YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Complete and Unabridged Edition.— Containing the whole of the Suppressed Evidence. THE TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AND CONSPIRATORS AT WASHINGTON CITY, D. C, MAY AND JUNE, 18G5. FOR THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN. FULL OF ILLUSTRATIVE ENGRAVINGS. Being a full and verbatim Report of the Testimony of all the Witnesses examined in the whole Trial, with the Argument of Reverdy Johnson on the Jurisdiction of the Commission, and all the Arguments of Counsel on both sides, with the closing Argument of Hon. John A. Bingham, Special Judge Advocate, as well as the Verdict of the Military Commission, and the President's approval of the same ; with his official order for the execution of Mrs. Surratt ; Payne ; Harold ; and Atzeroth ; and full par ticulars in relation' to the condemned, from the time of their having their sentences of condemnation read to them by Major-General Hancock, until the moment of their Execution ; with scenes on the Scaffold, etc. With a sketch of the Life of all the Conspirators, and Portraits and Illustrative Engravings of the principal persons and scenes relating to the foul murder and the trial. It also contains Mrs. Surratt's petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus on the morning of her execution ; its indorsement by the Court; and process served on General Hancock, with his appearance in court, and re turn made to it, with the address of Attorney-General Speed, and the Presi dent's indorsement on the return, suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus in the case, and the remarks made on it by the Court, with other items of*fact and interest not to be found in any other work of the kind published. The whole being complete and unabridged in this volume, being prepared on the spot by the Special Correspondents and Reporters of the Philadelphia Daily Inquirer, expressly for this edition. 3 /$&$ L J3t)ilabdp[)ta: T. B. PETEESON" & BEOTHEES, 806 CHESTNUT STEEET. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1865, hy T. B. PETERSON & BROTHERS, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. THE TEIAL OF THE ALLEGED Assassins and Conspirators. i-^av— <«-^i THE COURT MARTIAL. On the first of May, 1865, Presi dent Johnson issued the following order for the trial of the criminals : Executive Chamber, 1 Washington City, May 1, 1865. j Whereas the Attorney General of the United States has given his opinion that the persons implicated in the murder of the late President, Abra ham Lincoln, and the attempted assassination of the Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, and an alleged conspiracy to assassinate other officers of the Federal Govern ment . at Washington city, and their aiders and abettors are subject to the jurisdiction of and legally triable before a military commission : It is ordered: First — That the As sistant Adjutant General detail nine competent military officers to serve as a commission for the trial ' of said parties, and that the Judge Advocate General proceed to prefer charges against said parties for their alleged offences, and bring them to trial be fore said military commission ; that said trial or trials be conducted by the said Judge Advocate General, as recorder thereof, in person, aided by such assistant or special judge advo cates as he may designate, and that said trials be conducted with all dili gence consistent with the ends of jus tice, and said commission to sit with out regard to hours. Second — That Brevet Major Gene ral Hartranft be assigned to duty as Special Provost Marshal General, for the purpose of said trial and attend ance upon said commission, and the execution of its mandates. Third — That the said commission establish such order or rules of pro ceeding as may avoid unnecessary delay and conduce to the ends of pub lic justice. ANDREW JOHNSON. Adjutant General's Office, \ Washington, D. C, May 6, 1865. J Official Copy: W. A. Nichols, Assistant Adjutant General. In compliance with this order the following officers were detailed as members of the military commission : PRESIDENT. Major General David Hunter. MEMBERS. Major General Lew. Wallace, Brev. Maj. Gen. August V. Kautz, Brig. Gen. Albion P. Howe, Brig. Gen. Robert S. Foster, Brig. Gen. James A. Ekin, Brig. Gen. Thomas M. Harris, Col. Charles H. Tompkins, Brevet Col. D. R. Clendenin. The prosecution was conducted by Brigadier General Joseph Holt, Judge Advocate General ; assisted by Brevet Colonel H. L. Burnett, of Indiana, and Hon. John A. Bingham, