Department gave him orders to arrest Baker and some of his
underlings. A few of the latter were apprehended, but Baker
escaped by avoiding his usual haunts. "Baker himself could not
be found," Doster reported, "but . . . [he] ever afterwards left
me in peace." 6
On May 12, 1865, after the conspiracy trial had opened, Dos-
ter was drawn into it as counsel for Paine, the man who had
assaulted Secretary Seward and the members of his household.
Doster was already representing George Atzerodt, the German
boatman, and was asked by Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett
to take Paine's case too, "as he had about as much of a chance
to get off, as the other, that is— none at all." 7
As proof that the court itself could be equally callous, Doster
cited this instance:
After the argument in behalf of Payne was submitted, the court ad-
journed for lunch. During lunch one of the members of the com-
mission remarked, "Well, Payne seems to want to be hung, so I guess
we might as well hang him."
Doster remembered other handicaps under which the defense
had been forced to labor. 8 "The prosecution had had a month,
assisted by the whole war power of the Government ... to get
its evidence into shape. The prisoners did not receive their
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 1 55
charges until the day the trial opened . . . Had counsel been
closeted with the prisoners for weeks [instead of having to com-
municate with them in open court and on the spur of the mo-
ment], with the charges in their hands and the war power of
the Government at their disposal, the odds might have been
more even.
"Counsel were . . . only tolerated. . . . they were sur-
rounded by bayonets and seated in a penitentiary. Every paper
they read abused them. The judges could not be challenged.
. . . The names of witnesses were not given the prisoners.
Tendencies, not facts, were admitted. The court, not knowing
anything about the rules of evidence, ruled out practically every-
thing the judge advocates objected to and admitted everything
the counsel objected to."
Doster claimed that many of the witnesses were detectives in
government pay. The judges themselves were under direct juris-
diction of the Executive. The alleged crimes of the defendants
were not defined by any known rules of law but were vaguely
termed offenses against the "common law of war".
"Under these distressing circumstances," remarked Doster,
"there was nothing to do except what lawyers have often tried
before, but which no one to my knowledge has done success-
fully during the war— plead to the jurisdiction [of the court]."
Reverdy Johnson wrote out the argument. It was immediately
rejected by the commission. "From what members of the court
have since told me," Doster said, "it had no effect on them what-
ever. They had Stanton's orders, and that was enough for
them . . ." 9 To appeal to soldiers with a legal document had
been about as sensible, Doster thought, as asking the Supreme
Court to decide on a question of strategy.
Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham's answer to Johnson's ar-
gument on the legality of the tribunal was calculated to find a
ready response from the military judges.
156 Chapter VIII
The members of this Court are officers in the army of the United
States, and, by order of the President, as Commander-in-Chief, are
required to discharge this duty . . . But this Court has no power,
as a Court, to declare the authority by which it was constituted null
and void ... is it possible . . . that any body of men, constituted
... as a tribunal . . . can sit in judgment upon the proposition that
they are not a court . . . ? Why not crown the absurdity ... by
asking the . . . members ... to determine that they are not men
1 10
No wonder the officers followed this line of reasoning. Had
they been swayed by the plea of the defense and dissolved the
tribunal as unconstitutional, they would probably have been
summarily dismissed from the service and might themselves have
become victims of a court-martial. To entertain an appeal to
the jurisdiction of the court as "the only hope", as Johnson had
expressed it, was farcical.
According to Doster, he acquiesced in Reverdy Johnson's
plea, not for what it would accomplish with the military com-
mission, but for the effect it might have on public opinion;
". . . it was meant for the President and the people," was his
explanation. 11
Although more than half expected, the overruling of John-
son's argument resulted in great discouragement among counsel
for defense. "This was practically the end of my case," Doster
admitted, "as far as any show of legal defense was concerned.
The rest was firing pistol shots against siege guns— two men in
irons against a dozen major-generals, with a swarm of detectives
within the penitentiary and a division of infantry outside."
The defense of Paine, who had made up his mind to die and
who considered the trial a waste of time, was made still more
difficult by the young giant's refusal to cooperate with his law-
yer. "During the first two weeks of the trial," Doster reported,
"I could get nothing out of Payne either as to his previous his-
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 1 57
tory, or as to anything he might have to say in his own defense,
or as to whether he wished to be defended at all. During all this
time I knew very little more of him than the public generally,
and not near as much as the prosecution, and was in great doubt
whether to explain his conduct by lunacy, unparalleled stupidity,
or fear of prejudicing his cause by communications with his
counsel. . . ." 12
Later Paine told his lawyer that he had changed his name from
Powell to Paine, not from fear of the Federal authorities, but
because he had been a member of Mosby's rangers and had de-
serted. The plan to enter Seward's house under the pretext of
bringing medicine had originated with Herold, who had been a
drug clerk at various times. The most interesting of the pris-
oner's revelations was this: Booth had not told even Paine what
his plans ivere until 8 o'clock on the evening of the assassination.
Doster received a letter from Paine's father after the trial in
which the latter made the astounding statement that at the age of
twelve his son had chosen religion as his profession and had lived
a pious life up to the time of his enlistment. 13
Speaking as a lawyer, Doster summed up the case for Paine by
saying: "the fact remains that the prisoner was never connected
directly with a conspiracy to kill A4r. Lincoln and legally could
be found guilty only of an assault and battery on Mr. Seward,
with intent to kill— a penitentiary offense." 14
Doster was pessimistic about his second client, George A.
Atzerodt. "There was nothing about this prisoner's appearance,"
he admitted, "to win favor with a court of military men. He
looked demoralized and low." 15
The defense of Atzerodt was not made easier by the conduct
of his family. One of his brothers and a brother-in-law were on
158 Chapter VIII
the staff of Provost Marshal McPhail of Baltimore. "The whole
family," Doster remarked, ". . . were much troubled, between
the desire to prevent being complicated with the guilt of George,
and the desire to help him out of his scrape. They all appeared
to be constitutionally of a vacillating and irresolute frame of
mind. The effect of this situation and temper of his relatives
made his defense more difficult still. I scarcely knew whether
they wanted him acquitted or convicted." 16
Atzerodt told his counsel the same story which he had con-
fessed to Marshal McPhail of Baltimore and to Captain Munroe
of the Montauk. He maintained that Booth had confided the
assassination plot to his associates only two hours before the
time set for it. Atzerodt would have had ample opportunity to
kill Vice President Johnson had he chosen to do so. That he
did not carry out his part was the prisoner's main defense, and
he could not understand why this should not secure his release.
Besides, he placed great reliance on the efforts of his family to
see him saved; but when Doster appeared in front of the White
House on the day of execution to seek mercy for his client, he
saw none of Atzerodt's relatives there.
A noteworthy fact which Doster discloses, but which does not
appear in the official record of the trial, is that he subpoenaed
President Johnson as a witness for Atzerodt's defense. 17 He in-
tended to prove that the President had been at home all evening,
that his hotel-room door had been open, and that therefore his
assassination would not have been a difficult task. Johnson did
not appear, and another subpoena was issued. Thereupon the
President sent word that he did not intend to obey the sum-
mons, but suggested that ex-Governor Farwell 18 of Wisconsin
be examined instead. Farwell had hastened to the Vice Presi-
dent's room immediately after the assassination. The former
governor was duly put on the witness stand, but testified that he
thought the door ivas locked and that he had to rap repeatedly
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 159
to gain admittance, thus testifying de facto against the prisoner,
although called as a defense witness.
Counsel had not pressed the President too hard, for he could
not afford to irritate the man who could pardon his client.
Yet, Johnson did not pardon Atzerodt, while the testimony
given by Farwell added to the odds against the accused.
Doster also revealed that he had subpoenaed two other inter-
esting characters— Booth's mistress, Ella Turner, "a rather pretty,
light-haired, little woman," 19 and the actor's brother Edwin.
The testimony these witnesses were expected to furnish was that
Booth had always exercised an unusual influence over weaker
minds. Edwin Booth came to Washington, but said he probably
knew less of his brother than anyone, not having had much to
do with him for years. Miss Turner was dismissed without being
put on the stand. The defense wisely concluded that she would
not be of any particular help, but might do harm instead.
Atzerodt did not meet his eventual fate as manfully as Paine
who, on his way to his death, would "stop occasionally and as
he did so would look around on the spectators with a calm but
haughty expression." 20 Atzerodt, on the other hand, "during the
period that elapsed between his sentence and execution, . . .
oscillated between a condition of moaning stupor, kneeling, and
crying, 'Oh! Oh! Oh!' and again begging in piteous accents to
know whether there was no hope at all. It was heart-rending
to see." 21
Mr. Doster added a few remarks on Herold, although the
young drug clerk was not his client. He described him as the
most reckless and boyish of the party who "seemed considerably
pleased by the attention he attracted. He was frequently calling
one or the other of the counsel to him to make suggestions that
160 Chapter VIII
were puerile. When the defense of Mrs. Surratt appeared to be
making out a tolerable case in her behalf ... he appeared jeal-
ous . . . and said: 'That old lady is as deep in as any of us.'
This, however, was stoutly denied by Payne and Atzerodt, who
constantly and repeatedly stated that Mrs. Surratt was entirely
innocent . . ." 22
The young attorney also reported an incident which none of
the contemporary papers printed. "After the execution I
hurried out of the arsenal in front of which a big crowd was
standing and shouting, 'Judicial murder!'" 23 Public sentiment
evidently was not so one-sided as it has been generally pictured.
Doster expressed respect for his opponents Judge Holt and
Colonel Burnett, whose conduct he considered courteous and
moderate throughout; but for Bingham, Paine's counsel showed
scant admiration. Among his confreres, he alluded to General
Ewing, who subsequently settled in New York, acquiring emi-
nence in his profession, and to Mr. Cox, who later became judge
of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia and, by a
curious irony of fate, was called upon to try Guiteau for the
assassination of President Garfield.
Finally, Doster indulged in a speculation as to what would
have been the probable fate of the defendants in the conspiracy
trial had they been tried in a civil court.
"Payne would either have been acquitted, on the ground of
insanity," he concluded, "or, if convicted, would have been
sentenced to a long term in the penitentiary. Atzerodt would
probably have been convicted, but would have received a light
sentence. Herold would have been convicted and sent to the
penitentiary for a long term. Arnold, Spangler, and Mudd
would have been acquitted. Mrs. Surratt would have been con-
fronted again with the testimony of her tenant Lloyd and her
boarder Weichmann, who turned State's evidence to save their
necks, and the court would have been obliged to charge that
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 161
they could believe these witnesses only as accomplices if they
were corroborated.
"With the previous good character of defendant, the jury
would probably have regarded Mrs. Surratt's declarations as
those of an embittered Southern woman, and nothing more, and
acquitted her." 24
2
The Prosecution Presents Its Side
Of the three prosecutors in the conspiracy trial only one,
Colonel Henry L. Burnett, has left reminiscences concerning
that event. His superior, Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt,
merely defended himself against the accusation of having with-
held from President Johnson the court's recommendation to
spare Mrs. Surratt's life. Only once did Holt depart from his
policy of silence, and that was when he entertained the well-
known writer George Alfred Townsend at his Washington
home. Townsend, then writing under the nom de plume of
Gath, published their conversation in the form of an interview,
and the Washington Republican reprinted it in condensed form
on December 17, 1883, under the heading "About Mrs. Surratt."
"I think," Judge Holt was quoted as saying, "that she was the
master spirit among them all. She was a woman of unusual nerve,
and also of unusual intelligence. During that trial her behavior
was firm ... I believe that she kept those men up to their work
—that Booth himself was inferior to her in purpose. . . . Mrs.
Surratt . . . gave shelter to the others, she went out and found
board for them, she drove the carriage out to her tavern where
the arms and accessories had been hidden within a few hours of
the crime. I consider her the center of the conspiracy. . . .
"There was a young man by the name of Weichmann in that
1 62 Chapter VIII
trial . . . who had known her long. In addition to the evidence
which he gave at the trial, he told some very singular things.
Booth came to Airs. Surratt's house the day of the assassination
... I have never doubted that Booth imparted to Mrs. Surratt
at that time the information that he meant to kill Mr. Lincoln
. . . that night."
This article caused Holt to address Townsend in angry words.
"I clipped the enclosed from the Republican of this morning,"
he wrote, "and read it with surprise. Had you given me the
slightest reason to believe, or suspect even, that you intended to
make public the conversation which I was led to hold with you
a few days ago at my own fireside, I would not have opened my
lips to you on any subject— least of all in relation to Mrs. Sur-
ratt, on whose account I have suffered so much malignant def-
amation from the licentious press of the country— you have
treated me badly, & such journalism, I consider utterly un-
fair . . ."*
It is surprising that Townsend's article should have so aroused
Holt's wrath. The former judge advocate may never have used
the actual words quoted by the New York writer, but they cer-
tainly portray with fair accuracy his official attitude at the con-
spiracy trial. In fact, had he then entertained different ideas, he
could not logically have led the prosecution. No doubt, Holt
felt aggrieved that he had been indiscreet enough to emphasize
the alleged intimacy between the assassin and Mrs. Surratt.
Holt's allegation "that Booth imparted to Mrs. Surratt at that
time the information that he meant to kill Mr. Lincoln . . .
that night" was mere assumption on his part; to mention the in-
cident at all showed what importance the officials had attached
to it. 2
So far as is known, Holt entered no denials to the factual state-
ments attributed to him by Townsend.
£ .5
< 5
a: 2
< 1
o *
H
ci
H
~
U
£
o
w
^
1
£
g
H
M
1
2
J
£
H
oi
£
w
_o
ffi
05
5.
O
/
~
~
1*1
«
3
DC
U
d
H
►4
u,
en
><
W
fc
05
O
ac -
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 163
Holt's other assistant, John A. Bingham, wrote some letters in
support of his former colleague and collaborated with General
T. M. Harris in his Assassination of Lincoln. Possibly, he even
wrote the chapter referring to Father Walter; but no other
comments of his have come to light.
The only one of the three prosecutors who was willing to
face public audiences with his recollections was Colonel Bur-
nett. Previous to the conspiracy trial he had been engaged in
other important cases for the government. In September, 1864,
he had acted as judge advocate against the Knights of the
Golden Circle and similar organizations, and immediately after-
ward he had entered upon the trial of the Chicago conspira-
tors, among whom the unfortunate English Colonel, St. Leger
Grenfel, was the most prominent. 3 While making his closing
argument in this case on April 17, 1865, Burnett received a
dispatch from the Secretary of War, directing him to report
immediately to Washington to aid in the examination, and later
in the prosecution, of those suspected of Lincoln's assassination.
Colonel Burnett, in a paper read before the Ohio Society of
New York on April 18, 1892, complained bitterly about the
treatment meted out to him and his associates in 1865 by a hostile
public. "For this trial," he said, "and especially for the trial and
execution of Mrs. Surratt, that portion of the press and the per-
sons in sympathy with the late rebellion indulged in most bitter
denunciations of the court; the judge advocates; General Hart-
ranft, who was in immediate command of the detail having the
prisoners in charge, and who carried into execution the sentence
of the court; and of General Hancock, who was in command
of the military forces in and around Washington. No falsehood
was too extravagant to be imagined, stated and believed." 4
On one occasion Burnett was passing along a Cincinnati street
when a lady bowed and greeted him with a smile. A gentleman
standing nearby turned to her and said, "Do you know who
1 64 Chapter VIII
that is you have just bowed to?" "Oh yes, very well," she re-
plied. "Well," was the reproachful rejoinder, "do you know
that he hung Mrs. Surratt with his own hand, and smiled as he
came down from the scaffold?" 5 Colonel Burnett had left Wash-
ington two days before the execution and felt deeply hurt at
this accusation.
The former assistant judge advocate emphasized that "the
whole power of the government was put at the service of the
accused and used unreservedly by their counsel to bring from
any part of the United States any witnesses they might desire."
He noticed during the trial that one or two of the hastily gath-
ered lawyers for the accused apparently did not have their
hearts in the cases they were handling. "Some of the counsel
. . . ," he remarked, "seemed to be as much convinced as the
court of the guilty participation of the rebel authorities at Rich-
mond
Colonel Burnett related how thoroughly the whole country
had been stirred up by the Surratt case. Not only the defense
attorneys, government prosecutors and military judges, but even
General Hancock, in command of the military forces of Wash-
ington at the time of the trial, became the object of public cen-
sure. In 1 87 1, when the general's name was mentioned as a
Presidential possibility, fierce attacks were loosed on him.
"He did his duty like a stolid serving-man through the war,"
a leading St. Louis paper wrote; ". . . he distinguished himself
equally as a federal zealot. It was General Hancock . . . who
declined to interfere with the order of the court-martial sentenc-
ing Mrs. Surratt to death. It was he who became himself party
to one of the most inhuman crimes ever perpetrated in the name
of justice." 7
This analysis of Hancock's conduct is eminently unfair.
Nevertheless, his connection with the hanging of a woman con-
tinued to haunt him in future years. When nominated for the
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 165
Presidency by the Democratic party in 1880, the old charges
were still hurled at him.
Judge Advocate General Holt tried for the rest of his life to
escape the responsibility attached to his part in the affair. In
1873 he referred to the efforts which had been made to stay the
proceedings by a habeas corpus, ". . . the object of which was,
and the effect of which would have been, had it been obeyed,
to delay the execution of Mrs. Surratt at least until the questions
of law raised had been decided by the civil courts of the District;
yet this writ was, by the express order of the President, rendered
inoperative. . . ." 8
It is evident that in 1873 the shrewd prosecutor of Mrs. Sur-
ratt felt uncomfortable. Instead of explaining his own conduct,
he preferred an attack on ex-President Johnson as his best
defense.
After the Presidential campaign of 1880, the memory of the
conspiracy trial died down for a few years. By 1888, however,
its spectre rose again. Holt, by that time a lonely old man, was
still fighting against the imputation that he had willfully sup-
pressed a recommendation for mercy in Mrs. Surratt's case, and
in 1889 he was successful in enlisting the support of Colonel
Burnett who defended his erstwhile colleague before the Loyal
Legion. 9
In 1894, Joseph Holt died, and at last the excitement caused
by the execution of Mrs. Surratt began to subside. But in 1895,
the historian David DeWitt revived it once more with his impas-
sioned plea, The Judicial Murder of Mary E. Surratt.
The execution of Mary E. Surratt is the foulest blot on the his-
tory of the United States of America. . . .
It was unconstitutional. It was illegal. It was unjust. It was in-
humane. It was unholy. It was pusillanimous. It was mean. And
1 66 Chapter VIII
it was each and all of these in the highest or lowest degree. It re-
sembles the acts of savages, and not the deeds of civilized men. 10
By that time there were none left who could or would answer
this outburst. Thirty years had passed since the execution. Most
of the important actors in that drama of a former generation
were dead; the remainder were either in sympathy with Mrs.
Surratt's champion, or else too old and indifferent to rekindle
the dying embers of an event which had brought but little glory
to anyone.
3
Two Judges Review the Case
Twenty-seven years after the conspiracy trial, General T. M.
Harris, one of the military judges, wrote a book on the case in
which he had taken so important a part. 1
"Owing to a variety of causes," he stated in his preface, 2 "the
facts connected with this most important event in our nation's
history have been slurred over and obscured. Scarcely one in a
thousand of our people to-day have any knowledge of their
existence."
There were specific reasons which prompted Harris to write
his book when he did. Efforts had been made spasmodically, he
stated, to prejudice public sentiment against the government by
intimating that Mrs. Surratt, one of the parties executed, had
been a victim of judicial murder.
"It appears that the time has come," General Harris wrote,
"when a clear, concise history of this conspiracy and trial
should be given to the world. To this task the writer has ad-
dressed himself, and he offers this volume as the result of his
labors." 3
General Lew Wallace in 1893
(Courtesy of Harper & Brothers, New York.)
Major-General David Hunter
(From the author's collection.)
• ..■.-., .-.■
General T. M. Harris
(It. C. Hand it Studios, Washington, B.C.)
Benn Pitman, Chief Reporter
(L. C. Handy Studios. Washington, D. C.)
Three of the Military Judges and the Chief Reporter at the Conspiracy Trial
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 167
The evidence adduced at the trial led General Harris to be-
lieve that Booth and Surratt were agents of the Confederate
government. He pictured them traveling through the southern
portion of Maryland, bent on securing confederates who would
conceal them or assist them in their flight. In this way they had
found Doctor Mudd. General Harris also asserted that numer-
ous parties, whose names had never been made known, had taken
active parts in the conspiracy. In his opinion, Booth had known
all the time that the assassination would take place in Ford's
Theatre and therefore had made himself at home there. The kid-
naping attempt in March Harris rejected as absurd. "I con-
clude," he wrote, "that the real purpose . . . was to murder the
President . . ." 4
It is difficult to abstain from adverse criticism of Harris' book.
His glaring inaccuracies cannot be excused, especially as they
tend, without exception, to aggravate the case against the pris-
oners. To enumerate Harris' errors would be an arduous task;
a few examples will serve to illustrate his bias.
General Harris intimates that Spangler had assisted Booth in
the preparation of the theatrical box, and states that from the
door leading to it "the screws of the fastenings had been
drawn . . ." 5
The testimony of Thomas J. Raybold (an employee at Ford's
Theatre) at the conspiracy trial should have left no room for
doubt on this matter. 6
I know of the lock on the door of . . . the President's box . . .
being burst open ... On the 7th of March ... I went ... to
. . . the President's box ... I could not find the keys ... I put
my . . . foot against it [the door] close to the lock, and with two
or three kicks it came open. ... I do not know whether the lock
1 68 Chapter VIII
was ever repaired after I burst it open. ... I frequently entered the
box afterward, and always passed it without a key.
Doctor Mudd is accused by the soldier-judge of having sent
Booth and Herold to Captain Cox's house: ". . . as quickly as
it could be done . . . Mudd got rid of his dangerous charge
by sending them by an unfrequented route to the house of his
friend and neighbor, Samuel Cox . . ." 7 No testimony what-
ever was introduced at any time which would justify this charge.
It is purely imaginary.
Another instance: Doctor Merritt, a witness against Jefferson
Davis, had given damaging testimony against the former Presi-
dent of the Confederacy. Harris comments, "that he did thus
voluntarily, and without compensation, furnish valuable informa-
tion to the government . . ." 8 In 1866, Merritt had confessed
that this statement had been fabricated; as to compensation, he
had accepted six thousand dollars from the government. 9 Yet,
in 1892, Harris still found it in his heart to write that ". . . his
[Merritt's] credibility was not assailed. He was a self-consti-
tuted secret service man, working without compensation, and
so entitled to all the more honor." 10
Notwithstanding his dogmatic opinions, General Harris con-
sidered himself an honest chronicler. When he had finished his
chapter dealing with Mrs. Surratt, he lent the manuscript to
Wiechmann, who made some changes.
"Mr. Weichmann has taken the liberty of making several
changes . . . that I can not accept," wrote General Harris to
his friend Bingham. "In giving the account of Payne's first
meeting with Mrs. Surratt he makes me say that Payne ap-
proached her and addressed her in a whisper . . . Now this I
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 169
suppose is a fact known to Weichmann but he did not bring
it to you when on the stand and so I can't use it . . ." 11
After which protest Mr. Harris nonetheless incorporated
Wiechmann's afterthoughts in his volume. 12
No matter how one may look upon Harris' book, it cannot be
regarded as an historical document by the most generously in-
clined interpreter.
It is a matter of regret that General Harris did not report his
personal experiences during the trial, the deliberations which
went on behind the scenes, the pro's and con's between the
judges, while the fates of the accused were being weighed in the
balance. Such intimate details as these would have been a real
contribution to the history of the case. Instead, his volume is a
mere repetition of the official transcript, interspersed with inac-
curate and inimical aspersions, and therefore almost worthless.
That Harris' book was written in a fighting mood rather than
in one of reminiscence is the more deplorable as no other member
of the commission has left any memoranda of the trial. General
Lew Wallace wrote an autobiography, but died before he
reached the part dealing with this phase of his life. Wallace
had been much impressed by Wiechmann, for whom he ex-
pressed unveiled admiration. "I have never seen anything like
his steadfastness," he declared. "There he stood, a young man
only twenty-three years of age, strikingly handsome, intelligent,
self-possessed, under the most searching cross-examination I have
ever heard. He had been innocently involved in the schemes of
the conspirators, and although the Surratts were his personal
friends, he was forced to appear and testify when subpoenaed.
He realized deeply the sanctity of the oath he had taken to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and his tes-
timony could not be confused or shaken in the slightest detail." 13
During the progress of the trial, when General Wallace was
bored with the proceedings, he busied himself sketching mem-
i7° Chapter VIII
bers of the commission, distinguished spectators that thronged
the court, and even the prisoners themselves, all except Mrs.
Surratt. General Wallace had seen her face but once, when she
raised her veil for identification. 14 The sketches of the prisoners
may still be seen at the General Lew Wallace Study in Craw-
fordsville, Indiana.
About General Wallace's good faith and independence of
spirit there can be no question. He had proved both when he
had presided over a military commission in 1863, " to investigate
. . . the operations of the army under . . . Major General D.
C. Buell ... in Kentucky and Tennessee." The then Judge
Advocate, Major Donn Piatt, had given the judges to understand
that the commission was " 'organized to convict'; meaning," as
the officer understood it, ". . . that Secretary Stanton and Gen-
eral Halleck were desirous of getting rid of General Buell, and
had selected us to do the work."
It speaks well for the character of Wallace and his tribunal
that this suggestion achieved the opposite effect. ". . . it left
Major Piatt stripped of respect," he wrote; ". . . every member
of the commission was thereafter upon his guard." 15
General Wallace never doubted that full justice had been
meted out to the conspirators by himself and the other members
of the commission, and to his last day professed gratitude that
he was allowed "to be an instrument in the hands of God to
avenge the death of Abraham Lincoln." 16
4
As the Court Reporters Saw It
The conspiracy trial was reported by a staff of stenographers,
or phonographic reporters, as they were called in those early
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 1 7 l
days of their art. At the head of them was Benn Pitman, who
was then conducting a school in Cincinnati, and to whom fell
the duty of compiling and editing the official report of the trial.
Pitman was a man of unusual intelligence. Born in England in
1822, he assisted his brother, when only fifteen years old, in
perfecting the latter 's system of phonography. In 1853 he set-
tled in the United States and became chiefly engaged in report-
ing, although his inventive genius asserted itself by the discovery
of a new process for producing electrotypes. Of his many books
on shorthand, The Manual of Phonography, published in 1855,
was the most popular. The government engaged his services in
several important court proceedings, some previous to the con-
spiracy trial, as in the treason trials in Indianapolis, and some
after, as in the prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan. 1
Pitman's personal interest in the conspiracy trial moved him
to attempt the preservation of some historical relics connected
with it. On June 13, 1865, while still working in the capacity
of chief reporter, he wrote a letter 2 to the Rev. Phineas D.
Gurley, Lincoln's pastor, in order to prevent Barnum from
getting Booth's hat, for which that enterprising gentleman had
offered fifteen hundred dollars.
One object I have in view in making this suggestion, as to the
most fitting disposition of these national relics, is to prevent any of
them getting into the hands of any vulgar, mercenary showman.
What steps, if any, Mr. Gurley took to preserve various items
mentioned as being in Pitman's office is not known. They are
not now among the relics in possession of the War Department.
About the year 1900, Pitman published some reminiscences in
a Cincinnati paper which gave his own impressions of the famous
trial of 1865. 3
Some of my reporting experiences during the war [so the recollec-
tions read] were of so abnormal a character that they will probably
17 2 Chapter VIII
never recur in the experience of an American phonographer.
Looked at from this point of time it would seem a little romantic and
very un-American for a reporter to ride from his office to his daily
duty at court, in a special conveyance, driven by a United States
soldier, and followed by an escort consisting of two mounted cav-
alrymen, with clanking swords and carrying loaded Winchester
rifles, and all to guard the reporter and the transcription of the pre-
ceding day's testimony from possible violence and mishap. Yet this
was my experience at Washington in the spring and summer of 1865,
during the trial of the assassins of President Lincoln. . . .
My duty for several weeks consisted of writing the narration of
those who knew anything of the facts connected with the assassina-
tion, or with the previous plottings to abduct the President; also as
to the alleged implication of the chiefs of the Confederacy at Rich-
mond and in Canada, and further as to the alleged attempts to intro-
duce infected clothing into the Union army and the attempted de-
struction of United States buildings, vessels, etc. Most of those who
were examined were held as witnesses at the trial. Sometimes the as-
sistant Judge Advocate, Colonel, afterward General, H. L. Burnett,
conducted these preliminary examinations; at other times they were
left wholly to the reporter. I wrote as the witnesses talked, but with
constant reminders to avoid irrelevant matters, with such hints as
"Well, never mind that; tell us about so and so." These narratives
were generally briefed on the same day for the use of the Secretary
of War, Mr. Stanton, and the Judges Advocate who were to con-
duct the trial.
My duties commenced at 9 o'clock in the morning, and I rarely
left the War Department until between 10 and 1 1 at night. A regis-
ter was kept at the entrance door, and every person, from the Secre-
tary of War to the humblest clerk entering the department,
registered his name and the exact time of day. The registration was
repeated at each person's exit.
At the trial of the assassins over four hundred witnesses were ex-
amined. The proceedings on the busy days required the services of
six reporters, among whom were the experts, Dennis F. and J. J.
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 1 7 3
Murphy, reporters of the U. S. Senate; R. R. Hitt, R. Sutton and
Edward V. Murphy. When fewer witnesses were examined I re-
ported the entire proceedings. Two press copies were taken of the
transcribed notes by the old-fashioned letter press. Two intelligent
privates from the army were detailed to assist me in making the
press copies. The original formed the court record, one copy was
kept at the War Department, and the other was afterward confided
to the writer for the compilation and publication of the proceedings
of the trial, and was published by the authority of the Secretary of
War, the Honorable Edwin M. Stanton, making an octavo volume
of over four hundred closely written pages.
The whole trial was conducted on the theory that the assassination
of the President and the attempted assassination of Wm. H. Seward,
was the culmination of an organized conspiracy, in which John
Wilkes Booth and the eight prisoners who were tried were the active
participants; and that Jefferson Davis and other chiefs of the South-
ern Confederacy at Richmond and in Canada, were the instigators
and leaders. Subsequent events have shown that the assassination of
President Lincoln was suddenly determined upon by Booth on the
14th of April, when it was known that the President would attend
the performance at Ford's theater that evening. ... It is now well
known that the leaders of the Southern Confederacy had no knowl-
edge of the intended conspiracy and had no communication, what-
ever, with the actors in the tragedy. Some time after the war I
chanced to meet Mr. Jefferson Davis on a Mississippi steamboat, and
the leisurely ride afforded occasion for a good deal of interesting
talk. When Mr. Davis found I had been connected with the as-
sassination trial and held no prejudice against him personally, he
was affable and communicative on the subjects respecting which I
had a right to inquire. I was fully confirmed in my opinion that the
assassination of President Lincoln was entirely without his knowl-
edge or sanction or that of his immediate advisers.
In his reminiscences, Pitman devoted much space to Mrs. Sur-
ratt, who had aroused his profound interest.
174 Chapter VIII
Among my most vivid recollections of that memorable trial are,
first, the patient, pitiful, now hopeful, now despairing, resignation of
Mrs. Surratt. That Mrs. Surratt knew of the intentions and plottings
of her son, Booth, and Atzerodt, to waylay and abduct the Presi-
dent, there can be little doubt; but that she was wholly innocent of
the crime for which she was hanged I have never changed my belief
since I compiled the last page of my book.
The reporter's sympathy included the other prisoners also,
and he recorded the interesting fact that four of them still were
encased in canvas bags when they entered the courtroom with
"their heads and faces hooded, leaving only breathing space at
the mouth and nostrils." It was, he declared, "a picture never
to be forgotten."
One of the assistants mentioned by Pitman, Edward V.
Murphy, also has left behind his memories and impressions. 4
"The work of reporting the trial itself was extremely ardu-
ous," he told an interviewer many years later. "There were no
typewriters in those days and carbon paper was unknown; there-
fore the reporters worked from 9 o'clock in the morning, when
the court met, until late in the evening taking testimony, and
from late in the evening until 5 o'clock the next morning tran-
scribing it. It was also necessary to make another copy besides
the official transcript for the National Intelligencer, which
printed the testimony verbatim. . . .
"One of the deepest impressions left upon me by that ordeal
is that, were I ever to be tried for any crime, I should most
earnestly wish for a civil and not a military court before which
to plead. Another point which I recall, and which shows, I
believe, the prevailing attitude of the court, was that every
objection made by counsel for the accused was summarily over-
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 175
ruled, while all objections made by the Government prosecutors
were sustained without question. 5 I am thoroughly convinced
that, had the trial been conducted before a civil court rather
than a military commission, the chances are largely in favor of
but two of the conspirators, Payne and Atzerodt, ever having
been sentenced to death."
Of Mrs. Surratt's innocence Murphy was firmly convinced.
"Mrs. Surratt was a woman of most exemplary life and char-
acter," he said, "a mother devoted to the care and welfare of
her children, and a devout Christian. Every action of her life
cries out against her complicity in Lincoln's murder and against
'the deep damnation of her taking off' on the purchased and
perjured testimony of two interested and discredited witnesses."
Both Pitman and Murphy comment at length on Louis J.
Wiechmann, the star witness for the prosecution and in many
ways a man of mystery.
"A dramatic incident connected with this memorable trial,"
wrote Pitman, "has never yet been told. Among the seizures
of property that had been made at the house of Mrs. Surratt,
was a carpet sack belonging to one of her boarders, who was a
friend and had been a fellow-student of John H. Surratt. The
conduct and character of the young man who owned this sack
were subjected to most careful investigation, as were all who
resided in the house. With other like matters, the carpet sack
came to me for safekeeping, examination and report. In this
sack, to my surprise, I found copies of my 'Manual of Phonog-
raphy' and 'Reporter's Companion,' together with a quantity of
phonographic exercises. I particularly noticed that the exercises
were carefully written, and were dated continuously up to the
time of the great tragedy. These were significant facts in favor
i7 6 Chapter VIII
of the young man. I could not believe that a student who had
recently left college, and who was pursuing a study like phonog-
raphy, could in any way be cognizant of a conspiracy so danger-
ous. I soon had an opportunity of making the acquaintance of
the gentleman, and found him to be a young man of prepossess-
ing appearance, with a clear and placid eye, and a countenance
indicative of intelligence, modesty and conscientiousness. I com-
municated the fact to the Judge- Advocate, and laid stress upon
the fact that the study of phonography without a teacher,
save books, required considerable application, and necessarily
demanded the time, interest and energy of the student, and
that such a one would be a very unlikely person to have any-
thing to do with such a conspiracy. My suggestions received a
most careful consideration. The gentleman appeared as a witness
in the case, was on the stand three days, and passed through a
most trying ordeal unscathed."
Mr. Pitman's logic is questionable. Why should a volunteer
student of shorthand have been less a subject of suspicion than
an actor or a stage hand? And could their time not also have
been fully occupied?
Reporter Murphy had the advantage of a previous acquaint-
ance with Wiechmann.
"The principal witness against Mrs. Surratt was Lewis J.
Weichmann," he said. "He and I had been fellow pupils at the
Philadelphia High School. I came to Washington upon leaving
school, and about two years later met him. I recall vividly my
conversation with him, so far as its salient features are concerned.
He asked me to call, and thereupon launched into an account of
the family with whom he was staying. He extolled in the highest
terms the virtues and delightful character of the family, that of
Mrs. Mary E. Surratt, and added that the latter was so kind
and considerate to him that he venerated her as if she were his
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 17 7
mother. At infrequent intervals thereafter I met him on the
street, and upon all such occasions he would renew his invitation.
And this was invariably followed by praise of the family, and
particularly of its head."
Murphy had served as private secretary to Provost Marshal
General Fry while preliminary investigations regarding Lincoln's
assassination were being made, and in this capacity he had wit-
nessed a curious spectacle.
While engaged in this work in the War Department one Sunday
morning, I had occasion to visit the room assigned to Colonel Bur-
nett, who had been summoned to Washington to assist in the prose-
cution of the alleged conspirators. Seated in the room I observed
my old schoolmate, Weichmann, whom I at once cordially greeted.
Upon leaving I was followed into the corridor by Colonel Burnett,
who proceeded to question me about Weichmann, my relations with
and my knowledge of him. Amazed at the character of the examina-
tion, I inquired the reason. Colonel Burnett replied: "You will learn
in good time." The following morning in front of the White House
I saw Weichmann in manacles being escorted by an armed guard of
soldiers to the War Department. The next day I learned that he was
charged with being in the conspiracy to murder the President.
I saw nothing more of him until he was placed upon the stand as
a witness for the Government during the trial. I observed closely his
testimony and the manner in which it was given, and became con-
vinced that he was perjuring himself to save his own neck. When
the daily recess for luncheon took place, after Weichmann had been
on the stand all morning, he approached me and asked what I
thought of his testimony. I replied that I was satisfied he was falsely
swearing away the life of an innocent woman, whom he had re-
peatedly told me he loved as a mother, in order to save his own
worthless carcass, and that I would hold no further communication
with him.
After Mrs. Surratt's execution Louis J. Wiechmann was re-
warded with an appointment as clerk in the Philadelphia Custom
178 Chapter VIII
House. By the sheerest accident Murphy saw him there one
day and protested indignantly:
Passing through one of the offices in the Custom House during the
brief incumbency of ex-Governor Johnston of Philadelphia as Col-
lector, I happened to see Weichmann there. On reaching the
Collector's office I expressed my surprise to him. Having been in-
stalled in office but a short time previous, he had had no opportunity
to acquaint himself with the personnel of the staff. He was amazed
to learn that Weichmann had found lodgment there, denounced him
as a perjurer, and immediately sent a letter to Secretary of the Treas-
ury McCulloch removing Weichmann and nominating another in
his stead.
Several days later the recommendation was returned disapproved.
That very night the Governor went to Washington and appeared
next morning at the Treasury Department. There he saw McCul-
loch. "Mr. Secretary," he said, "one of two things must happen;
either Lewis J. Weichmann leaves the Philadelphia Custom House
or I do. Which shall it be?"
The Secretary tried to appease the Governor, telling him, among
other things, that Weichmann had been appointed on the personal
request of a Cabinet colleague, who might regard his removal as an
affront. Governor Johnston said he knew the Cabinet officer, who
did not hesitate to stoop to subornation of perjury, and still vehe-
mently insisted that he or Weichmann would have to leave. Weich-
mann was removed. Governor Johnston, however, failing of
confirmation by the Senate, which at that time rejected all nomina-
tions of the President, vacated the office. The old Collector was
reinstated and Weichmann was restored to his former position.
Mr. Murphy did not name McCulloch's Cabinet colleague
who had been so solicitous about Wiedemann's appointment and
"who did not hesitate to stoop to subornation of perjury".
In spite of his reinstatement, Wiechmann's clerical position
was not destined to be of long duration, for after two years he
was dismissed from the service.
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 179
Wiechmann apparently never gave up hope of getting back
into government employ. As time passed, he seemed to place
more and more value on what he considered his patriotic services
at the two trials of the sixties. In February, 1889, Mr. Bingham
received a request for help from his former star witness.
Hon. Jno. A. Bingham,
Cadiz, Ohio.
Dear Sir;
... I beg to enclose to you copies of recommendation as to the
manner in which I discharged my duties in the Philadelphia Custom
House.
Therefore, in appealing to you for assistance in the near future, I
feel that I have an honorable and consistent record to back me
up
Very respectfully yours,
L. J. Weichmann
Six years later, Bingham received another epistle from Wiech-
mann. This time its author referred to his "eminent services to
the country." On September 17, 1896, Wiechmann was heard
from again.
"You, more than any man alive today," he wrote to Bingham,
"are aware of the meed of praise to which I am entitled for the
sacrifices I made and for the work which I did in connection
with that great trial of 1865. . . . I have always felt that I
would like to have some brief expression from you in writing
as to what you think of the manner in which I performed my
duty to the country and of the reward to which I am en-
titled
It is not known what replies, if any, Wiechmann received to
these communications.
Mr. Murphy concluded by saying that Wiechmann "was un-
doubtedly aware of the conspiracy to abduct the President and a
i8o Chapter VIII
participant in it, although at the same time a clerk in the War
Department.''
In this harsh opinion the former reporter is borne out by
two other witnesses who knew Wiechmann well. Henri Sainte-
Marie, a young Marylander who betrayed his friend John Sur-
ratt when they met in Italy, wrote in a statement to Rufus King
at Rome, June 21, 1866: 7
I immediately went to the United States consul at Montreal, and
informed him what I knew about Surratt and Wiechman, and told
him that in my opinion I thought one was as guilty as the other, and
acted only through fear in selling his accomplice. . . .
On the tenth of July Sainte-Marie wrote again: 8
I was living . . . about twenty-five . . . miles from Baltimore
... I there and then got acquainted with Lewis J. Wiechmann and
John H. Surratt ... At that first interview a great deal was said
about the war and slavery; the sentiments expressed by these two
individuals being more than strongly secessionists. . . . Wiechmann,
who was in some department there [Washington], used to steal
copies of the despatches and forward them to him [Surratt], and
thence to Richmond.
John Surratt himself, in lecturing five years after the assassina-
tion, accused Wiechmann publicly of having been aware of the
abduction plot.
... he knew of the plot to abduct President Lincoln. I proclaim it
here and before the world that Louis J. Wiechmann was a party to
the plan to abduct President Lincoln. He had been told all about it,
and was constantly importuning me to let him become an active
member. I refused, for the simple reason that I told him he could
neither ride a horse nor shoot a pistol . . . Booth sometimes was
rather suspicious of him, and asked if I thought he could be trusted.
I said, "Certainly he can. Wiechmann is a Southern man." And I
always believed it . . . because he had furnished information for the
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 1 8 1
Confederate Government, besides allowing me access to the Govern-
ment's records after office hours. . . . 9
Wiechmann never presented his side of the case to the public,
although he contemplated doing so at one time after Clampitt,
counsel for Mrs. Surratt, had mentioned him unfavorably in an
interview.
"I recently enclosed you a newspaper cutting in reference to
the Mrs. Surratt case," he wrote in a letter to Bingham in 1895. 10
"... I think Clampitt's lies are not worth the slightest con-
sideration. If, however, in the future he attacks me personally
as is threatened, I will astonish him and everybody else by the
character of the defense I shall make . . ."
Everybody, it seems, harbored in his memory some secrets
never revealed before, not only the detectives and lawyers, but
even the witnesses. A year later Wiechmann intimated that he
had started writing the history "of that affair "; it was to be
published during his lifetime or after his death. "It will be writ-
ten," he assured his correspondent, "from the strict standpoint
of loyalty and truth."
But if Wiechmann wrote this history, it has never been found.
The court reporter Murphy had the unusual courage to make
a belated plea for the other victims to whom the infamous mili-
tary commission had dealt out such severe sentences.
Atzerodt and Herold, with Mrs. Surratt and Payne, were the
two others who paid with their lives for Lincoln's death. Atzerodt,
according to his own confession, knew nothing of the assassination
plot until two hours before it was carried out, and then refused to
have anything to do with it. And whether from fear or otherwise,
it is at least certain that he made no attempt to carry out his allotted
share in that plot— of killing Vice President Johnson.
1 82 Chapter VIII
That he had been in the plot to abduct the President there can be
no question, and had he been tried on that charge would have been
justly convicted. It is questionable, however, whether he should
have paid the price he did for the charge on which he was tried.
Most uninteresting of all the prisoners, Atzerodt had a stupid,
stolid look, indicating a low order of mental development, and a
total absence of any spirit that would have led to the commission of
any act requiring the slightest degree of courage or daring.
Herold seemed entirely unaware of the gravity of the situation in
which he was placed, or of the probable fate that was before him.
He had accompanied Booth after the murder, and was with him
when he was shot. According to the testimony he was a boy of light?
and trifling character.
To me it seems impossible that a man of Booth's attainments and
shrewdness would have confided his plans and plots to a creature so
irresponsible. Herold, however, was familiar with the roads and
had a large acquaintance among the people of that portion of Mary-
land through which Booth had planned to make his escape, so that
his use of the immature youth merely as a pilot would seem the far
more logical conclusion. Also it would be but natural for Herold to
have been highly flattered by being made the companion of a man
so eminent in the dramatic world as Booth and to become his willing
tool and slave. But he was not the stuff of which conspirators are
made. Booth himself, just before he died, said: "I declare before my
Maker that the man here is innocent of any crime whatever."
The former court reporter even found some kind words for
Edward Spangler, the forgotten man among the prisoners. The
happy-go-lucky stage hand had been dragged into the conspiracy
net by the fantastic statements of an irresponsible sergeant named
Dye and by vague accusations on the part of terrified and hostile
fellow employees. So far as Dye was concerned it was a clear
case of mistaken identity. Only the well-substantiated fact that
Spangler had never been seen with a mustache, while the tough-
looking lounger whom the young sergeant observed in front
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 183
of Ford's Theatre was bearded, saved this prisoner from capital
punishment or a lifelong prison term.
Spangler was a ne'er-do-well, a scene shifter in Ford's Theatre.
On the night of the assassination, when Booth dismounted from his
horse at the stage entrance, it was Ned Spangler whom he called to
hold the animal. In a few minutes, however, Spangler was sum-
moned to shift the scenes, and he, in his turn, called a boy named
Burroughs, known as "Peanut John," to care for his charge. . . .
Save for the fact that he held Booth's horse, the only other
evidence against Spangler was that upon hearing of the crime Booth
had committed, he exclaimed, raising his arm: "Shut up! Booth
didn't shoot him!"
But it must be taken into consideration that Booth, in his many
visits to the theatre, was in the habit of tossing a quarter to obscure
Ned Spangler; add to this the high position held by Booth in the
dramatic world, and it seems but natural that when his patron was
accused of such a heinous crime he should have attempted to defend
him.
On Dr. Samuel Mudd the reporter bestowed considerable
sympathy.
When Booth fled into Maryland, his first thought was for a phy-
sician, in order that his leg . . . might be set. Upon reaching the
locality in which Dr. Mudd lived, he sought his services, and the
physician, not having heard of the assassination, treated and splinted
the wounded limb. . . .
It was testified that Booth had made a trip through the section of
country over which he subsequently attempted to escape, under pre-
text of desiring to buy a farm, and that he called upon Dr. Mudd to
make inquiries as to the character of the land there. It was also
claimed that he had previously met the doctor in Washington. If
this was so, Dr. Mudd probably recognized Booth in the first in-
stance, and told the lie to shield himself. But he does not appear to
have had any connection whatever with the conspiracy.
184 Chapter VIII
The remainder of the accused Mr. Murphy remembered only
dimly.
I recall but little of the other two— Arnold and O'Laughlin— save
that the testimony against them was of the flimsiest character im-
aginable. Certainly neither of them committed any act warranting
life imprisonment, though they were probably for a time partici-
pants in the plot to abduct the President. The charge on which all
the prisoners were tried, however, was assassination, and not abduc-
tion. On the latter charge four or five of them might properly have
been convicted before a competent court having jurisdiction.
5
Colonel Wood Speaks Out
There was one man in Washington who probably had more
inside knowledge of Lincoln's assassination than anyone else,
more than the Bureau of Military Justice, more than Lafayette
C. Baker of the secret service, in fact, more than anyone except
the Secretary of War himself. This man was Colonel William
P. Wood. Erratic, picturesque, shrewd, but always intensely
human, Wood had been soldier, filibusterer and model maker.
Under Stanton's regime he had become superintendent of the
Old Capitol prison, one of Washington's most dreaded bastilles.
After the end of the war he was to achieve glory as detective
for the Treasury Department. 1 Under his gruff surface Wood
hid an intrinsically honest heart. By 1883 many of the principal
actors in the great drama of eighteen years before were dead-
President Andrew Johnson, Secretary Stanton, Chief of Detec-
tives Baker. It was then that Wood decided to speak out and
in a series of articles for the Washington Sunday Gazette 2 lift
the veil of secrecy under which some past events had lain hidden.
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 185
"This unfortunate lady," he began, speaking of Mrs. Surratt,
"was as innocent of any connection with the assassination of
President Lincoln as any of the officers who sat upon her
trial . . ."
Even in 1865 Wood had tried to help the widow of whose
innocence he had felt convinced. "During the trial of Mrs. Sur-
ratt," he wrote, "the writer was summoned and attended the trial
as a witness in her defence. It was well-known by the officers
of the Government that his purpose was to save the unfortunate
woman from death, if possible; but the conduct of the trial
showed conclusively that her execution was a predetermined
fact, and that any attempt to save her would be useless."
After the death sentence had been pronounced, Colonel Wood
did his best to have it rescinded. "The writer tried to gain access
to President Johnson," he related. "He sought admittance to the
White House both by the front and rear entrance, but was de-
nied admission. At the last attempt he was confronted by L. C.
Baker, who declared he had orders from Mr. Stanton that the
writer particularly should be excluded from audience with the
President, but he could not believe this possible until Baker ex-
hibited written instructions to that effect."
The relations between the detective Baker and the superin-
tendent of the Old Capitol prison had become strained during
the hectic days following the tragedy at Ford's Theatre, when
Stanton entrusted Baker with the pursuit of the assassins. The
reason for Stanton's preference was apparent to Wood. "The
Secretary of War," he explained, "knew my desire to save Mrs.
Surratt as I had promised, and Baker, who had heretofore been
under a cloud with Stanton, but who loomed up after the cap-
ture of Booth, caused Mrs. Surratt's removal from my charge at
the Old Capitol Prison ... In justice to other officers of the
War department it is proper to state here that there was no of-
1 86 Chapter VIII
facial of that Department connected with the matter who did
not protest against the course adopted with Mrs. Surratt."
Wood then slashed out at Wiechmann, the government's star
witness against Mrs. Surratt. "This corrupt scoundrel," he
wrote, "betrayed his official trust by compiling statistics and
information in the interest of the Confederacy, and using his
official connection as a cover he often went into southern Mary-
land with Mrs. Surratt to deliver his information.
"... Directly after the arrest of Mrs. Surratt, Weichmann
was arrested," Wood continued, "and to save [himself] from
imprisonment evidently gave such testimony to clear himself as
implicated this unfortunate lady with the conspirators."
Wood then expressed his opinion that the assassination plot
had been conceived spontaneously. He believed that there had
been no premeditated plan of assassination and that the action
of the conspirators had been taken upon the spur of the moment.
The whole time of the conspiracy had been less than thirty
hours. All the parties to it were rather insignificant characters,
and Booth, the leading spirit, appeared to Wood as of unsound
mind.
If these had been Wood's convictions as far back as 1865, it is
small wonder that he became persona non grata with Stanton
and the Bureau of Military Justice, whose successful prosecution
of Mrs. Surratt, O'Laughlin, Arnold and Doctor Mudd depended
on proof that the assassination had been decided on many weeks
previous to its execution. The two last named in particular had
not been in Washington for weeks, and it was not even asserted
by the government that they had been in touch with Booth dur-
ing that time. If the murder was a spontaneous affair, they could
only have been connected with the plot to kidnap, but not with
that of the assassination.
In return for certain information leading to Booth's place of
refuge, Wood wrote that he had promised Airs. Surratt's brother
Behind the Scenes of the Conspiracy Trial 187
to endeavor to prevent her execution. As a matter of fact, he
had really promised far more than a mere "endeavor to prevent
the execution of . . . Mrs. Surratt"; instead, he had made a
positive guarantee to save her, with the authority of the Secre-
tary of War behind him.
Eventually, President Johnson also learned of the promises
held out to Mrs. Surratt. Colonel Wood intimated that when
Johnson heard of Stanton's treachery toward the woman pris-
oner, he lost patience with his War Minister.
"President Johnson sent for the writer, and an explanation
was made in the matter . . . Shortly after August 5, 1867, John-
son requested the resignation of Edwin M. Stanton . . ."
An interesting part of Colonel Wood's story has no relation
to the trial itself, but deals with his relations to Secretary Stan-
ton. Wood served his former master faithfully to the end, and
describes a visit he paid to the latter's home on the day before
his death. Stanton was fearfully worried about the case of Mrs.
Surratt.
"In his broken-down and depressed conditon," Wood re-
ported, "he declared that he was haunted day and night by vis-
ions of the unfortunate woman, and that he could not live under
the pressure he was bearing . . ." And then the conversation
between these two men took an extraordinary turn; "... to
quiet him," said Wood, "/ assured him that no publication of
facts in the matter "would be made during his lifetime, and that
if I should die first the papers should be destroyed. This tempo-
rarily quieted him ... on the day following, his death was
publicly announced . . ." 3
The very crux of the mysteries surrounding Lincoln's death
may lie behind these few words. Unless Colonel Wood wrote a
deliberate lie, the implication is plain. The former superintendent
of the Old Capitol prison was in possession of hidden facts and
papers pertaining to Mrs. Surratfs death. The publication of
1 88 Chapter VIII
these facts was a vision which filled Stanton with terror. It may-
have been only the conscience of a dying man asserting itself
which caused this emotion; or else the death of the widow was
but one link in a chain of events which had to remain buried for
the sake of the ex- War Minister's peace of mind and reputation.
In view of the innumerable intrigues which dotted the life of
Stanton and the countless death warrants he had signed without
remorse, it is noteworthy that his last thoughts centered with
such disquietude on the comparatively unimportant conspiracy
trial and its most prominent victim. 4
IX
&
1n the background of the mysteries
which veil Lincoln's assassination, of the
iniquities of the conspiracy trial and. the
horrors of torturing the prisoners, hov-
ered the same sinister figure— that of War
Minister Stanton. After Lincoln's death,
Stanton became the most powerful man
in the country. For more than three years
he had built up a machine against which
resistance was hopeless. An army of se-
cret service men and provost marshals
was at his beck and call. He had installed
a censorship over the press which was
not less menacing because it was not
clearly defined. He controlled the tele-
graph wires and could order the court-
martialing of anyone who dared oppose
him. For a ti?ne following Lincoln's
death he was for all practical purposes
dictator of the United States; but even
long before then he had installed a veri-
table reign of terror throughout the
Northern states —
IX
Stanton ' s Reign of Terror
IN HIS vast arsenal of power Stanton had one weapon
which was formidable beyond any other: the military pris-
ons. Within their silent walls he could bury his enemies with no
fear of consequences. After Lincoln had suspended the habeas
corpus act— a writ guaranteeing a judicial hearing to anyone de-
tained against his will— those whom the military chose to arrest
could be held without recourse to the courts and even without
charges being preferred against them. Compared with such ab-
solutism, even Stanton's control of the telegraph and his influence
over the press dwindled into insignificance.
Stanton did not originate the idea of the arbitrary arrests— a
designation used eventually by advocates and opponents alike.
These seizures were already in vogue when he entered upon his
duties in Lincoln's Cabinet. On April 27, 1861, prior to the
assembling of Congress in July, the President had authorized
General Scott to suspend the privilege of habeas corpus at any
point on the line of troop movements between Philadelphia and
Washington. 1 By July 2, the line was extended to New York,
and on October 1 1 to Bangor, Maine. Without other authority,
Secretary of State Seward, who had somehow attached this pre-
rogative to his department, began to issue orders for the arrest
and imprisonment of persons suspected of disloyal acts or designs
in all parts of the country. Seward was quoted as having once
boasted to Lord Lyon, the British ambassador: "My Lord, I
191
19 2 Chapter IX
can touch a bell on my right hand, and order the arrest of a
citizen of Ohio; I can touch a bell again, and order the imprison-
ment of a citizen of New York; and no power on earth, except
that of the President, can release them. Can the Queen of Eng-
land do so much?" 2
On October 28, 1861, Secretary of State Seward authorized
General McClellan to suspend the habeas corpus act in Maryland
"and make arrests of traitors and their confederates in his discre-
tion." McClellan in turn delegated the power to suspend the
constitutional guarantees of American citizens to other subordi-
nate officers. 3 Thus the seeds for a reign of terror were carelessly
sown. They were soon to bear fruit of a most unwholesome
nature.
The military departments welcomed this addition to their
power, and even Generals McClellan and Dix, politically op-
posed to the administration, lent their willing support. Chief
Justice Taney of the United States Supreme Court filed an
opinion, however, to be laid before Lincoln, in which he denied
the right of the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus,
affirming that such power was vested in Congress alone. 4 But
Taney was suspected of Southern sympathies, and therefore
his judicial pronouncement was disregarded. On July 12, 1861,
the House of Representatives asked for a copy of Taney's opin-
ion, but took no further action. 5
Lincoln had suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus on advice of his Attorney General, Edward Bates. On
October 26, 1865, after the mischief caused by the suspension
had become history, Bates discussed this matter in his diary, 6
making an ingenious effort at defense.
"Some men," he wrote, "apparently, very sensible men too,
have, as it seems to me, very strange ideas about the Hab:[eas]
Corp: [us]— They seem to think that the suspension of the privi-
lege of the writ, confers upon the Government, (or the officers
Stanton's Reign of Terror 193
of the Government) the lawful power to arrest and imprison
whomsoever it will, and for whatever length of time it pleases.
This is a great error. . . . The most that can be accomplished
by the writ of Hab: [eas] Corp: [us] is the discharge of the pris-
oner from illegal restrai[n]t. It affords him no redress for the
personal wrong done to him . . .
"The suspension of the privilege of the writ . . . does not
suspend the privilege of the "writ of trespass. And hence, a man
illegally imprisoned and without the right to issue a writ of
habeas corpus, may, nevertheless issue his writ of trespass, and
recover damages against his unlawful jailer, while he is still in
prison. . . ."
If Bates had possessed a sense of humor, which he did not, one
might be tempted to consider this dissertation an ill-timed joke.
The military prisoners were hardly ever permitted to see a
lawyer, unless a trial was intended, which was infrequent; their
whereabouts were generally unknown to their families and
friends. The chief complaint of these victims of military law
was not the question of possible damages, but their incarceration.
Furthermore, any action against the "unlawful jailer" would
have resulted in quick reprisals.
When Stanton became Secretary of War on January 20,
1862, he immediately recognized the tremendous potentialities
of these arbitrary arrests. He had been in office only three weeks
when he had Lincoln transfer this power over the liberty of
citizens exclusively to the War Department. On February 14,
1862, the President issued Executive Order No. 1, signed by
the Secretary of War. In this lengthy document, evidently
composed by Stanton, many claims were set forth, a number
of them typically exaggerated: "The capital was besieged and
its connection with all the States cut off. . . . Armies, ships, . . .
were betrayed or abandoned to the insurgents. . . . The insur-
rection is believed to have culminated and to be declining. . . ." 7
i94 Chapter IX
Of course, Washington had not been besieged, no armies or
ships had been betrayed and the fortunes of war were then still
with the Confederates; but all that was really beside the point.
The meat of the kernel was well hidden in this cloud of ver-
bosity. It consisted of very few words.
. . . Extraordinary arrests will hereafter be made under the direc-
tion of the military authorities alone.
It was Stanton's first great triumph.
". . . Lincoln had seen fit to transfer the license of making ar-
bitrary arrests from the Secretary of State to the Secretary of
War," commented Senator Trumbull in later years. Then he
added thoughtfully: "The change was no betterment, however,
for, where Seward had previously chastised the suspected ones
with whips, Stanton now chastised them with scorpions. Arbi-
trary arrests became more numerous and arbitrary than before." 8
A commission of two members was created to examine the
cases of the "State prisoners", men who had been arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty under Secretary Seward's regime. Gen-
eral John A. Dix, who was appointed to the commission on
February 27, 1862, was amazed at what he found in these mili-
tary prisons even that early in the war. 9
"I was yesterday at Fort Wool," he wrote to General Mans-
field, on August 12, "and discharged a large number of prisoners
... I examined several of them, and am satisfied that they have
committed no act of hostility against the United States. That
they sympathize with the insurgents there is no doubt ... So
long as they continue quietly about their business they should
not be molested.
"The exercise of this power of arrest is at the same time the
most arbitrary and the most delicate . . . and it is one which
should not be delegated to a subordinate. I find that many . . .
were arrested ... on suspicion. This must not be repeated. . . ."
Stanton's Reign of Terror *95
A few days later, having received a reply to his letter, he sent
further instruction to General Mansfield.
In regard to arrests . . . there was at least one, and I think more,
for which there was not, in my judgment, the slightest cause. . . .
The arrests were made without your order . . . When Judge
Pierrepont [the other member of the commission] and I examined
the cases of political prisoners . . . from Washington to Fort War-
ren [Boston], we found persons arrested . . . who had been lying
in prison for months without any just cause. For this reason, as well
as on general principles of justice and humanity, I must insist that
every person arrested shall have a prompt examination . . . 10
Three months after General Dix had been appointed a mem-
ber of the investigating committee, he was suddenly transferred
from Baltimore to Fortress Monroe. General Dix was a highly
efficient officer and his transfer gave rise to much inquiry and
comment. 11 Dix's son opined that the order amounted to re-
moval from the command of a Department and assignment to a
mere army post. No official explanation for this demotion was
ever given. Could it be that Stanton had weighed General Dix's
humaneness and found it excessive? "The secret history of the
war," wrote Dix's son in 1883, "would give the explanation, but
this is at yet unwritten." So far as this incident goes, it is still
unwritten now, two generations later.
On September 24, 1862, Lincoln issued a proclamation giving
Stanton's promiscuous incarcerations his full backing. A storm
of protest followed. Former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin
R. Curtis, a native of Massachusetts and a strong Republican
partisan, asserted publicly that Lincoln had made himself a
legislator, had superadded to his rights as commander the powers
of a usurper, "and that is military despotism." Judge Curtis
had filed a minority opinion against Taney's Dred Scott deci-
sion in 1857 and was a man of undoubted loyalty and fine legal
19 6 Chapter IX
acumen. His judgment foreshadowed what the United States
Supreme Court would later announce by unanimous decision:
that these arbitrary arrests were illegal. 12 At the time Curtis'
pamphlet appeared, however, it exerted no lasting influence.
The day following Lincoln's decree, far-seeing Gideon Welles
remarked in his diary:
The President has issued a proclamation on martial law,— suspen-
sion of habeas corpus he terms it ... Of this proclamation, I knew
nothing until I saw it in the papers, and am not sorry that I did not.
I question the wisdom or utility of a multiplicity of proclamations
striking deep on great questions. 13
In the fall of 1862 Congress passed an act (which became a
law on March 3, 1863), directing the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of War "to furnish to the judges of the United States
circuit and district courts lists of political prisoners now or here-
after confined within their jurisdiction, and made it the duty
of the judge to discharge . . . those prisoners against whom the
grand jury . . . found no indictment. If the lists were not fur-
nished within twenty days, . . . relief was provided for any citi-
zen who suffered from the arbitrary action of the authorities."
No such lists were ever furnished to any court, so far as is
known. The law remained a dead letter throughout the war.
The relish for autocratic government had developed to such an
extent that, according to the diary of Salmon P. Chase, Secretary
of the Treasury, in September of 1863 the provisions of this act
were unfamiliar to all his colleagues in the Cabinet and even to
Lincoln himself. 14
In order to keep full control over his principal punitive
weapon, the Old Capitol prison, Stanton created a secret service
of his own, under the guidance of his devoted assistant, Peter H.
Watson. This Assistant Secretary of War had been a patent
Colonel William P. Wood
(Courtesy of the McCormick His-
torical Association, Chicago.)
The Old Capitol Prison.
(L. C. Handy Studios, Washington, D. C.)
Stanton's Reign of Terror 197
attorney in Washington and had been associated with his chief
in the unsavory McCormick reaper case. He was described as a
short, stout man, with red hair and beard. Under his direction
a system of secret police was organized, consisting of only one
man at first, but developing gradually into a regular force called
"National Detectives", commanded by Colonel L. C. Baker.
This army of about two thousand, of which Watson remained
the general commander, was a law unto itself. 15 Eventually,
Baker was appointed special provost marshal of the War De-
partment, which gave him practically uncontrolled power. The
Pinkerton detectives, who up to that time had played a part in
the secret service of the War Department, were discharged, and
Baker became the czar of his own realm, subject only to Stan-
ton's orders.
". . . this creation of a regiment of detectives could be ex-
plained by nothing except a growing spirit of absolutism in the
War Office," commented Provost Marshal William E. Doster,
whose own business at that time also was the arrest of the gov-
ernment's enemies, but to whom "the establishment of a special
prison . . . and the subjection of people to mental torture by a
thousand lawless characters, appeared entirely inexcusable. 16
"The great fault of this prison (and one for which the Secre-
tary is and ought to be blamed)," Doster continued, "was that
it operated like a rat-trap— there was only a hole in but no hole
out; in other words, plenty of provision for arresting people,
but none for trying them or disposing of their cases.
"Baker could arrest, the detectives could arrest, the military
governor could arrest, the provost marshal could arrest, the
Secretary and each of his two assistants could arrest, but none of
them could discharge without running great risk of getting into
trouble with some or all of the others. . . .
"General Wadsworth [Washington's military governor in
1862] felt this matter very keenly, and could never allude to it
i9 8 Chapter IX
without expressing his indignation at the Secretary's policy. . . .
The charges against the people incarcerated by order of the
Secretary were on file in the War Office, but neither I nor
the Governor were allowed, as a rule, either to see the prisoners
or to hear what was alleged against them. ,, 17
This minor provost marshal often wondered why Stanton
and Watson took a personal interest in such local matters as the
secret police, even going so far as to ignore the military governor
and department commander; "there was no honor or glory to be
gathered in such things by a Minister of War; on the other hand,
a great deal of odium," this officer mused. 18 It probably did not
occur to him that the secret service was a source from which
boundless power could be made to flow.
Some arbitrary arrests on the part of the military put Lincoln
into an embarrassing position. In 1863, Congressman Vallandig-
ham, legally elected, even though he was considered "the in-
carnation of Copperheadism", was taken into custody by General
Burnside for alleged treasonable utterances, tried by a military
commission in Cincinnati, found guilty, and sentenced to close
confinement in Fort Warren. Lincoln cleverly commuted the
sentence to banishment across the army lines and handed Val-
landigham over to his supposed friends, who were not overly
happy to receive him. The humor of this situation appealed to
the general public, friend and foe alike, but the President did
not escape violent criticism. Under the act passed March 3, 1863,
it would have been the duty of the Secretary of War to report
Vallandigham's arrest within twenty days to the United States
District Judge for Southern Ohio, with a full statement of the
charges, so that a jury might pass on them. According to the
law, any officer violating this act made himself liable to fine and
imprisonment. But no such report had been issued.
"The arrest of Vallandigham ... by General Burnside have
[has] created much feeling," Welles told his diary. "It should
Stanton's Reign of Terror *99
not be otherwise. The proceedings were arbitrary and injudici-
ous. . . . Good men, who wish to support the Administration,
find it difficult to defend these acts. ... I lament that our military
officers should, without absolute necessity, disregard those great
principles on which our government and institutions rest." 19
The intrepid Seymour, governor of New York, used still
stronger words of criticism. He denounced Vallandigham's
arrest as "an act which ... is full of danger to our persons and
our homes. If this proceeding is approved ... it is not merely
a step toward revolution, it is revolution. . . ." 20
When vehement protests from Northern Democrats were sub-
mitted to Lincoln, he defended Stanton's dictatorial actions with
great skill; but when a committee of the Ohio Democratic State
Convention held that ". . . the charge and the specifications on
which Mr. Vallandigham was tried entitled him to a trial before
the civil tribunals according to the express provisions of the late
acts of Congress approved by yourself . . . ," Lincoln was unable
to refute this indictment. His opponents retorted that his answer
was "a mere evasion of the grave questions involved," and Sena-
tor Trumbull of Illinois, a Republican who supported the Ad-
ministration, held that it was the only instance in Lincoln's
controversial writings, so far as he knew, where such a criticism
seemed justified. 21
The Supreme Court, when confronted with the necessity of a
decision in the Vallandigham case, adroitly sidestepped the real
issue. It stated that even if his arrest had been illegal, there was
no law by which it could entertain any appeal from a military
commission. 22 Eventually, the highest tribunal ended these illegal
practices of the War Department through its verdict in the
famous Milligan case. By that time, however, the war was over,
and the decision offered small consolation to those who had
lost their fortunes, their health, and often their lives during
Stanton's reign of terror.
200 Chapter IX
Carl Schurz, who had left Germany in 1848 to seek freedom
instead of tyranny, many years later devoted a few lines of his
autobiography to these arbitrary arrests. A champion of liberty
and a staunch admirer of Lincoln, he looked back on them in
doleful perplexity.
"The government was," he wrote apologetically, "under the
stress of circumstances, doing things highly obnoxious to the
fundamental principles of constitutional liberty. It incarcerated,
without warrant or due process of law, men suspected of aiding
the rebellion. . . . On the plea of urgent necessity ... it adopted
methods . . . familiar to despotic rule, and having a strange sound
in a democracy. . . ." 23
Of all the military strongholds under Stanton's domination,
the Old Capitol prison became the best known and the most
feared. It stood only a block away from the nation's capitol, yet
it became in the course of time the symbol of unlimited tyranny.
The prison derived its name from its use as a meeting place for
Congress, after the British had burned part of Washington in
1814. 24 When hostilities began in 1861, the government took it
over for use as a political prison. Soon it was crowded beyond
its capacity with political suspects, Confederate sympathizers,
spies and prisoners of war.
The day before Stanton proclaimed that he had taken over
the power of arbitrary arrests, he installed as superintendent of
the Old Capitol prison one of his most trusted lieutenants,
Colonel William P. Wood, with the result that when the decree
was issued the institution was ready to function under its new
management. 25
Congressman Albert G. Riddle of Ohio remembered Colonel
Wood as a "rough, uncultured man, despotic, but kindly na-
Stanton* s Reign of Terror 201
tured, and not intentionally harsh; yet how could he be other-
wise to men imprisoned for no defined offence, . . . who, when
discharged, were dismissed without explanation or compensa-
tion." 26
". . . he had a good heart," it was said of him by an otherwise
unfriendly critic, "when his better feelings were not thwarted by
his prejudices, and especially by his partisan failings. When the
dictates of humanity, and the interests of party conflicted with
each other, the struggle for mastery was often strong and violent.
The partisan generally had the best of it in the outset, but in due
time passion became gratified, reason asserted its influence, and
the finer feelings of the heart took possession of the man,
and directed his actions." 27
One of his former prisoners even looked upon the superin-
tendent of the Old Capitol prison with apparent admiration.
There are few men such as Col. Wm. P. Wood. He is a unique
figure . . . Whilst an avowed infidel, he practised the virtues of the
Christian religion; while he had no respect for man as man, ... he
adored nature and worshiped at her shrine. As a friend he never
wavered ... As an enemy he never sheathed his sword . . .
Nor was he without a sense of humor. On one occasion he
entered a room in search of a preacher. When an old parson
arose, Wood exclaimed,
"My God, who would ever take you for a preacher?"
To which the parson quickly replied,
"Well, ... I came very near taking you for a gentleman."
Everyone laughed, and none more heartily than the warden
himself. 28
As head of his bastille, Wood did his best to have the letters
of the inmates pass speedily through the censorship of the pro-
vost marshal, 29 and he exerted all his influence to furnish them
with suitable food. At one time General Mansfield, when mili-
202 Chapter IX
tary governor of Washington, gave orders that the prisoners
should be fed on side pork and hard biscuit, the worst that could
be procured. Mr. Wood remonstrated, saying that his charges
were not convicts, that they were under no sentence of any
tribunal, but were merely held to await a trial, and that most of
them were gentlemen.
The general thereupon exploded, and with an oath ordered
that his instructions be followed, for "they are all traitors, or
they would not be there." But Wood angrily stood his ground.
"The prisoners are just as good men as you are," he thundered
in the face of his superior, "and I'll be damned if they are not
going to have good bread while I am Superintendent of the Old
Capitol." He then made good his word by engaging bakers
near the prison to furnish the supplies that were needed. 30
The most astounding fact about Wood was that he alone, of
all Stanton's underlings, never bent his knee to the grim-looking
War Minister. On the contrary, Stanton seemed to stand in un-
holy terror of this subordinate. The story went the rounds that
Wood "was deeper in the War Office than any man at Wash-
ington, and . . . that Stanton was at the head of the War Office
and Wood was at the head of Stanton." 31
Together with this story, as told by Major Doster, went a
convincing sample of proof.
I remember once that rinding occasion to make some rule sanc-
tioned by the Secretary, and demanding obedience to it, Wood
refused contemptuously to carry it out, and on my applying to As-
sistant Secretary Watson for a special order to enforce it, Watson
told me that when the order giving Wood unlimited power in the
Old Capitol was issued, Provost Marshal Porter [in whose regiment
Wood had once served] came to the War Department one day fu-
rious with rage, saying his own orders had been contemptuously
rescinded by "that dog of a citizen Wood," whom he used to tie up
Stanton's Reign of Terror 203
by the thumbs in New Mexico, and on the ground that he was
amenable to no one but the Secretary himself, Porter demanded
Wood's instant dismissal from the post. Stanton heard him out and
then gave him the alternative either of being insulted by Wood or
resigning his commission. 32
According to Wood's own story, he was the only man whose
commission Stanton had ever written out in his own hand—
"Wm. P. Wood, Colonel of Cavalry." 33
It is not known why the austere, well-bred Secretary of War
let himself be led by this rough and ready soldier of fortune
whom he had appointed to an important position. Stanton used
to say, "I do not always give a reason, but I always have a reason
for what I do." 34 In this instance he did not see fit to reveal his
reason.
In 1865, Wood showed his independence of Stanton's wishes
by appearing as a defense witness at the conspiracy trial. 35 What
he said there was of no great importance. The significant fact
is that he had the courage to appear for the defense at all, know-
ing as he did that his action would be frowned on by the War
Department. There were major generals in Washington who
would not have dared to do this.
Wood had very little regard for the proprieties of the service.
He did pretty nearly as he pleased, knowing that the Secretary
of War would protect him. General Hitchcock, when acting as
commissioner for exchange of prisoners, once strongly objected
to Wood's independent ways. On his return from a semi-
espionage venture behind the enemy's lines, Wood was up-
braided for lack of discipline.
". . . you appear to have exercised functions not committed
to you," Hitchcock wrote him on February 7, 1863. ". . . you
were directed 'to proceed to Richmond ... for the purpose of
delivering exchanged . . . prisoners . . .' This paragraph covers
your authority and it does not empower you to enter into gen-
204 Chapter IX
eral negotiations with Confederate authorities, yet the copy you
furnish shows that you assumed that power . . ." 36
The probabilities are that when Wood received this castiga-
tion he snapped his fingers and continued to follow his own
whims and wishes.
General Hitchcock was not the only high officer to complain
about Wood's insubordination. During one of the superintend-
ent's visits to Richmond for the exchange of prisoners, General
John A. Dix was prompted to send this furious telegram to
Stanton: 37
FORT MONROE, October 31, 1862.
Hon. E. M. Stanton:
Mr. Wood is here and refuses to report to me though ordered to
do so. If he were a military officer I would put him in the guard-
house. As it is I send him on by the Baltimore steamer and with him
a man by the name of Woodall, formerly a detective in the service
of the rebels and probably so yet, as he is with Mr. Wood by their
permission. . . . Mr. Wood has also brought with him a clergyman
by the name of Conrad— a case which I think should be looked into
at Washington where he has been confined.
JOHN A. DIX,
Major-General.
Conrad was a well-known Confederate scout, and his associa-
tion with Wood certainly should have been "looked into." With
a hundred miles separating Stanton from his overbearing prison
superintendent, the War Minister gathered enough courage to
reply in words which may well have reflected his innermost
desire.
WAR DEPARTMENT, October 31, 1862.
Major-General DIX:
You should have sent Wood to the guard-house. When you think
any man deserves it "shoot him on the spot."
EDWIN M. STANTON,
Secretary of War. 58
Stanton's Reign of Terror 205
In less than a year the Old Capitol prison had become a
dungeon that was a nightmare to loyal and disloyal subjects
alike. People of all sorts suddenly disappeared and after a long
interval of fruitless search were found to have last been seen
entering Wood's stronghold. There no one could visit them, not
even the Provost Marshal General or the Military Commander
of the District of Columbia, nor could anyone discover why they
were there. Even feeble remonstrance against the incarceration
of these unfortunates was dangerous.
Wood often boasted of his skill as an inquisitor. His way
was, he said, never to approach his prisoners until solitary and
prolonged confinement had made them anxious to talk. Then
he would pose as a personal friend who could arrange a speedy
release, provided the suspect confessed. "In time," wrote
an officer, "the most innocent would acknowledge himself
guilty . . ." 39
Private conversations with friends were arranged and taken
down, and if no such friends were available, detectives who
feigned guilt were put into the same room with the prisoner.
In obstinate cases Wood did not hesitate to counterfeit testi-
mony. Horrors of the Old Capitol prison had only to be men-
tioned, and recalcitrant spirits were quickly subdued. The War
Minister showed his whip hand on many occasions, particularly
where gossip was bound to carry the threat into wide channels.
He was in the habit of doing his own marketing three times a
week, and could not forego such an opportunity to brag about
his power.
"Politics among the stallholders," wrote a contemporary ob-
server, "was of a divided kind, and the Secretary, who knew
how each of his purveyors stood, fashioned his gossip with them
accordingly. With the Confederate sympathizers he usually
assumed a bantering tone, wherein, however, he found oppor-
tunity now and then of enjoining a strict neutrality upon all but
206 Chapter IX
their tongues. His playful threats of incarceration in the Old
Capitol the garrulous ones were fond of repeating . . ." 40
One wonders if the humor of these playful references to the
dreaded cells was greatly enjoyed by Stanton's audience. The
War Minister's colored servant, "Old Madison," was less face-
tious in his implied threats to possible victims. If a visitor was
dissatisfied with the treatment he had received at the hands of
the Secretary, the servant took the stranger into the hallway,
gave him "a real good talking to," and if he still remained sullen
or combative, Madison made some mysterious allusions to the
Old Capitol prison. There was no further resistance. 41
At one time a provost marshal asked Stanton for an audience.
"I want a half-hour of your time to state my case," he said.
Stanton rose from his chair, and looking sternly at the unhappy
man before him, replied: "Do you know that I have put a man
in the Old Capitol Prison for demanding half an hour of my
time?" 42
This almost unbelievable state of affairs endured until Stanton,
in a spirit of unrestrained despotism, arrested an entire New
York State commission, charging the members with fraud (of
election rights of soldiers) and with conduct prejudicial to the
military service of the United States. The arrest took place in
the fall of 1864, but the roots of this strange story reached back
into the spring of that year.
In May, 1864, the entire staffs of the New York World and
of the Journal of Commerce had been thrown into Fort LaFay-
ette for falling victims to a hoax. 43 It had been a debatable case
which Lincoln had directed in person. After the release of the
prisoners, Governor Seymour of New York, aroused at the
high-handed methods of the Washington authorities, instructed
the district attorney of New York to start criminal proceedings
Stanton's Reign of Terror 207
against the local commander of the United States troops. In his
request for an indictment, Seymour stated the case succinctly:
If the owners of the above-named journals have violated State or
national laws, they must be proceeded against and punished by those
laws. Any action against them outside of legal procedures is
criminal.
But the grand jurors, with the threat of Stanton's prisons
hovering over them, reported that it was "inexpedient to ex-
amine into the subject." Thereupon the governor sent a scathing
letter to his district attorney.
. . . the Grand Jury, in disregard of their oaths . . . have refused
to make . . . inquiries ... As it is a matter of public interest that
violations of the laws ... be punished, ... it becomes my duty
... to take care that the laws of the State are faithfully executed. 44
On June 28 Judge Russell of the City and County Court
issued a warrant for the arrest of General John A. Dix and some
of his aides. Counsel for the defense at once announced that
Lincoln had ordered General Dix to disregard the process of the
court and not to allow himself to be arrested or deprived of his
liberty.
Secretary Welles, referring to a meeting of the Cabinet, made
a pointed entry in his diary. 45
The subject of the arrest and trial of General Dix in New York
. . . was brought forward. There was a little squeamishness with
some on the subject. The President very frankly avowed the act to
be his, and he thought the government should protect Dix. . . .
I expressed no opinion, nor did Blair or Bates. ... I regret that
the papers should have been suppressed or meddled with . . .
In the end, Welles arrived at the "hasty conclusion" that now
that things had come to this sorry pass, the trial of an officer by a
State judge for obeying an order of the President should not
208 Chapter IX
be permitted. "If there is a disposition to try the question before
the United States tribunals," he added, "it would be well to per-
mit it." But no such disposition existed on either side.
When Seymour heard of General Dix's defiance, he ordered
the district attorney to enforce the laws of the State regardless
of the President's order. In this head-on collision between State
and Federal authorities there could be, of course, only one out-
come. Judge Russell admitted his helplessness in the face of
superior force.
It is unnecessary for me ... to rehearse the facts of the case.
The defendants . . . place themselves under the protection of . . .
the Act of Congress of March 3, 1863 ... If that provision is con-
stitutional, it assimilates the President of the United States ... to
an absolute monarch . . , 46
This closed the incident. Underneath the surface, however,
the mutual antagonism between the Washington administration
and the Democratic governor of New York kept burning furi-
ously. As the November elections approached, Lincoln and
Stanton showed that they had not forgotten Seymour's display
of independence.
"The chief interest of the whole country [in the November
1864 elections]," reported Blaine, 47 "centered in New York. As
nearly as Mr. Lincoln was willing to regard a political contest as
personal to himself, he ... so regarded the contest between Mr.
Seymour and Mr. Fenton [the Republican candidate]."
In the meantime, Governor Seymour had appointed Colonel
Samuel North, a distinguished citizen and former magistrate of
Otsego County, head of a commission which was to aid soldiers
of his state who were in Washington. His assistants were Major
Levi Cohn of Albany, an employee in the office of the Pay-
master General of New York, and Lieutenant M. M. Jones of
Utica, who had helped raise a company of volunteers and had
Stanton's Reign of Terror 209
fought in the second battle of Bull Run. The appointment of
this commission, one of whose duties it was to facilitate the col-
lection of the Democratic soldiers' votes, was in conformity
with a recently passed New York State law. The Republicans
made similar arrangements for the benefit of their party. A
Washington office was opened for the State of New York, and
Colonel North with his men entered upon their duties.
On October 27, 1865, a few days before the Presidential elec-
tion, the War Department suddenly issued an order for the ar-
rest of the three New York State commissioners and the seizure
of all papers at the agency and at their homes, including their
private correspondence. They were thrown into prison, without
being informed of the charges against them, as was the custom
in all such cases. When Governor Seymour heard of this out-
rage, he appointed three prominent citizens of New York to
investigate. They found the commissioners in Carroll prison,
where they had been "confined together in one room, and had
not been permitted to leave it for a moment during the four
days they had been prisoners, even for the purpose of answering
the calls of nature. . . . They had no vessel out of which to drink
water, except the one furnished them for . . . urination. They
had but one chair, . . . had not been permitted to see a news-
paper, and were ignorant of the cause of their arrest. All com-
munications between them and the outer world had been denied
them . . ." 48
When the accused were arraigned, the course of events fore-
shadowed the proceedings that were to disgrace the annals of
American jurisprudence at the conspiracy trial a few months
later. The plea that the military court had no jurisdiction was
denied and so was the request for separate trials. Perjured evi-
dence was introduced, and witnesses for the defense were ex-
cluded on the flimsiest excuses.
Colonel John A. Foster, who was to act as a special investi-
2 IO
Chapter IX
gator for the War Department after Lincoln's assassination, took
a leading part in this case, and if the historian of the Association
of State Prisoners is to be relied upon, 49 Foster was highly effi-
cient in his ruthlessness. Accompanied by a stenographer, he
visited Jones, one of the three defendants, in his cell and then
had his supposedly sworn confession read in court. But the
defense forced the stenographer to produce his original notes
and, when they were translated, it was discovered that they had
been altered. Letters and papers found in the office of the
agency were admitted as evidence, although they were not in
the handwriting of the accused, nor proven to have been in their
possession. In spite of all these underhanded tactics on the part
of the government, the defendants were found not guilty, after
a trial lasting two months. But they 'were not discharged from
prison. North was retained for nineteen 50 and Cohn for thirty-
two days after they had been acquitted.
It was then that the long-delayed storm broke.
"In this condition of affairs," related ex-Congressman Riddle,
"a statement concerning the prisons, with many details, was sent
to the Military Committee, which so startled the generals at its
head, that they went to the prisons and made a personal inquiry.
They saw several of the prisoners and heard their stories, which
excited their surprise and indignation." 51
"The Military Committee of the House," wrote the New
York Times on January 19, 1865, "made, this morning, a per-
sonal inspection of the Old Capitol Prison", and found that
officers, even of high rank and having honorable scars, were
and had been confined for months, without charges preferred
against them. In some instances they were totally ignorant of
the causes for their incarceration. It appeared that the com-
mitments were generally signed by L. C. Baker.
General Garfield offered a resolution in the House demanding
an inquiry. It was adopted and the Military Committee directed
Stanton* s Reign of Terror
21 I
to make the investigation. At last the lid was about to be lifted.
But Stanton's friends were wide awake. On the day following
the introduction of his resolution, Garfield was detained from
the House at its opening, and Thaddeus Stevens used this oppor-
tunity to denounce the "young man" from Ohio for needless
and mischievous meddling with the management of the War
Office.
Unexpectedly, Garfield arrived at this moment. He imme-
diately rose to reply and stated to the House the results of his
personal inquiry. He related in indignant terms the outrages
that had been perpetrated upon Union men, and finally de-
nounced the "great Secretary of War" as worthy of impeach-
ment. The effect was electrical. Stanton quickly directed that
in the future no one in the military service of the United States
should be committed to the Old Capitol prison except upon his
personal order. Other reforms in the administration of the estab-
lishment were promised. 52 Riddle adds that "there was an imme-
diate emptying of the prisons, which rendered the inquiry
useless. The daring of the young tribune in thus bearding the
terrible Secretary won the admiration of all men, and especially
of Mr. Stanton himself . . ." 53
Stanton's admiration, it is safe to say, was nothing but his
customary cowing before an antagonist who could not be bullied.
Congressman John N. Kasson, who also took credit for strik-
ing this blow for the inmates of the military prisons, reported
the effect of this unwelcome publicity in a similar manner.
"I think it was on the following night," he wrote, "that a
numerous and, it was said, a general gaol delivery was made;
and rumor had it that the men were carried away in carriages,
under promise to make no further complaint. At all events, it
was the end of the system of arbitrary and causeless arrests.
Messages and letters from far and near came to me, with thanks
for my arraignment of the Secretary's action, and giving in-
212
Chapter IX
stances which showed that there was, in Washington especially,
a reign of moral terror . . ." 54
Shortly after the war the Old Capitol prison ceased to exist.
A Washington resident wrote in 1869: 55
Opposite the northeast angle of the Capitol Park, you will see a
row of handsome dwelling-houses ornamented with Mansard roofs.
They . . . until a short time ago, constituted a single building,
known as the Old Capitol. ... a gloomier, more terrible-looking
prison did not exist in the land.
. . . there can be no doubt that the old prison held many an inno-
cent victim of political hostility and official malice. Many a good
man, whose most earnest prayers were for the success of the Union
arms, was immured within these walls in consequence of having of-
fended some high official. We all know that there were many grave
faults committed by the Administration during the Rebellion, not
the least of which was its readiness to disregard the liberty and per-
sonal rights of the citizens of the Union. Stanton was an able and
true man, and a good Secretary, but he was a despot also, and too
hasty to arrest men upon very slight proof; and Mr. Seward was
too fond of tinkling his "little bell." Ex-Chief Detective Baker sent,
perhaps, the majority of prisoners to this institution. He had re-
duced blackmailing and intimidation to a science, and those who
would not comply with his unlawful demands were moderately sure
of a residence in this place. These arbitrary acts are a blot upon the
country, which ought never to have been cast upon it.
Now . . . the old building has disappeared . . . and been
changed so that its longest inmate would not know it . . .
The building had disappeared, but the memory of the out-
rages it had witnessed lived on. "How much misery and injustice
had been crowded within its walls will probably never be
Stanton's Reign of Terror 2 1 3
known," said a well-posted observer. "The secret history of the
Provost Marshal General's office at Washington, and its connec-
tion with the War Office . . . never can be written, perhaps
never should be." 56
Leaving one to speculate why not.
* X *
JNo one has yet written a history of the
real Stanton. Great man though his ad-
mirers proclaimed him to have been, his
once powerful figure has faded into the
shadows of the past. The man who was
said to have won the war for Lincoln
has been forgotten by the man on the
street.
Whether Stanton was a giant or a
demon is still a matter of debate. Some
day history should find the niche into
which he properly belongs.
The Real Stanton
ONE MAN who knew Stanton well, both as an opponent
and as an ally, was Congressman Albert Gallatin Riddle
from Ohio. Elected in 1861 as a Republican from Stanton's
home state, Riddle served as representative until 1863, when he
settled down in Washington to the practice of law. When
Cameron resigned his position as Secretary of War in 1862, Rid-
dle was still in Congress. Neither he nor other members of his
party were prepared for Stanton's appointment as Cameron's
successor.
"We were all surprised by the name," he confessed; "few of us
knew anything of him save as Mr. Buchanan's Attorney-General,
and what he had really done in his Cabinet had not trans-
pired . . ." 1 Up to that time Stanton, it would appear, had found
no opportunity to spread the story of his heroics against the ex-
President, to whom he claimed to have delivered an ultimatum
which had saved the honor of the nation. 2
Riddle was given to understand that Senator Wade, radical of
all Radical Republicans, had sponsored Stanton's choice, although
Stanton had been a Democrat all his life, while Wade was a fierce
and relentless leader in the opposite camp.
"Wade answered for him to the Republicans," Senator Pearce
of Maryland had told a group of his political friends at the time; 3
and Wade's endorsement had stifled all remonstrance.
According to Senator Fessenden, 4 later Secretary of the Treas-
217
2 1 8 Chapter X
ury, "The President astounded everybody ... by sending in a
nomination for Secretary of War in place of Mr. Cameron. I
took the responsibility to have the matter of the confirmation
laid over, as I was determined to know what it meant . . ." Fes-
senden was requested to confer with Secretary of the Treasury
Chase, who assured the Senator that the responsibility for Stan-
ton's selection lay with those who had urged the new man on
the President. Fessenden then met Stanton. In a letter written
at that time, the Senator declared, "We agree on every point:
the duties of the Secretary of War, the conduct of the war, the
negro question, and everything else."
As Lincoln's ideas on the arming of negroes at that time ran
counter to those of Fessenden, Stanton must have known him-
self to be in opposition to his chief at the very moment he
entered the Cabinet.
Soon Riddle had an opportunity to visit the new Secretary of
War, whom he had known as a lawyer.
"He was alone," he recollected, "received me courteously,
speaking in a low musical voice, which, as I was to observe,
could be lower, softer, even sweet, under the excitement of
anger; a round, compactly built, personable man, with short
limbs, small hands and feet, thick neck, large round head, with
black brows, and long, curling black hair, the lower face lost in
a grizzly beard. His eyes were very striking— large and liquid
like some women's, they were mysterious, to me seeming to have
a message, and looking reproach that I did not understand it." 5
Riddle's first call was made in behalf of some of his constit-
uents to whom certain promises had been made by Stanton's
predecessor. Riddle now looked for the fulfillment of these
promises by the new incumbent; but this favor was flatly and
ungraciously refused. Thereupon Riddle remarked quietly that
these were the only things he had asked for, and bowed himself
out.
The Real Stanton 2 1 9
"I permit no man to address me in such language," said Stan-
ton in his sweetest and most exasperating tone of voice.
"Mr. Secretary," replied Riddle, "permit me to retire, and
with final leave" 6
Riddle did not know then that such manly behavior would
invariably kindle respect, if not fear, in the heart of the ferocious-
looking War Minister. Therefore he was greatly astonished
when, calling at the War Office a few days later to obtain a
furlough for a dying officer, and approaching Stanton without
a bow, he was told that his protege could have a leave of absence
for thirty days instead of the requested twenty; he also received
an apology for what had happened at the previous meeting. 7
Although Riddle often found himself opposed to Stanton, he
later became one of his most ardent admirers.
"Mr. Stanton was capable of arduous and long-continued
work," he wrote of him, 8 ". . . and his days and nights were
given to it. He lived in the War Office, literally; his bed was
there; his food was there; his presence in his own household
was a rare event. He bravely assumed responsibility, leaving the
President the full measure of praise . . ."
As a lawyer, Riddle was shocked at Stanton's total disregard
for the Constitution. Speaking of the Secretary of War, Thad-
deus Stevens and Senator Wade, he thought that, "Of these . . .
men, ... it may truly be said that they were the most revolution-
ary men . . . since the days of the Adamses and Jefferson. . . .
no scruple of the written Constitution troubled either of them.
The conservative notion of preserving the Constitution as . . .
the thing not to be touched, always and justly provoked their
derision." 9 Stanton believed that the Constitution was made for
the country and not the country for the Constitution.
"When the country is gone," he remarked on one occasion,
"it will be a comfort to know that the Constitution is saved." 10
Riddle could never share this view, but he excused it on the
220 Chapter X
grounds that Stanton "was a primal force of nature, used to
break up the old crust of the earth . . .
"I fancy him," he orated at a commemorative meeting in 1870,
"in twilight solitude, by some sounding sea, quarrying a moun-
tain and throwing up a giant's causeway in a single night." X1
When Riddle first started to practice law in Washington he
often represented citizens who had been arrested without war-
rants. Trials of these unfortunates before military commissions
instead of juries began to alarm him, and he therefore intervened
with both Lincoln and Stanton to end these unconstitutional
proceedings, which he at that time evidently could not yet con-
done by the vision of a primeval man quarrying mountains in the
twilight.
Riddle had more than one interview with Stanton and the
President and urged them to abandon this mode of dealing with
offenders not connected with the military service. Mr. Lincoln,
Riddle implies, had become shaky on the subject, but Stanton
remained inflexible. "He ironically said that an abandonment
of the military courts for the trial of civilians would diminish my
revenues, and that I ought not to complain. . . ." 12
In spite of this jocular remark, Stanton may have been really
worried about the financial status of a lawyer who had shown
enough audacity to meet him boldly and who had even carried
an argument over his head to the President himself. At any rate,
Riddle soon found himself engaged on Stanton's side and was
thereafter employed by the Secretary in many cases. 13
Another man who had unusual opportunities for intimate ob-
servations of Secretary Stanton was Major (later General)
William E. Doster, subsequently one of the defense lawyers at
the conspiracy trial, but in 1862 and 1863 a provost marshal in
Washington under General James S. Wadsworth, military gov-
ernor of the District of Columbia and some adjoining territory.
The Real Stanton 2 2 1
Doster saw Stanton almost daily. His opinions are particularly
valuable, for he was one of those rare witnesses who never loses
his detached point of view. In his memoirs he apportions both
compliments and censure with complete impartiality.
Doster describes Stanton as a broad-shouldered man, not more
than five feet eight inches in height. He had a long brown beard,
sprinkled with gray, and alert, although severe little eyes. His
attitude at audiences, which he held at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. for
an hour each time, gave him the air of an irritable schoolmaster
to whom his pupils came to ask favors. He would lean his arm
on his desk, adjust his spectacles, and resign himself to the neces-
sity of people coming to state their business. He was "a peppery
little man who looked as though he had not slept well, and as if
it would not give him much pain to refuse your most urgent
request." 14
The orderly at the door seemed to anticipate the visitor's looks
of disappointment, just as Stanton himself was fully prepared to
refuse all requests put before him. Doster continues: 15
"Influential" people tried their influence only once, acquaintances
of the bar tried it and were rebuffed, corrupt people found them-
selves suspected before they drew near. Women in tears, venerable
old men, approached slowly— but withdrew quickly as if they had
touched hot iron. A few got what they wanted and earned it in the
getting.
Certainly the Secretary's facility in saying "no" was ex-
traordinary.
Without searching far or deep, I think it was observable that his
habit of mind was self-willed and inclined to oppose suggestions and
propositions principally because they were not his own.
But at bottom there was nothing terrible. Stanton was an able,
overworked Pittsburgh lawyer, suddenly called on to play the com-
bined roles of Carnot and Fouche, apparently utterly ignorant of
222
Chapter X
both roles, and equipped with no special talent or habits other than
the professional ones— ability to work, dogmatic temper, a bullying
propensity.
Doster infers that Stanton's blustering toward the wealthier
class of secessionists was founded on the belief that "contempt
pierces even through the shell of the tortoise," and that the re-
serve of aristocratic scorn with which Southerners were wont to
treat their adversaries could best be broken by brutal arrogance.
The army treated its foes as equals, but Stanton's rough handling
was designed to undermine all notions of social superiority. 16
It was an altogether different Stanton whom one of the War
Minister's intimates, Judge Donn Piatt, had known as a young
man. Then he had been joyous and his hearty laugh had won
him many friends. At that time Stanton was writing a book,
"The Poetry of the Bible". The work was never completed, but
a certain dreaminess remained in Stanton forever after. 17 A
young girl, who was a frequent visitor at his house, said that he
would often relax on Sunday afternoons and read poetry to
her. 18
A few incidents of Stanton's college life at Gambier, Ohio,
have been preserved by one of his teachers, the Rev. Heman
Dyer, whose friendship for his former pupil was destined to en-
dure through life.
"Stanton was young, bright, and ever ready for fun and
frolic," he wrote, and illustrated this remark by telling how the
young student had once borrowed the principal's horse for a
night ride, while on another occasion he had led his comrades in
a rather brutal assault on a tutor who had made himself un-
popular by betraying confidences.
Dyer's comment was, that "This was a marked trait in Mr.
Stanton's character, and no doubt had much to do in shaping his
future career ... He was determined that the offender should be
The Real Stanton 223
punished, law or no law, and was willing to suffer the conse-
quences. . . . His innate sense of justice made him restive under
the restraints of the forms of law." Dyer also remembered that
Stanton had "a slight lisp, but not enough to detract . . . from
the effectiveness of his speaking." 19
Doster was convinced that the Secretary of War was a coward
at heart. When Stonewall Jackson was marching up the valley
of the Shenandoah in 1862, General Wadsworth told his sub-
ordinate that "Stanton, from whose office he just came, was as
frightened as an old woman . . ." 20
Doster's own experiences tended to bear out this opinion. One
day, a Pennsylvania butcher, "wealthy and fat, came to Wash-
ington to bring his two sons and other boys blankets, to replace
those they had lost in the battle of Fredericksburg. As he was
an acquaintance of mine I went with him to Stanton and found
the thing was impossible under the orders, which were im-
perative against transportation of citizens.
"Nothing daunted, my friend pushed his way before the Sec-
retary and finally in a rough way stated his case. The Secretary
refused his request and passed on to the next. 'Well,' said the
butcher, 'How many sons have you got at Fredericksburg? I
guess not many, or you wouldn't want to freeze mine.' The
pass was granted." 21
There was another queer story afloat at that time, Doster re-
lated.
A lieutenant of a cavalry regiment, stationed at Alexandria, re-
ceived a dispatch announcing the death of a near relative and
requesting him to come home. As the routine of red-tape was too
slow for his case, he hastened to the War Department, where he
encountered Mr. Stanton and humbly stated his case. Upon this Mr.
Stanton without ceremony pushed him by the shoulders out of the
door. The lieutenant in despair hurried to Willard's, got pretty
224 Chapter X
drunk, mounted his horse, and galloped wildly about on the road
between Washington and Alexandria.
The same afternoon the Secretary rode out in a carriage, unat-
tended except by the driver. He drove along the river road, where
the outraged lieutenant was likewise. The latter, catching sight of
the man who was the cause of his trouble, galloped alongside, and
saying, "Aha! now it's my turn," grabbed Stanton ,by the beard,
shook him, and let him drop. The story went farther,— it was stated
that the Minister, afraid of publicity, let the affair pass over un-
noticed. 22
More likely than not, Stanton was scared into a mortal funk
by this bold attack. Even in later years fear of bodily harm
remained one of Stanton's characteristics. When President John-
son discharged him in 1867, he barricaded himself in the War
Department, and Senator John M. Thayer of Nebraska decided
to spend the first night with him.
They settled down for the night, each on one of the two
lounges in the office. Thayer had just dropped off into a light
sleep, when he felt a hand on his shoulder, giving him a gentle
shake. Jumping up, he found the Secretary standing beside him.
"Senator," Stanton said nervously, "I believe the troops are
coming to put me out." They could distinctly hear the tramp of
soldiers approaching from the direction of the White House.
It proved a false alarm; nevertheless, Stanton's physical and
moral courage had been in danger of imminent collapse. 23
Intimate glimpses of Stanton's character may be gleaned in the
recollections of Gideon Welles, one of his Cabinet colleagues,
and Charles F. Benjamin, one of his confidential clerks.
Benjamin shared Doster's opinion at least in one respect: his
chief, he thought, was a lawyer, first and last. The prevailing
opinion that Lincoln permitted Stanton to treat him contemptu-
ously was largely discounted by this former subordinate, and he
The Real Stanton 225
related an incident to illustrate his point. At one time Stanton
sent a document to the President for countersignature. Stanton's
own name appeared at the foot of the instrument, but there was
hardly enough room provided for Lincoln's endorsement.
"Take the paper back to the Secretary of War," the Chief
Executive told the messenger, ". . . and say that the President will
promptly sign any proper commission that may be sent to
him . . ." 24
Stanton was a reckless spender, so far as government expendi-
tures were concerned, Benjamin recalled. General Halleck
warned the Secretary "that the excessive number of paymasters,
quartermasters, [and] commissaries . . . was an administrative
calamity, apart from the useless expense, which was not his con-
cern. The chiefs of bureaus protested that outstanding contracts
for the favorite articles of supply ran far ahead of the public
necessity. . . . the expenses of the Government were at the rate
of one and a half million dollars per day," according to the
Treasury Department; loans were stagnant, and the banks were
alarmed at the amount of government bonds they were carrying.
The expense for the troops in the field was unavoidable, but the
multitude of establishments in the rear rivaled in numbers the
actual fighting men in the whole army. 25
To all protestations Stanton remained indifferent. A reduc-
tion of expenditures at that time might have had undesirable re-
percussions at the approaching elections and was therefore not
to be thought of.
Gideon Welles, who disliked and distrusted his colleague,
reports an episode that took place in August, 1865, which also
emphasizes Stanton's disregard for the state of the national treas-
ury and shows, besides, his peculiar propensity for double-deal-
ing. 26 At a Cabinet meeting the War Minister declared casually
that twenty-two thousand men were moving into the Indian
country, and that the expenses of the movement could not be
226 Chapter X
less than fifty million dollars. When asked for details, he curtly
remarked that he knew nothing on the subject and that Grant,
who had been asked for information, was away. The country,
it seemed, was on the verge of a war, and the Secretary of War
had no knowledge thereof.
Two days later, word was received from the General-in-
Chief. To everyone's surprise, General Grant said he had not
ordered any such movement. Stanton also again pleaded absolute
ignorance.
"This whole thing is a discredit to the War Department,"
wrote Welles.
A few days later Stanton stated to the Cabinet that the force
had been reduced to six thousand men.
"This whole proceeding is anything but commendable in the
War Department," Welles recorded in his diary. "Stanton pro-
fesses not to have been informed on the subject, and yet takes
credit for doing something in the direction of reduction. . . .
An army of twenty-two thousand and a winter campaign, which
he said would cost certainly not less than fifty million and very
likely eighty or one hundred million, are arranged, a great In-
dian war is upon us, but the Secretary of War is, or professes to
be, wholly ignorant in regard to it ... If Stanton is as ignorant
as he professes, it is disgraceful and ominous, and it is not less
so if he is not ignorant. There are some things which make me
suspicious that he is not as uninformed and ignorant as he pre-
tends. This matter of supplies, so ruinously expensive, is popu-
lar on the frontiers ... I have seen enough of Stanton to know
that he is reckless of the public money in fortifying himself
personally. . . ."
Yet, in spite of Stanton's profligate handling of public funds,
no one ever accused him of corruption. While he was at its
head, the War Department remained the one bright spot in a
The Real Stanton 227
great picture of financial debauchery. Not a breath of scandal
ever reached a cynical public that matters under Stanton's re-
gime were not handled in accordance with the strictest rules of
honesty. Whatever were the shortcomings of the War Minis-
ter, financial trickery was not one of them. When he left his
post, he was, according to Benjamin, "a beggar not only in
health but in fortune; even the one dwelling that he possessed
was heavily mortgaged, and so continued till his death brought
the true state of his affairs to light. . . ." 27
Stanton never was popular with the army, although military
discipline naturally forbade a display of its feelings. Neverthe-
less, an occasional line in the conservative Army and Navy Jour-
nal betrayed the underlying sentiments of the officers. On
August 13, 1864, this publication wrote daringly:
Mr. Secretary Stanton has gratified the country by resuming the
publication of his dispatches to General Dix, the opportunity for
proclaiming reports of successful achievements inviting him to again
appear on the bulletin boards. Are we to understand from this that
the amiable Secretary is unwilling to be the bearer of evil tidings?
Are we always to associate his name with the joyful news of victory,
and never with the dismal story of defeat?
An incident which illustrates Stanton's character was reported
to the New York Times on October 14, 1883, under the head-
ing A Bit of Secret History.
The Times dispatch was in the form of an interview with one
Rev. William John Hamilton, who had been one of the priests
admitted to the Confederate military prison at Andersonville,
Georgia. The treatment of the Union soldiers incarcerated there
had given rise to a flood of atrocity stories, some of which, so
Father Hamilton felt, were vastly exaggerated. At the head of
the prison had been a man named Wirz who was seized, tried,
convicted and hanged as soon as victory had been won.
228 Chapter X
Father Hamilton had intervened in behalf of Wirz who, he
said, "was the most humane keeper of a prison he ever met."
Wirz was dying from an incurable disease, and requested that
his sentence be set several months ahead, so that he might die a
natural death. Father Hamilton laid Wirz's request before Stan-
ton, who "thought favorably of it and said he thought the rest of
the Cabinet would have no hesitancy in accepting it." After the
Cabinet meeting, Stanton reported that the other members had
refused to listen to any such proposition. They had said that
"the people of the North demand the blood of someone for
the cruelties practiced at Andersonville. Wirz has only two
months to live. Let's take this man and shed his blood and by
doing so we spare the life of a better man."
A short time after Wirz had been hanged, Father Hamilton
met President Johnson. He inquired why the Cabinet had not
favored the appeal for mercy sponsored by Secretary Stan-
ton. "What!" Johnson exclaimed in surprise. "Stanton in favor
of the proposition? Why, Stanton was the only member of the
Cabinet opposed to it. The rest of the Cabinet favored it and
was about to accept it, when Stanton threatened to resign if the
proposition was entertained for a moment."
That Stanton did not die a natural death, but committed sui-
cide by cutting his throat has been asserted over and over again.
Although denied by his friends with indignation and force, the
rumor would not down and is still accepted as fact in many
quarters. Even such a cautious historian as David DeWitt hinted
at something unusual. "Stanton slinks mysteriously into the
shadow of death . . . ," 28 he wrote, leaving the remainder to
conjecture. One account had it that the undertakers, left alone
with the corpse of the War Minister for a few moments, dis-
The Real Stanton 229
covered his neck to be plastered over with tape, meant to hide
an ugly cut that reached from ear to ear.
"There are many at Washington who believe that Mr. Stanton
committed suicide by cutting his throat with a razor," wrote the
journalist Ben Perley Poore in his Reminiscences. 2 * "Caleb Cush-
ing [a prominent Democrat] was positive that he did, and
investigated the matter so far as he could, but Hon. E. D. Mc-
Pherson, of Pennsylvania, for years the efficient clerk of the
House of Representatives, procured from the attendant physi-
cian a statement that it was not so . . ."
Against these scurrilous tales Stanton's family and entourage
maintained an attitude of dignified silence; but when the Con-
federate General Richard Taylor, in 1879, revived the report in
his book Destruction and Reconstruction, one of the messengers
of the War Department came to his late master's defense. 30
"For the first time ... a permanent character and a respon-
sible name have been lent to a story that found utterance in some
obscure newspapers, shortly after his [Stanton's] death, that he
had committed suicide, and that the fact had been carefully con-
cealed from the public," he stated by way of explanation. In an
affidavit he then affirmed his conviction that the idea of suicide
was preposterous.
This messenger, William S. Dupee, had been with Stanton a
great deal during his last illness, and after Lincoln's War Chief
had passed away, Dupee shaved the throat and face while the
body was still warm. There were no marks of violence on the
corpse.
". . . affiant had much intercourse with the family servants,"
Dupee added, "and never saw or heard anything to lend coun-
tenance to the story of Mr. Stanton's death by suicide, and when
the story first made its appearance ... it was the subject of
mingled indignation and ridicule among those who had been
about Mr. Stanton at the time of his death." 31
230 Chapter X
One David Jones came forth at the same time to corroborate
Dupee. Jones had been a waiter in the Stanton family and in
constant attendance on the dying man until his last hour. During
the last days, he testified, the patient had never been left alone,
day or night. At last Doctor Starkey, a minister of the Episcopal
church, was summoned and spoke to Stanton until he died half
an hour later. Jones was rubbing the dying man when the end
came; he then assisted in dressing and preparing the body and
was positive that there were no marks of violence anywhere. 32
Finally, Dr. Joseph K. Barnes, chief surgeon of the United
States Army, entered a solemn protest. He related that Stanton
had been a victim of asthma in a very severe form for many
years and was completely broken down in health when he re-
tired from the War Department. In November of 1869, "the
'dropsy of cardiac disease' manifested itself," and on the night of
December 2 3 the dropsical effusion into the pericardium had in-
creased to such an extent that the Reverend Doctor Starkey was
called to read the service; the clergyman, Mrs. Stanton, Mr.
E. L. Stanton, the three younger children, a governess, Doctor
Barnes and several servants were then in attendance until he died,
at 4 a.m., December 24.
"It is incomprehensible to me," Doctor Barnes concluded,
"how any suspicion or report of suicide could have originated,
except through sheer and intentional malice ... I do most
emphatically and unequivocally assert that there is not any foun-
dation whatever for the report that Mr. Edwin M. Stanton died
from other than natural causes, or that he attempted or com-
mitted suicide." 33
Adjutant General Townsend had watched by the body of his
dead chief the entire night following his death, and thought that
he could not have failed to know if there had been anything
wrong. Townsend also was convinced that Stanton's religious
convictions would have stood as a barrier to suicide. 34
The Real Stanton 2 3 l
Stanton had been in the habit of treating his subordinates in
the War Department brusquely, driving them with merciless
energy at all times. Overworked, nervous from lack of sleep, he
could hardly have been an easy taskmaster at his home. Never-
theless, not one of those who had known him intimately seemed
to bear him any ill will, either during his lifetime or after his
death. Most men who wrote about him in later years remem-
bered him with a good deal of affection, and their kind words
throw a soft glow over this, one of the strangest figures in
American history. 35
XI
* vir &
JVIrs. Surratfs younger son John, whom
the War Department believed to be
deeply involved in the assassination plot,
and whose capture should have been ar-
dently sought, escaped to Canada. After
hiding there for five months, he took a
boat to Europe and landed at Liverpool
in Septemper, 1865. His arrival was
quickly made known to the American
government, but no steps were taken to
have him arrested. Surratt drifted to
London and later to the continent. There
his presence was so forcibly brought to
the attention of the American authorities
that it could be no longer ignored, and
efforts were made to have him brought
back to the United States for trial.
Therewith began one of the most cu-
rious stories which ever wound its way
through the dry archives of the State De-
partment and which, in the course of
time, was to attract the attention of the
entire world.
XI
The Queer Adventures of
John H. Surratt
ON THE 2 1 st of April, 1866, General Rufus King, the
American minister to the Pope, 1 received an unexpected
caller. He was a Papal Zouave named Henry B. Sainte-Marie, a
native of Maryland, and he imparted to the representative of the
American government the startling information that he had dis-
covered the whereabouts of John Harrison Surratt, the only one
of the alleged conspirators against Lincoln's life then still at large.
After the assassination Surratt, whose intimacy with Booth was a
matter of common knowledge and whose mother had been
hanged for her assumed part in the plot, had completely disap-
peared from public view, and although the War Department had
offered a reward of $25,000 for his apprehension, there was no
record of tangible results. Now Sainte-Marie suddenly reported
that he had located the fugitive. Surratt, it appeared, had entered
the Pope's military service some time before under the name of
Watson; he was then in one of the Zouave regiments near Rome
and, so General King was told, could be seized at any moment.
"My informant said," the United States minister wrote to Sec-
retary of State Seward, "that he had known Surratt in America,
that he recognized him as soon as he saw him . . . and that Sur-
ratt . . . admitted ... he was right . . ." 2
235
236 Chapter XI
Sainte-Marie had expressed himself in so positive a manner that
General King could not doubt the truth of what he had heard.
"As to the identity of the party," a subsequent letter of the
informer stated, "I can assure you on my most sacred honor it is
lost time to acquire further proofs. ... I have known him in
Baltimore. I . . . have spoken to him . . . He related several
particulars . . . which no one but himself could have remem-
bered. . . ." In another communication Sainte-Marie hoped that
everything would turn out to the greatest advantage for the
United States and prayed that "justice to the ever lamented mem-
ory of President L[incoln]. will be made." 3
Sainte-Marie had spoken the truth. He had really found Sur-
ratt, whose features readily impressed themselves on those who
met him, and who was therefore easily identified. When Sainte-
Marie later returned to the United States to bear witness against
his former friend, he told a reporter for the New York Times 4
that he had "made the acquaintance of Surratt . . . and although
the acquaintance at no time attained to intimacy, he was struck
with certain physical peculiarities that no disguise could
affect. . . ."
It was after Sainte-Marie had joined the Pope's guards that he
had come in contact with Surratt, who approached him and asked
if he was not an American.
He replied that he was, and said in a whisper: "You remind me
of an American named Surratt; are you he?"
"Oh, no," replied Surratt.
"All the better for you," rejoined Sainte-Marie.
Subsequently, when excited with wine, Surratt had admitted
his identity; at various times, so Sainte-Marie alleged, Surratt had
indulged in braggadocio concerning the Canadian raids, the assas-
sination plot, and other matters, greatly to the astonishment and
delight of his associates, many of whom were Confederate ref-
ugees like himself.
The Queer Adventures of John H. Surratt 237
Surratt was quickly located. He was garrisoned at Veroli, 5 a
small town within the Pope's domain, about fifty miles southeast
of Rome, and Cardinal Antonelli made it plain to King that "if
the American government desired the surrender of the criminal
there would be no difficulty in the way." 6
But on November 6, while negotiations regarding Surratt's ex-
tradition were still pending, the Papal authorities suddenly or-
dered his arrest of their own accord. 7 The next day this order
was executed, and apparently great precautions were taken to
prevent the escape of the accused.
Two sentinels with loaded arms were stationed to guard him.
One was at the very door of his cell, to prevent any communica-
tion of the prisoner with the outside world; the other was at the
door of the barracks. The prison doors and windows had been
inspected down to the minutest detail by a competent locksmith.
At 4 o'clock in the morning Surratt was awakened. He rose, put
on his uniform and drank his coffee "with a calmness and phlegm
quite English," as the official report expressed it.
The prison was built on a high hill, and the gate opened upon
a platform which overlooked the country. A balustrade had
been built to prevent promenaders from tumbling to the rocks
below. At the side of the prison stood the privies of the barracks.
Surratt, who now went under the name of Watson, asked permis-
sion to stop there, and the guards, who saw nothing unnatural in
this request, granted it. Surratt, quiet and resigned hitherto,
suddenly vaulted the balustrade, jumped into the void and
reached the depths of the valley below, without serious injury.
Patrols were immediately organized, but in vain. 8 De Lambilly,
the commander at Veroli, stood aghast at this apparent miracle.
Nor was he the only one.
"I am assured that the escape of Watson [Surratt] savors of a
prodigy," wrote Allet, the lieutenant colonel of the battalion, to
the Papal Minister of War. 9 He had good reason to think so, for
238 Chapter XI
according to his estimate the distance which Surratt had jumped
was more than a hundred feet. 10 To the indignant General King
the details of the story appeared almost incredible, and when the
news reached America, some enterprising journalist even supplied
the theory that "two men with an outstretched blanket broke the
fall," but cautioned his readers that he could not vouch for the
truth of his yarn. 11
In reality, the reason for Surratt's escape from death or serious
injury was of a far more prosaic nature. Twenty-three feet be-
low the balustrade was a narrow protruding rock, on which the
filth from the barracks had accumulated. It was on this that the
prisoner's fall had been broken.
"Had he leaped a little further he would have fallen into an
abyss," Lieutenant Colonel Allet concluded.
General King, reviewing the events, seemed to be disturbed
by conflicting ideas. Writing to Secretary Seward on Novem-
ber 19, he said: "Some surprise perhaps may be expressed that
Surratt was arrested by the Papal authorities, before any request
to that effect had been made by the American government."
Then he added, evidently as a somewhat dubious afterthought,
"I have no reason to doubt the entire good faith of the Papal
government in the matter." 12
All was not yet lost, the American minister hoped. Surratt
was in his brilliantly-colored Zouave dress, and there was a good
chance that he would be recaptured.
Within five minutes of Surratt's leap, at least fifty soldiers
were engaged in pursuing him. 13 Veroli was about twenty-eight
miles from Isoletta, the frontier station to Italy, which distance
had to be traversed on foot by a badly shaken and bruised man,
easily recognizable. His description had been duly spread
abroad, and the bright uniform of the Pope's guards— red fez,
blue pants, red trimmings, blue jacket and white gaiters— 14
would surely make him an easy mark for his pursuers.
1 1
v —
3 M
The Queer Adventures of John H. Surratt 239
"On the surface," King reported, the Pope's officers ". . . cer-
tainly show . . . perfect good faith . . . and an earnest desire
to arrest the criminal . . ." 15
Nevertheless, the American minister determined not to de-
pend entirely on the Papal authorities. Assuming that Surratt
would cross into Neapolitan territory, he took proper counter-
measures. He sent a trusted agent, Robert Macpherson, to Mr.
Marsh, the United States minister to Italy, in order to invoke
the assistance of the Italian government in intercepting the fugi-
tive at Naples, to which place he was logically bound. But Sur-
ratt's luck still held. Macpherson went to Leghorn, where he
thought the Italian minister was sojourning, ignorant of the fact
that Mr. Marsh had left for Venice. King's papers were there-
fore not delivered until November 13, five days after Surratt 's
escape. Mr. Marsh then lost no time in visiting the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, but was told that the suspect would be sur-
rendered only under the condition that the death penalty should
not be inflicted on him.
"Having no instructions on the subject," Marsh wrote to
Seward, "knowing nothing of those which Mr. King might have
received, and having, moreover, at that time no reason to sup-
pose that Surratt had escaped into the territory of the King of
Italy, I did not pursue the discussion further." 16 With which
complacent reflection the minister rested, contented in the
thought that he had done his full duty.
His colleague Rufus King, however, was far from satisfied.
He sent confidential dispatches with his friend Macpherson to
Marsh at Florence, "under very peculiar circumstances." King's
insistence and manifest distrust of the mails prodded the minister
at Florence into further action. On November 16 he sent a note
to the foreign office, and when he received no reply, he called
in person there next morning, only to find that the "ministry of
grace and justice . . . had not come to decision on the subject."
240
Chapter XI
The secretary of the foreign office seemed "less favorably dis-
posed to the application' ' than Marsh had expected from pre-
vious conversations. 17
In the meantime, news had been received that Surratt was at
a hospital in Sora, outside the Pope's sovereignty, and Mr. Marsh
requested that the local authorities at Sora be instructed to hold
Surratt in safe custody, until further and more definite proceed-
ings could be undertaken to insure his surrender. 18
This report had first come to Mr. King directly from General
Kauster, the Papal Minister of War, and Mr. Marsh had been at
once advised by telegram. Sora was only a few miles from the
frontier and about one hundred miles from Naples. 19 Suspicious
PAPAL
V
TERRITORY
KINGDOM OF
\v # ROME
ITALY
\v VELLETRI
vv
y, \ SEZZ£ (
VEROLI 'SORA
•CASAMARI
* • \
ISOLETTAI \
) \ PI EDI MONTE
/ \ #
\ v
ROUTE OF SURRATT'S
\ ©NAPLES
ESCAPE FROM O 5 *^^
VEROLI TO NAPLES, WHERE HE TOOK "X^
SHJP TO MALTA AND
ALEXANDRIA J ))
The Queer Adventures of John H. Surratt 241
and enraged at the languid manner in which this affair was being
handled, and relying now only on his own intimates, General
King sent his acting secretary to Sora, which was really outside
the territory to which he was accredited. King's representative
was equipped with all the necessary documents and a photograph
of Surratt, and had instructions, if he found the suspect there, to
ask that he be kept in close confinement. Arriving at Isoletta, the
secretary telegraphed to the commanding officer at Sora. Now
it developed that the Papal authorities had not been quite cor-
rect in their information. Surratt was not in the hospital, as had
been asserted, although he had passed through Sora on the 8th
of November, the day of his escape, on his way to Naples. Go-
ing perhaps slightly beyond his official jurisdiction, King's dele-
gate spurned an appeal to the United States minister at Flor-
ence and, acting on his own responsibility, wired the intelligence
directly to the American consul at Naples, at the same time per-
suading the officer in charge at Isoletta to notify the Neapolitan
chief of police. 20
"Our hopes were strong," Mr. King wrote on the 19th,
". . . that we should succeed in catching him [Surratt] some-
where in the vicinity of Naples." 21
Unfortunately, it was then too late. Surratt had left for Alex-
andria two days before, November 17, aboard the steamer Tri-
poli, a British ship on which he could feel reasonably safe. But a
new trap to catch the fleeing conspirator was in the making.
The consul at Naples had ascertained that the Tripoli was
scheduled to stop at Malta for coal, and had wired an alarm to
William Winthrop, the American consul at that Mediterranean
island.
Throughout these trying days, Surratt had worn his conspicu-
ous Zouave uniform. There should have been no difficulty in
picking him out in any crowd; and the escaped prisoner made
no effort to disguise himself. All he had done was to change his
2 4 2 Chapter XI
name to Walters when he embarked as a passenger on the boat
to Egypt.
When the Tripoli hove in sight of Malta, Consul Winthrop
made strenuous efforts to have Surratt arrested. But the British
governor showed little interest and was not to be hurried.
"Notwithstanding, I pressed for an immediate answer," Win-
throp reported, "both in my public despatch and by a private
note, still it did not reach me until 4 p.m., when the steamer
Tripoli was ready to leave for Alexandria; and then, as I think,
owing to literal quibbling, my request was not granted. This
was most annoying ... It was most unfortunate that the Tri-
poli came in with fifteen days' quarantine, which absolutely pre-
vented me from having the least communication with the
vessel . . ." 22
The assassination of a President was a political crime, and the
Governor of Malta was not certain that Surratt should be sur-
rendered. In Naples he had passed himself off as a Canadian, and
it was through the influence of the British consul, and with his
financial assistance, that he had been taken aboard the Tripoli.
This made the issue still more complicated. When the boat went
into quarantine at Malta, a dense fog prevented her from coming
close to shore and so solved the diplomatic problem. Before the
governor of the island was forced to act decisively, Surratt was
on his way again.
But Rufus King was not so easily defeated. On November 20,
he asked Mr. Winthrop at Malta to wire the American consul
at Alexandria. 23 Once more, though, fate intervened for the
fugitive. The telegraph company reported that the cable be-
tween Malta and Alexandria was broken. On the receipt of this
distressing information, Winthrop at once sent a dispatch to the
Consul General of Egypt, using the cable service via Constanti-
nople. He had been told that in this manner his advice would
reach Alexandria at least twenty-four hours before the arrival of
The Queer Adventures of John H. Surratt 243
the Tripoli. Besides, a letter to the Egyptian consul, Mr. Hale,
was sent by Winthrop through the agents of the steamship com-
pany, which letter was to be delivered before the landing of the
passengers. Mr. Hale had full extraterritorial judicial powers,
and nothing now stood in the way of Surratt's capture.
On the 27th of November, 1866, Surratt was arrested. Shortly
afterward he was sent back to his native land on board the
United States steam corvette Swatara. 2 *
The events culminating in Surratt's seizure undoubtedly form
a series of grotesque pictures. First, he was arrested before his
detention was called for by the American authorities. Next, he
leaped from a precipice and suffered only a bruised back and a
slightly injured arm, 25 not serious enough to slow up his flight.
ALEXANDRIA
DOTTED LINE INDICATES SURRATT'S ROUTE
FROM NAPLES TO ALEXANDRIA
244 Chapter XI
At least fifty soldiers were all around the abyss, but they did not
catch him. In the garish uniform of a Zouave he then marched
undiscovered some twenty miles to the frontier. His pursuers
did not catch up with him, although his destination was obvious,
and a peasant had reported seeing him near Casa Mari on his
way to Italian territory.
Arriving at Naples, he actually asked the police to shelter him,
and for three days slept in their station as a nonpaying guest.
He had no passport, and only twelve scudi (about twelve dol-
lars), but this did not arouse the curiosity of the Neapolitan
guards. The British consul took the fugitive's word for his al-
leged Canadian citizenship and was even influential in having
some English gentlemen pay his passage on the boat.
The story then continued along an equally queer pattern.
When the ship stopped at Malta, the American consul was ad-
vised that there was no one by the name of Walters aboard, and
that he would not be allowed to make a personal investigation.
He was told that there was a man in the uniform of a Zouave on
the ship, but that his name was John Agostina, and that he was a
native of Candia. 26 Yet, when the Tripoli was about to sail,
and when it was too late for further action, additional informa-
tion was furnished which indicated that this Zouave was Surratt
after all, and that he was escaping again. All of which must
have left the diligent Mr. Winthrop in a state of speechless fury.
"It was only yesterday afternoon," he reported to the State
Department on November 2 2, 27 "that I heard this individual . . .
hailed from Canada, and not 'Candia,' as stated in the ... [of-
ficial] note ... it was a clerical error . . .
"Why ... he [was not] . . . detained under a proper guard
until he was about leaving the island, ... I am wholly at a loss
to know. . . ."
The American minister to Italy was no less chagrined, for he
wrote on November 24:
The Queer Adventures of John H. Surratt 245
My present impression, judging from my last interview with the
secretary general of foreign affairs, is that the accused would not
have been surrendered; and it would therefore be fortunate if he
should be found in the Turkish empire . . . 28
A few days earlier, General King had written, "Surratt is
apparently beyond the jurisdiction or protection of Rome, . . ." 29
thus hinting discreetly that his confidence in the good faith of
the Papal authorities had at last been shaken.
Surratt later gave an account of his miraculous escape in what
purported to be the only interview he had ever granted, al-
though, so it was said, over a thousand efforts had been made to
secure one. The story appeared in the Baltimore correspondence
of the Kansas City Journal™ and the reporter gave the assurance
that the statement was Surratt 's own, "word for word, as they
left his mouth." Nevertheless, the narrative contains several in-
accuracies which infringe on the truth, but not on the interest
of the story.
Surratt remarked that his life among the Zouaves had been
very pleasant, but that he had constantly longed for his far-away
home. He had finally written to a prominent Union man that
he was willing to surrender himself to the American authorities,
provided he could get a jury trial. He had been advised, how-
ever, to stay away for at least three years.
Surratt averred that he had voluntarily determined to return
and to take his chances of a court-martial, and had been on the
point of doing so when he was arrested.
Surratt's subsequent actions did not exactly conform to these
sentiments, for he had not hesitated to try an escape from the
very fate he said he had courted. The reporter made it plain
that it was escape and not suicide that Surratt had planned.
"It has been stated," Surratt was asked, "that when you broke
246 Chapter XI
away . . . you made a wild jump over this precipice and
landed, purely by accident, on that ledge. . . . didn't you know
of . . . [its] existence . . . ?"
"Know of it! " exclaimed Surratt. "Why of course I knew of
it! Do you think I would have been such an idiot as to jump
over a hundred-foot precipice to certain death . . . ?" Many a
time he and his comrades had looked at this ledge and estimated
its distance from the top. When he did leap, his head struck the
bare rock with such fearful force that he was knocked senseless.
What happened afterward can only be explained on the assump-
tion that the fugitive had many more friends among his com-
rades than even he himself knew.
He was brought back to his senses by the reports of rifles.
Bullets were flattening themselves on the rock unpleasantly near
his head. Dizzy, sick and unnerved, he managed to crawl out of
danger, and gradually made his way down the side of the
mountain to the little town that nestled at its base. Racing along
the main street he ran directly into the arms of a detail of
Zouaves. Surratt recalled that they were as much surprised as he,
but that he had the advantage of being on the alert. He doubled
quickly on his tracks, running like a frightened deer to elude his
pursuers. By this time the entire town was in an uproar. Every-
one had received the alarm and every gate was guarded. All of
which did not prevent Surratt's escape. Selecting a good point,
he managed to get over the wall and headed down the white
Italian road towards the coast.
The idea that their quarry might have escaped over the wall
seems not to have occurred to his pursuers, for he reached the
Italian frontier, twenty odd miles away, unmolested. 31 Here he
ran straight into a camp of Garibaldians, whom the Zouaves
were fighting. Introducing himself as an Americano, he was
treated like a brother. He stayed with his former enemies for a
week; they then supplied him with money and made it possible
The Queer Adventures of John H. Surratt 247
for him to proceed to Naples in safety. Surratt told the reporter
that, after landing at Alexandria, he had gone to a hotel, had
registered under his own name, and had calmly awaited his
arrest.
A paymaster of the United States Navy had a different recol-
lection of the episode. 32
"Unfortunately for Surratt," he wrote, "Naples had had a
visitation of cholera and was considered a foul port by the au-
thorities of Alexandria, and all the third class passengers were
marched to the quarantine station and placed under guard for a
week's observation."
Unable to leave for the interior of Egypt, Surratt was helpless,
and within a short time after his arrival he was arrested. The
end of the chase was brought about with an entire lack of dra-
matic incidents.
"The telegram and some of the letters having been delayed in
transmission," wrote the American consul at Alexandria, 33 "I was
fortunate in finding the man still in quarantine among the third-
class passengers, of whom there is no list whatever. It was easy
to distinguish him among seventy-eight of these by his zouave
uniform, and scarcely less easy by his almost unmistakable
American type of countenance. I said at once to him, 'You are
the man I want . . . What is your name?' He replied promptly,
'Walters. ' I said, 'I believe your true name is Surratt'. . . The
director of quarantine speedily arranged a sufficient escort of
soldiers, by whom the prisoner was conducted to a safe place
. . . Although the walk occupied several minutes, the prisoner,
close at my side, made no remark whatever, displaying neither
surprise nor irritation. ... I gave him the usual magisterial
caution that he was not obliged to say anything ... He said, 'I
have nothing to say. I want nothing but what is right.' "
On November 29 the prisoner's quarantine expired and he was
taken into the custody of the local authorities. On December 2 1
248 Chapter XI
the Sivatara touched at Alexandria and took Surratt on board. 34
The man hunt had at last come to its long-delayed climax.
There is reason to believe that fear of embarrassing political
entanglements played an important part in the apparent unwill-
ingness of all foreign diplomats to be found with Surratt on
their hands. The Italian government did not wish to arouse re-
sentment among its citizens by surrendering a foreigner to a
country where capital punishment was still in vogue. The Brit-
ish authorities would have been forced to decide whether Sur-
ratt was subject to extradition under the existing treaty, and this
might have proved troublesome.
"In point of fact," wrote the London Times on December 6,
1866, "it was actually asked . . . whether the murder of Presi-
dent Lincoln was or was not a 'political' crime . . . What was
to be the treatment of a man whose offence was murder, but
whose offending, nevertheless, was in its origin and circum-
stances entirely and purely political?" 35
A few days before, the representative of the British govern-
ment at Malta had stated the case quite clearly. 36
... a conspiracy to commit murder is not one of the offences in-
cluded [in the extradition treaty] . . . unless the murder intended,
or an assault with intent to commit it, was actually perpetrated, so
as to make the conspirator responsible as for murder or an assault
with intent to commit murder. . . .
Without some evidence . . . that the man Walter or Watson is
indeed Surratt, and connecting him with the murder of Mr. Lincoln
as an accomplice, that man, if apprehended, would within a very
short time be discharged, and might then bring an action of damages
for unlawful arrest . . .
The Queer Adventures of John H. Surratt 249
But the principal reason for the shifty attitude displayed by
the European authorities was probably an act of the American
government itself. Stanton had withdrawn the reward for Sur-
ratt on November 24, 1865, and no reason for this withdrawal
had been given. Was the Washington government therefore
really anxious to have the fugitive arrested? Or did the foreign
diplomats, trained to read between the lines, interpret this step
as a hint that he was no longer wanted?
Surratt himself certainly thought so.
"Now, as a matter of fact," he declared in his interview, "our
government did not want me in the United States. They were
willing and anxious for me to remain abroad and hoped I would
continue to do so. While I was in London, Liverpool and Birm-
ingham, our consuls at those ports knew who I was and advised
our state department of my whereabouts, but nothing was done.
Of course, when the matter was brought to the attention of the
government in ... an official manner, . . . there was nothing
to do but express thanks and take measures for having me re-
turned to this country for trial."
The indifference of the American government toward Surratt
had been the subject of many serious debates while he was a
fugitive, and had even occasioned an investigation by the Judici-
ary Committee of the House of Representatives. This report
emerged in its final form much subdued in tone. The Washing-
ton Daily Morning Chronicle, on March 4, 1867, summarized
the findings well, although its bias against President Johnson
blinded its judgment.
That report says much, but suggests still more. It traces the course
of John Surratt from a period shortly after the assassination of Presi-
dent Lincoln down to the time of his arrest, and shows a laxity on
the part of the Executive which would be culpable enough if the
humblest citizen had been murdered, but which was criminal under
250 Chapter XI
the . . . circumstances ... It appears that Surratt sailed from
Canada in September 1865, and landed in Liverpool on the 27th of
the same month; that the fact of his landing was communicated to
Secretary Seward by the American vice consul, Mr. Wilding. No
steps were taken by the President or Secretary of State to secure
his arrest. No demand was made upon England for his return to
this country, nor is there any evidence of the procurement or at-
tempted procurement of an indictment against him. So remiss were
the authorities of the United States that even this preliminary step to
a demand for his extradition was neglected. Was there any reason
for this lenience toward a man universally believed to have been an
active participant in the most infamous and horrible crime ever per-
petrated in America, a crime the full mystery of which still remains
unfathomed, and the benefits of which are being reaped by the
acting President of the United States? The committee may well
express surprise that no agent or detective was sent to England to
dog the foot-steps of the supposed assassin, to identify him if neces-
sary, and secure his capture; for all of which it appears there was
ample opportunity. Although our government officials were suffi-
ciently well informed of his purpose to know that Surratt was going
to Rome, no notice of the fact was given to our minister there, Mr.
King. Was it desirable that he should escape the observation of Mr.
King and rest secure from apprehension of arrest? If not, why was
the order offering a reward for his capture revoked at the early date
of November 24, 1865, less than six months after Mr. Lincoln's
death?
Yet, after all, news of his presence in Rome did reach the ears of
minister King. He was informed by another than the Secretary of
State that Surratt was in the military service of the Pope, and com-
municated the fact by letter, dated August 8, 1866, to his depart-
ment. Notwithstanding this, no steps were taken to identify or
secure the arrest of the supposed conspirator and assassin up to Oc-
tober 16, 1866, when the rumors of his known presence in Rome had
been rife long enough for everybody to have heard them; when
public speakers had declaimed it from the stand, and charged re-
The Queer Adventures of John H. Surratt 251
missness, if not connivance and guilt upon the officers of the Gov-
ernment of the United States.
. . . Did five short months suffice for the condemnation of Lin-
coln's murder? Was all the solicitude regarding the cause of it gone
out of the hearts of the people? Was perseverance in the pursuit of
his murderer exhausted in five months' time, or had money lost its
charm as an inducement for the detection of crime that by Novem-
ber 24, 1865, the reward was withdrawn?
The facts are bad, and the world is censorious enough to believe
that bad facts have a motive behind them.
Both facts and motives were now about to be delved into, so
the Boston Advertiser 37 hoped. What did Surratt himself mat-
ter? "Offer him his life, his liberty, or any other price," so the
paper advised, ". . . to obtain from his lips the information
which will shed . . . light ..."
XII
* Y ft
JNone of those accused of conspiracy
against Lincoln's life had been allowed to
speak in their defense or to give their ver-
sions of the assassination plot. Some of
them had been executed, and their voices
were stilled forever. Others, still living in
1867, were in solitary confinement on the
Dry Tortugas, unable to answer the many
questions which an entire nation was
anxious to ask. But now Surratt, the
only one of this group who had been at
liberty, was being brought back a pris-
oner. At last the long silence would be
broken. Breathlessly the American pub-
lic waited for his arrival to learn the
truth about the great tragedy —
II
Storm Around Surratt
THE Stvatara took on Surratt as its passenger on December
21, 1866, and orders were given to let no one communicate
with him. Commander William N. JerTers swore before a Con-
gressional Investigating Committee on February 20, 1867, that he
had given these orders on his own responsibility. Probably he
remembered enough about the silencing of the defendants at the
conspiracy trial to follow a parallel course. At any rate, he had
no conversation with Surratt himself, and posted the following
rules relative to the "State prisoner": 1
He is not to be allowed to converse with any person what-
ever. . . .
No person is to be permitted to converse within his hearing upon
any other subject than ship's duties. . . .
The investigating committee, with Stanton's friend Boutwell
at the helm, seemed very anxious to find out if these rules had
been obeyed, but must have felt satisfied when the commander
declared on his oath that,
. . . from the day he [Surratt] was received on my ship till the
moment I delivered him over to the marshal here, he has never
spoken a word, and no one has been allowed to speak to him except
in reference to his personal wants. . . . 2
Surratt's return voyage to the United States was unusually
slow, requiring forty-five days from Villefranche to the Capes
255
256 Chapter XII
of Virginia. The fires under the boilers were extinguished, so
one of the ship's officers recalled, because the Navy Department
was very economical in those days, and coal could not be used
while ships were on the open sea. 3
At that, the Sivatara probably sailed with greater speed than
the War Department desired. Stanton had tried his utmost to
keep Surratt from being brought back at all, 4 and now, aided by
Seward— whose actions in this whole affair are surpassingly
strange— he continued his efforts toward further procrastination.
"It is urged by Seward and Stanton," one reads in Welles'
diary, "that the Sivatara remain at Hampton Roads with Surratt
on board until further orders or till the ice disappears from the
river. 5
Of course, it would have been easy to direct the Sivatara to
Philadelphia or New York and bring the prisoner to Washington
by train. By waiting until the vessel could sail up the Potomac,
the government was allowed to gain almost a full month. The
fleeting weeks were not wasted, though. Preparations for the
now inevitable trial of the captured conspirator were made with
vigor, if without zest.
There was much at stake. No one could say with certainty
how much John Surratt knew and how much of what he knew
he might tell. Moreover, the hanging of his mother by a mili-
tary commission, directed by Stanton's Bureau of Military Jus-
tice, had to be justified at any cost. If the son should be
acquitted, the mother, far less involved, had plainly been a vic-
tim of judicial miscarriage, if not of deliberate judicial murder.
Officially, the War Department had no right to busy itself
with the case. A man was being brought before a tribunal to
answer a charge of murder. The War Department had nothing
whatever to do with it. Yet, both openly and behind closed
doors, Judge Advocate General Holt and his underlings in the
Bureau of Military Justice exerted their full power to prepare
Storm A round Surratt 257
the case and bring about a conviction. Stanton's old friend Ed-
wards Pierrepont of New York was engaged to help the local
district attorney. Not quite openly, perhaps, for Pierrepont was
not hired by the War Department, but by Secretary of State
Seward. Pierrepont, it may be recalled, was the man whom
Stanton had asked to represent him against the New York
Tribune which, in the opinion of the War Minister, had been
inciting its readers to assassinate him. 6 Previous to that, Pierre-
pont had acquired experience in trying state prisoners; Stanton
had appointed him in 1862 to act in that capacity. 7
A mysterious aide to Pierrepont in the forthcoming drama was
Albert G. Riddle, the ex-Congressman from Cleveland. He also,
strange to say, had not been hired by the Department of Justice,
but by the State Department. 8 His part was never clearly de-
fined, but an entry in Welles' diary after the conclusion of the
trial throws a singular light on his activities. A Cabinet meeting
was in session when the following scene took place.
Mr. Seward handed a communication from Mr. Riddle, implicated
in the Conover matter, 9 to the Assistant Attorney-General for him
to file or dispose of as he thought best. . . .
Seward was disconcerted, . . . and the President ordered the
paper read. This, I saw, annoyed S. still more. It was a curious
document in some respects, and disclosed the fact that R. had been
employed by Seward to hunt up, or manufacture, testimony against
Surratt. Why the State Department should busy itself in that prose-
cution is not clear. 10
The mystery which so disturbed the observant Welles has
never been solved; it leaves much to one's imagination. Riddle
had seen the perjurer Conover in prison, and it was evidently
through him that he had hoped to "hunt up, or manufacture,
testimony against Surratt." Conover, it may be surmised, wanted
prompt payment for his services. On July 26, 1867, Riddle and
258 Chapter XII
Judge Advocate General Holt, together with Congressman Ash-
ley of Ohio, one of Stanton's closest friends, signed a petition
for clemency for the convicted perjurer, on the ground that
while in jail Conover had "disinterestedly" aided in the prosecu-
tion of John H. Surratt. 11
But now, a few days later,— the Cabinet meeting referred to
took place on August 13, and the Surratt jury had been dis-
charged on August 10— Riddle stated positively that he had seen
Conover only two times and that Conover had never given him
the name of a single witness, nor had he furnished him with a
solitary fact.
"Why, then," exlaimed Welles, "did Riddle apply to the Presi-
dent for a pardon for C[onover]., and base his application on
the ground of service rendered in the Surratt trial?" 12
An interesting question, without doubt. Welles may not have
known that the application also bore the signatures of Holt and
Ashley, else a logical answer would have suggested itself to him.
Much more intriguing, however, is Welles' first query. Why
should Riddle have been employed to hunt up or manufacture
evidence against Surratt, and why should Secretary Seward, of
all people, have lent his help to such a contemptible scheme?
It is regrettable that Welles made no effort to uncover this
unsavory pot, after Seward's carelessness had lifted the lid suf-
ficiently to raise sinister suspicions of what lay simmering
within.
The days preceding Surratt's trial must have been anxious
ones in the Bureau of Military Justice. To try the conspirator
before a military tribunal was out of the question, for by no
stretch of the imagination could the country still be considered
in a state of war. The civil courts were functioning, were not
impeded by hostile armies and hence would have to be given
charge of the case.
There was one thing, though, which political influence could
Storm A round Surratt 259
accomplish, and that was the selection of the judge. There were
four judges to choose from— the Messrs. Wylie, Olin, Cartter
and Fisher. Judge Wylie had issued a writ of habeas corpus for
Mrs. Surratt in a vain endeavor to stay her execution; Judge Olin
had conducted some of the preliminary investigations for the
assassination trial and had shown a tendency to probe rather
thoroughly into matters assigned to him. Cartter, the chief jus-
tice, was known as a personal friend of Stanton, and it would
have been impolitic to have him preside at the trial. There re-
mained Judge George P. Fisher, a Delaware Unionist and former
Congressman from that state. The task was allotted to him, and
his conduct found favor in the eyes of the government prose-
cutors. Edwards Pierrepont said of him in later years:
I made the acquaintance of Judge Fisher at the trial of John H.
Surratt, when I saw his character tested. I found him brave where
others cowered, and my estimate of him as a gentleman, a judge, and
a man of uprightness and honor is very high. 13
Gideon Welles expressed himself differently. He condensed
his opinion of Fisher's behavior during the trial into one poig-
nant sentence.
"The judge was disgracefully partial and unjust . . ." 14
As the Savatara neared the American shores, wild rumors be-
gan to make the rounds. Fred Seward, son of the Secretary
of State, was said to have gone out on a secret mission aboard
the government steamer Gettysburg for the purpose of inter-
cepting the incoming vessel and offering to John Surratt the
promise of a pardon from President Johnson, if he would not
implicate the latter in Lincoln's assassination. 15 As a matter of
fact, Fred Seward, then Assistant Secretary of State, was on his
260 Chapter XII
way to San Domingo to conclude a treaty for the opening of a
harbor for American ships and, far from negotiating with the
captured conspirator, almost lost his life in a gale near Cape
Hatteras. 16
On February 19, 1867, the Stvatara finally cast anchor at the
Washington Navy Yard. 17 Surratt was handed over to the civil
authorities and lodged in jail. While he was awaiting trial, the
policy of keeping him incommunicado was still adhered to.
This fact was subsequently brought out in open court.
"He was debarred by the warden from the use of pen and
ink," stated one of the defense counsel, "and the Court had
ordered that no one should visit him." The presiding judge
indignantly denied this imputation.
"I never issued an order of the kind," he said, "for I never
thought it necessary to do so. I have always thought a prisoner's
friends had a right to visit him while in confinement." 18
The affair was really a trifle more complex than appeared to
the casual observer. President Johnson was fearful lest his politi-
cal opponents would use Surratt against him in their campaign
for impeachment. The Bureau of Military Justice, on the other
hand, wanted to repeat its muzzling methods of 1865, so that
he could not tell tales out of school. Each side wanted to talk to
the accused, but wished to prevent him from talking to anyone
else.
"The President remarked that no good could result from any
communication with Surratt," wrote Welles in his diary, "and
that the more reckless Radicals, if they could have access to him,
would be ready to tamper with and suborn him. The man's life
was at stake, he was desperate and resentful. Such a person and
in such a condition might, if approached, make almost any
statement. He, therefore, thought he should not be allowed to
communicate with others, nor should unauthorized persons be
Storm A round Surratt 2 6 1
permitted to see him. In these views and suggestions I coin-
cided . . ." 19
Mr. Merrick, one of Surratt's lawyers, stated that he had re-
quested the Court to issue special orders before parties could visit
the prisoner, "because there were certain members of Congress
prowling around the jail desirous to see the prisoner for bad
purposes . . ."
The Court replied that something might have been said on
the subject, "but he was sure that he had given no such order,
nor said anything that could be so construed." 20 In this he un-
doubtedly spoke the truth. Holt, Stanton's field marshal, cer-
tainly wanted no court orders which might have excluded his
own friends from interviewing Surratt, and in the end Holt won
out. All efforts of the President and of the defense counsel to
keep Surratt from being approached by the Radical extremists
proved fruitless. Congressman Ashley, who was then trying
frantically to prove Johnson's complicity in Lincoln's assassina-
tion, sent word to the prisoner that the latter had only "to give
the name of someone high in position," and "there is a means by
which he can save his neck. . . ." 21 But the conspirators did not
know that Doctor Duhamel, who attended the inmates of the
prison, was also Johnson's personal physician and kept the Presi-
dent advised of the plot. John Surratt's sister Anna epitomized
the situation with clarity when she said earnestly that John
"knew nothing in that case against the President . . . and could
not be induced to swear away his own soul." 22
Thus the opposing political interests continued to clash be-
hind the scenes, long before the curtain rose on the open court
fight in which Surratt's life was the sole avowed stake.
* XIII *
On February 4, 1867, the Grand Jury
of the District of Columbia found an in-
dictment against John Surratt, charging
him with murder and with entering into
a conspiracy to murder u one Abraham
Lincoln". On February 19 a bench war-
rant was issued for the arrest of the ac-
cused, and on February 23 Surratt was
brought into court handcuffed to plead
to the indictment against him.
"How will you be tried?" asked the
clerk; to which the response was made,
"By ?ny countrymen."
"Then may God send you safe deliver-
ance" the court officer said ominously.
Surratt was then remanded to jail and
allowed to engage counsel for his defense.
The great trial, eagerly awaited by two
continents, was about to begin.
XIII
The Surratt Trial
1
The Prosecution
THE TRIAL of John Surratt was an event of magnitude.
The preliminaries alone could be expected to take consid-
erable time. Yet, Surratt 's lawyers moved with commendable
speed from the moment they had accepted his case. On April
1 8, 1867, they filed a motion to fix a day for trial; on the same
day the district attorney made a motion for a continuance, but
was overruled. Surratt's counsel thereupon gave notice that
they would be ready to proceed to trial on May 27. 1
When court assembled on that day, Mr. Carrington, the dis-
trict attorney, announced that the prosecution was not ready.
He regretted exceedingly, he said, that several difficulties stood
in the way of proceeding to trial. The probabilities were that
the case would run into the next term of the court, which com-
menced on the third Monday in June, and the question had
arisen in his mind whether, if the trial were not concluded, the
court would continue it at the succeeding term. 2
This clumsy attempt at delay elicited a question from the
presiding judge: was there not a statute on the books disposing
of this objection? Counsel for Surratt stated that there was, and
that a case pending at the close of a term would go over and
be continued.
265
266 Chapter XIII
Thus rebuffed, the district attorney offered "another and a
very serious objection." Important witnesses had failed to ap-
pear, he claimed, and new facts were still being brought to light.
He refrained from making a motion for continuance; he simply
was not ready to proceed. This put the decision into the hands
of Judge Fisher, who had already stated that in the absence of
such a motion the trial must begin. Now he reversed his ruling
and ordered a postponement to June 10.
By April 29 the daily press had become restless because of
these dilatory tactics of the public prosecutor.
"There have been dark hints and horrible suggestions," wrote
the Springfield (Mass.) Daily Republican on that date, "by the
party papers on both sides as to the probable reasons for denying
a trial to John H. Surratt, as though he might implicate in the
great assassination conspiracy some one or more persons high in
place at Washington. Such fearful suspicions should not be ex-
cited without good reason, and there is none apparent in this
case."
The New York Herald, under date of May 19, published
some pungent observations of its Washington correspondent. 3
Monday week is the day fixed for the commencement of Sur-
ratt's trial, but I have reason to think that the prosecution will not
be ready then, if ever ... it will only bear out my dispatch of
some weeks ago, to the effect that [the] Government is in no hurry
to bring on the trial, if, indeed, it does not intend to abandon it alto-
gether. The prisoner's legal representatives have over and over
again reported themselves ready, but, contrary to the general ruling,
the prosecution, after six months of preparation, has never yet been
able to say, "We are prepared to proceed with the trial.' , . . .
There is something curious in this conduct on the part of the prose-
cution, and it would not cause much surprise now should it turn out
that there is some truth in the rumors . . . that [the] Government
is averse to any trial of the prisoner at all . . .
The Surratt Trial 267
The Baltimore Sun of May 29 also felt uneasy, for it said:
Among other assertions made, is one that when the case is again
called up, on June ioth, the prosecuting attorney will abandon the
murder count in the indictment. The only charge against Surratt
will then be conspiracy, and that being a bailable offence, he will
be released to appear when wanted; and it is said that he will never
be wanted, but that the case will be permitted to expire by lapse of
time, and it is hinted that, for reasons not made public, the trial of
Surratt is not at all desirable.
On May 30, the Washington Daily Morning Chronicle came
out in blunt language, expressing the views of the Radical Re-
publicans.
"The people mean to have John H. Surratt tried . . ." it
declared. "The whole mystery of that assassination is not known.
If there is any possibility of getting at the truth the people wish
to get at it. The Administration will be held responsible . . .
particularly . . . when the President is the beneficiary of that
assassination. . . . This trial ... is no mere ordinary trial for
conspiracy or murder. ... It involves the good name of some
men in high places, about whom there have been unpleasant
surmises. If Surratt is not tried, the connection between the
assassination and the betrayal of the nation will have become
firmly established in the public mind. . . ."
By June 10 everything was finally in readiness. An imposing
array of counsel had been assembled on both sides of the case.
For the prosecution there appeared the district attorney, E. C.
Carrington, with his assistant, Nathaniel Wilson, a native of
Ohio, who had served as judge advocate during the war.* Asso-
ciated with them were Edwards Pierrepont and the mysterious
268 Chapter XIII
ex-Congressman and ex-defender of State prisoners, Albert G.
Riddle.
Edwards Pierrepont, the leader of the government forces, was
a prominent member of the New York bar. He stood close to
Stanton, whom he probably had known at the beginning of his
career, when practicing law in Columbus, Ohio. Welles once
called him "one of Stanton's jockey lawyers". In 1868 Pierre-
pont was to tender $20,000 toward Grant's election. "Such a
donation," Welles declared, "is, of course, not disinterested or
for an honest purpose. Pierrepont has been paid enormous fees
by Stanton and Seward. He is a cunning and adroit lawyer, but
not a true and trusty man." 5
Whether in recognition of his merits or in gratitude for his
campaign contributions, Grant later appointed Pierrepont, in
turn, United States attorney for the southern district of New
York, United States minister to Russia, Attorney General of the
United States and, finally, minister to Great Britain. 6
Carrington, the district attorney for the District of Columbia,
was not as deep in the confidence of the high powers as was his
confrere, although probably neither of them knew the intricate
secrets of the case as well as Riddle.
Born in Virginia in 1825, Carrington boasted an ancestry sec-
ond to none. The Carringtons of Virginia had distinguished
themselves in the Revolutionary War; from his mother, Carring-
ton had inherited the blood of the Prestons and the Campbells,
of King's Mountain fame. His father had been an officer in
the War of 1812, and he was a great-nephew of Patrick Henry.
When twenty years old, he had commanded a company in the
Mexican War, and the Virginia legislature had given him a
sword in recognition of his services. But he remained a loyal
Whig. He moved to Washington at the age of twenty-eight,
and after Lincoln's election he even canvassed Virginia against
secession. One of his brothers had joined the Confederate army,
The Surratt Trial
Presiding Judge George P. Fisher
( Courtesy of Mr. Frederick H. Meserve,
New York.)
Judge A. B. Wylie
(L. C. Handy Studios, Washington, D. C.)
awards Pierrepont, chief counsel for the Albert Gallatin Riddle, representative of
Government in the Surratt Trial. the State Department.
(From the author's collection.) (By courtesy of the Western Reserve Historical
Society, Cleveland.)
The Surratt Trial 269
while another fell on the Union side in 1864. 7 In the spring of
1 86 1, a United States attorney for the District of Columbia had
to be appointed and the choice had lain between Stanton and
Carrington. The latter had won out, due to Attorney General
Bates' friendship for the Carrington family; his reappointment
had followed in 1865.
Albert Gallatin Riddle was in court to represent the State
Department, at the special request of Secretary Seward. He
stated so in his Recollections of War Times 8 but failed to ex-
plain what interest the State Department had in the trial of a
murder case. The moment Surratt had landed in the United
States, he had passed from Seward's jurisdiction into that of the
Attorney General, and neither the War Department nor the
State Department had any right to take official cognizance of
further developments. Curiously enough, Riddle had two years
before been asked to aid in the defense of Mrs. Surratt, but had
declined.
Surratt's interests were represented by Joseph H. Bradley, an
elderly trial lawyer of Washington, wise in the ways of courts,
alert, and gifted with a sarcastic tongue which he was always
ready to use. A distressing habit of bullying and insulting wit-
nesses marred his record and was to find vent in many violent
onslaughts during the forthcoming trial. As an old time War
Democrat, he had offered his services to the government as a
Union volunteer in 1861, in company with none other than his
present adversary, Carrington. Nevertheless, he had remained
in opposition to the Lincoln regime and had become an acknowl-
edged champion of the politically oppressed. In 1865, swamped
with other professional obligations, he had regretfully declined
to defend the conspirator David E. Herold. 9 At Bradley's side
were his son, Joseph H. Bradley, junior, and Richard T. Mer-
rick, an able and forceful assistant.
Merrick, a son of Senator William D. Merrick of Maryland,
270 Chapter XIII
had commanded a company in the Mexican War, although then
under age, and had later practiced law in Chicago, from which
city he had been sent as a delegate to the Democratic convention
of i860, where he had supported Douglas. In 1864 he had
moved to Washington. Merrick was a brilliant speaker and de-
bater. It was Merrick whom General Thomas was to employ
within a year to represent him after his famous imbroglio with
Secretary Stanton. 10
Merrick's brother had been chief judge of the Circuit Court
of the District of Columbia until this tribunal was abolished by
an unusual act of Congress in 1863. 11 Against him Senator Wil-
son of Massachusetts had exclaimed that "his heart is sweltering
with treason'', and the jurist had been practically put under
guard for interfering with the arbitrary arrests of the provost
marshal's forces. 12
The younger Bradley, then a man of thirty-six years, was
completely overshadowed by the presence of his father, and
little was known about him. Only one incident in his life dis-
tinguished him. He had been arrested after Lincoln's assassina-
tion because he looked somewhat like Booth, and had been held
in prison until he had secured witnesses to prove his identity. 13
Throughout the trial Surratt was consoled by his sister Anna,
his brother Isaac 14 and many friends. Although a collection
was taken up to defray the expenses of the trial, it yielded only
about $i,5oo, 15 and a competent defense would have been impos-
sible had not Mr. Bradley undertaken the task without remuner-
ation. It was Miss Surratt who had pleaded with this veteran of
many court battles to shoulder the difficult and thankless task
of defending her brother. And she did more than plead. Proud
as she was, she sold pictures of her brother to anyone willing to
buy them, in order to help raise additional funds for his war
chest. 16
The Surratt Trial 271
The requisite number of jurymen had been assembled. They
were about to be examined, when the district attorney rose and
challenged the panel on the ground that it had not been drawn
according to law. This assertion created quite a commotion, but
Carrington was undoubtedly right. It appeared that in selecting
the jurymen certain customs which were in technical violation
of the statutes had become the vogue, although no one had ever
raised any objection before.
"In my view," Mr. Pierrepont declared, "... I should not
hesitate in saying . . . that a verdict of a jury thus illegally
empanelled would be altogether worthless, and that no man
could be executed upon it . . ."
Thereupon Mr. Bradley wanted to know what was to be done
with all those who already had been executed— about twelve,
he thought.
"Oh, no," the district attorney hastened to reply, "not quite
so many as that. And I will only say that it is never too late to
do good. I don't want to hang any more in that way." 17
Inwardly, all members of the Washington bar must have been
boiling with rage that a lawyer from New York had revealed
the existence of such a flaw which had been universally over-
looked. It certainly showed scandalous laxity in judicial admin-
istration at the nation's capital.
Counsel for the defense even embroiled the presiding judge in
the controversy.
"It is somewhat remarkable," commented Mr. Merrick with
irony, "that the objection . . . should be presented for the first
time at this late day. Since the passage of the act of 1862, . . .
the jurors have been uniformly drawn, and the lists uniformly
prepared in the same manner . . . ; and if this jury is illegally
constituted, . . . your honor has been dealing somewhat incon-
siderately with the lives and liberties of the citizens . . . since
1863, when your honor came upon the bench. You have hung
272 Chapter XIII
one man . . . and you are now to be gratified with the intelli-
gence that . . . you were guilty of simply killing ... A
pleasing reflection to your honor . . ." 18
Weakly the chief representative of the government came to
the assistance of the bench.
". . . if the statute has never before been called to your no-
tice," Pierrepont expostulated, "of course your honor has not
passed upon it. . . . it is no man's fault; it has not been thought
of." 19
The judge thereupon ruled that the panel should be set aside
and that summonses for a new jury should be issued. The gov-
ernment had gained its point— and a few more days' time.
This continued dilly-dallying did not escape the impatient
press. The Chicago Times™ a Democratic organ, thought that
"the proceeding gave rise to a suspicion that the marshal will
summon talesmen from men whose prejudices are against the
prisoner. . . . the trial . . . should be so conducted as to im-
press the people with a belief in its fairness. There is something
more than the gratification of an idle curiosity or the infliction
of punishment involved in the result. Surratt is not the only
person on trial."
The Washington Chronicle was beginning to worry if Surratt
was ever going to be tried.
"Again the country," it pleaded on June 13, "agitated and
deeply anxious to know as much of the mystery of the assassina-
tion as can be fathomed, is harassed with doubt. The jury panel
was set aside yesterday, by order of the court. We shall not
question the legality of the court's decision, but why was a panel
summoned that made such a decision necessary? These things
only tend to intensify the suspicion with which the whole people
regard these untoward proceedings. The nation wants to get
at the bottom of the terrible mystery. Who is there behind these
occurrences that has an interest in defeating the law by evasion?
The Surratt Trial 273
We cannot charge it upon the prisoner. In this trial his life is
the smallest stake. What we want is light, not life. No other
man's life can pay for the precious one that Booth's pistol blotted
out for the sake of the Southern Confederacy."
It was now Friday, June 14. On Monday, the 17th, a new
term would begin, and it was therefore vital that the jury be
chosen before that time, else the case would have to go over to
the fall term. When court opened on the 14th, Judge Fisher was
not on the bench. Judge Wylie announced that his colleague
was "quite sick, and unable to attend . . ." Judge Wylie added
that his ailing associate had not requested him to hold court, but
that he wished to be present so that the empanelling of the jury
could be completed. Mr. Pierrepont, who seemed anything but
gratified by the appearance of a substitute on the bench, slyly
suggested adjournment for one day, in the expectation that Judge
Fisher would have recovered by that time. 21 Only three jurors
had been agreed upon so far, and a week-end was in the offing;
as Pierrepont had not yet exhausted his challenges, he could
therefore reasonably hope to effect a postponement for several
months. But Judge Wylie completely ignored this proposal.
Thereupon the prosecution took a final, drastic step to stop fur-
ther proceedings.
"I do not know," the district attorney addressed the court,
"whether your honor's attention has been called to the act of
Congress, which was read to Judge Fisher, providing that unless
a jury is empanelled during one term of the court, we cannot
continue the trial of the case during the succeeding term. . . ."
The Court. That is why I am sitting here to-day in order that
we may get a jury before the next term begins.
The District Attorney. ... it occurred to us that it would be
impossible for us to empanel a jury to-day. But even if we should
. . . there are other difficulties . . . where a judge takes the place
274 Chapter XIII
of the one to whom the term has been assigned, it should be upon
his written request. . . .
The Court. How do you know but what I have that. 22
It seems that the court and the district attorney were both on
dangerous ground here, and the subject was dropped as if by
tacit agreement. Carrington next argued that it would be of
doubtful legality to have one judge start empanelling a jury,
another judge complete it, and a third judge preside at the trial.
But Wylie, who probably had stepped into the breach with a
well-defined suspicion of what was in the wind, could not be
intimidated.
"It is not worth while," he decided, "to waste any time upon
points of that sort. I am not disposed to listen to argument upon
such. The law knows neither Judge Olin, Judge Fisher, nor
Judge Wylie, but looks to the 'justice of the criminal court' . . .
The court overrules the objection . . . There is no use . . .
discussing the matter."
Mr. Pierrepont. (In a low tone to the district attorney.) We can-
not go on. 23
This by-play had an amusing tinge to it which was lost in
this official government-sponsored transcription. The full steno-
graphic version adds the following colloquy:
Judge Wylie. "... There is no use of discussing it. We can-
not waste time."
Mr. Carrington. We did not make the suggestion with any such
view. Of course, your honor would not impute anything of that
sort.
Judge Wylie. Of course not.
Mr. Carrington. We did it from a sense of duty.
Judge Wylie. No doubt of it. 24
The Surratt Trial 275
The jurymen who were eventually selected seemed to meet
the approval of everyone. The Washington correspondent of
the Boston Saturday Evening Gazette discussed for his paper the
qualities of both the rejected and the accepted panel. 25
. . . that the [first] panel of twenty-six men was largely Irish,
Catholic and democratic, the bare calling of their names gave assur-
ance to everybody. The chief objection thereto, it seemed to me,
lay in the fact that it was a panel of dunces. Not one face in six,
of the two benches full, was that of a man ordinarily intelligent. I
am utterly at a loss to understand how it was possible, without extra
effort, to get together such a company of stupids. Whether it be
possible to secure conviction, whatever the testimony, before a jury
composed in large part of Catholics, is a question as to which there
may be differences of opinion; but as it is especially desirable that
this case, involving the great mystery of the assassination conspiracy,
should be tried before intelligent men, I think it a case of congratu-
lation that the judge grant [ed] the motion of the district attorney.
But the new and finally chosen jury is the best that Washington
has seen in many years. Nearly all are men between forty and fifty
years of age. Politically none are republicans, and none were se-
cessionists during the war. Two or three are rather prominently
known as democrats, but no one can technically be classed a poli-
tician. Half of them at one time or another have been in the city
council, and one now is a member of the board of aldermen. All of
them are men of good standing in the community. At least half are
merchants. Not more than two are Roman Catholic in religion. As
a whole it is a jury that will endeavor to deal honestly with the
evidence. . . .
It is noteworthy that no attacks were ever launched against
the Surratt jury by any section of the press, even after the trial
had closed; as each juryman had undoubtedly been scrutinized
closely by the reporters, the judgment of the Boston Gazette
was obviously representative of the general opinion.
276 Chapter XIII
By June 1 7, the preliminary skirmishes were over, and the pro-
ceedings began in earnest. Judge Fisher was again well enough
to preside. He did not vacate his chair again during the remain-
der of the case, although on at least one occasion he was so un-
well that a postponement had to be taken. 26
A special reporter for the Chicago Tribune sent to his paper
on June 24 a word picture of the setting in which the great trial
was being enacted.
The court-room is in the old City Hall. It is . . . Washington As
It Was— a room forty feet square, dingy with age and neglect, and
dirty with much use and many feet. There are three great windows
on the south, from which one can dimly see the old arsenal . . .
within which the other assassins were tried and executed; and three
great windows on the north, from which one can easily see the old
jail in which Surratt is confined, and the path up which he walks, the
Marshal on one side and a deputy on the other . . . The Judge's
bench is on the east— a high, ungainly, old-fashioned concern, within
which His Honor sits in solitariness and incongruousness . . . On
the right of the Judge is a door opening into the little room wherein
witnesses are kept. On the left is another door through which enter
lawyers, prisoner, reporters, and such other . . . persons as can
pass the grizzley moustache keeping guard there. In front of the
Judge is the Clerk— old and methodical and inoffensive, of course, as
the Clerks of courts always are. At his immediate right is the ste-
nographer of the court— young and nimble and knowing, of course,
as short-hand writers always are. Just at his right, . . . eighteen
inches above the main floor, is the witness box ... In the northeast
corner ... are the jury benches, long and uncomfortable. The
lawyers are in front of the Clerk . . . Within the bar can be seated
about seventy-five persons . . . Out side the bar is standing-room
for two to three hundred. The windows are dirty, the ceilings are
cobwebby, the whole place is seedy and slovenly.
Judge Fisher, in the opinion of this correspondent, had "noth-
ing in his manner to impress one with the majesty of the law.
The Surratt Trial 277
. . . His face is not stern, but it shows force and individuality.
. . . The judge is just in the prime of life. He is never arro-
gant—it would hardly do to say that he is undignified, but . . .
during the pauses ... he likes to lean over his desk and chat
with the lawyers. He is a man of large frame, with a squarish
sort of face, and most kindly eyes. He wears no whiskers, but
has a formidable moustache which is as non-judge-like as you
please. . . ."
General Carrington, the district attorney, appeared to this re-
porter as "a man of some ability and considerable singularity-
tall, angular, unique, with a full and flowing John-Brown-ish
beard, fifteen or sixteen inches long and of a grizzly red-brown
color . . . His voice is harsh, his manner abrupt, his peculiari-
ties are numerous."
Contrariwise, his assistant, Mr. Wilson, was pictured as a small
man, five feet eight inches tall, easy, graceful, fluent, courteous,
affable, sharp, concise, companionable— all that. He knew more
about the case than anyone else, the reporter wrote, and had
the good will of everybody.
Edwards Pierrepont was described as "a medium-sized man,
whose appearance suggests Europe. He shaves his chin, but
wears a heavy moustache and long side-whiskers of English cut."
His hair, beard and eyes were black, and he made a good impres-
sion on the attendants of the court.
"Joseph Bradley, Senior, "continued the correspondent of the
Tribune, "is at the head of the criminal bar of the district.
He is noted, in recent days, for his successful defence of Mary
Harris, who murdered Burroughs, the Treasury clerk. . . . He
[Bradley] is a tall and large man of fifty-five, or thereabouts,
with a roundish head, entirely bald in front and on the top. His
face is round and his eyes are keen— his jaws are firmly set and
his manner is easy and colloquial. Everybody knows him, he
278 Chapter XIII
knows everybody, and Washington is quite inclined to worship
at his shrine."
The Mary Harris case had furnished one of the great sensa-
tions of its days. During that trial, which had just ended, Brad-
ley had coined the phrase "paroxysmal insanity" and thereby
freed his client. If the Chicago writer had been able to see into
the future, he would have discovered that many years later, in
1883, client and lawyer were joined in holy matrimony, al-
though Bradley had then passed his eightieth birthday. 27
Bradley's son appeared to the correspondent as an ordinary
looking young man of about twenty-six, and a chip off the old
block. Merrick was described as "the best-dressed man at our
bar— not that he is foppish, but that he likes to make a good
appearance and isn't above wearing a handsome neck-tie.
Smooth, suave, open-handed, with bright black eyes that meet
yours frankly— the man makes you see Dick Merrick every time
you look his way."
A contemporary writer presented another intimate picture of
the courtroom scene.
The court room is located in the centre of the east wing of the
City Hall, and possesses but few of the accommodations needed for
a trial of this magnitude. It is the same room in which another fa-
mous trial took place, that of Daniel E. Sickles, charged with the
murder of Phillip Barton Key, 28 and the interest and excitement at
present are not unlike the opening of that trial. Large crowds are
turned away unable even to obtain standing room. A detail of police
are present to preserve order. . . . Every leading journal in the
country, and the London "Telegraph" are here represented. . . .
It is truly astonishing . . . that between the counsel on both sides
the most genial cordiality and harmony exists. . . . They may be
seen talking, laughing, eating and drinking together. In fact it
would be conceded all were on the same side. Now you see Car-
rington stretched full length across Bradley's desk, a model of can-
The Surratt Trial 279
dor and coolness; now, Bradley Jr., talking pleasantly with a . . .
witness against his client; now, Merrick and Pierrepont stroll away
to some corner and laugh and talk together; and anon Bradley, Sr.,
and Wilson may be seen joking ... I sat for a long half hour with
my eyes fixed on the prisoner . . . He appeared very downcast and
melancholy to-day, smiling very seldom at some witty remarks of
Bradley, Sr. . . . 29
At a quarter to 1 1 the prisoner was brought into court, hand-
cuffed, and with a pale and careworn countenance. Excepting
a moustache and goatee, his face was clean-shaven, and he wore
his hair long and hanging about his neck. 30 The ladies of Wash-
ington considered him quite attractive and thronged the court-
room. Surratt usually created a favorable impression on those
who saw him, and even Admiral Goldborough, in writing to
Secretary Welles, had spoken of the alleged conspirator as a
"handsome, cultivated, well behaved young man, perfectly self
possessed . . . who conducted himself with great propriety." 31
But not all observers spoke so well of the prisoner. A cor-
respondent of the New York Times who had visited him on
April 2, disapproved of many things. 32
My conversation with this somewhat remarkable man was not so
full and free as I could have wished. He evidently was in no mood
to talk on the topics that were most prominent in my own mind
... I ventured to ask him a leading question in regard to his escape
and concealment in Canada. Putting on one of his most offensive
smiles, he replied, "I have nothing to say about that." His manner
. . . more than his words, conveyed to my mind . . . that he con-
sidered it "a good thing," something to boast of, a great secret that
would tend to make him famous hereafter . . .
After a time Surratt's handcuffs were removed and the pris-
oner was taken from the box to a seat next to his counsel. He
exchanged nods with friends in the audience, and engaged in a
280 Chapter XIII
lively conversation with Mr. Merrick, even laughing heartily
at times.
The assistant district attorney now outlined his case. He pro-
posed to show that the defendant had been in Montreal on
April 10, 1865, when he had received an urgent request from
Booth to proceed to Washington at once; he had obeyed the
summons and had arrived at the capital on the 13 th. The fixing
of this date later proved a bad error of judgment; but Wilson
could hardly foresee this at the moment.
"We shall make the proof to be as clear as the noonday sun,"
he prophesied, " . . . that he was here during the day of that
fatal Friday [April 14, 1865], as well as present at the theatre
at night . . . You shall know that his cool and calculating
malice was the director of the bullet that pierced the brain of
the President . . ." 33
In order to build a proper foundation for its case, the prosecu-
tion had to establish the assassination as legally proven. It was
during this phase of the trial that a curious thing happened. One
of the witnesses was Major Rathbone, who had been one of the
Presidential party at Ford's Theatre. His statement brought out
no new facts, but is remarkable in another way: he repeated,
almost verbatim, the phrases he had used two years earlier. Three
times Major Rathbone was asked to relate his experiences of that
memorable evening; and three times he used almost exactly the
same language. For this peculiar behavior there can be only two
answers: either he had learned his statement by heart, or else he
read it from a memorandum. In either case, the true reason for
this extreme caution calls for an explanation. Did Rathbone have
to be so careful in what he said because— as is now known— he
was suppressing each time some vital evidence? For he had
The Surratt Trial 2 8 1
chosen not to mention the delinquent bodyguard Parker nor the
footman Forbes, nor had he referred to the appearance on the
scene of Hanscom, the editor of the Washington Republican.™
Was it the Bureau of Military Justice whose hand was thus
being felt in the trial right from its beginning? It is a pity that
Major Rathbone's statement was not compared by the defense
with those he had made before, for under Bradley's thorough
cross-examination some hitherto hidden details of the assassina-
tion might have been brought to light.
The district attorney next devoted himself to the all-important
task of proving that Surratt had actually been on the scene of
the crime during the evening of April 14. This was the crux
of the entire case. Unless it could be shown that the accused
had been in Washington on the day of the assassination, a verdict
of guilty could not be expected.
The first witness introduced was a sergeant named Joseph M.
Dye, who had also appeared as witness for the prosecution in the
conspiracy trial, when he had obligingly recognized Booth and
Spangler as part of a group of three who had held a mysterious
conference in front of Ford's Theatre. As a matter of fact,
Spangler had been on the stage continuously, never had worn
a moustache, as Dye had claimed, and could not have been the
man Dye had referred to; yet, largely as a result of this false
testimony, he had been sent to the Dry Tortugas. Even the stern
military commission must have entertained some doubts, for the
scene shifter's sentence had been an unusually light one. This
sergeant was now called on to swear to Surratt's presence in
Washington. Without hesitancy he identified the defendant as
the third man of the odd-looking whispering trio and as the one
282
Chapter XIII
O
H
z
S
o
§
H
Pi
fa
O
O
£
s
o
u
2
I
vo
CO
8 *>
!k
SJ
^
^
«
■4-i
.9 ^ 2
CJ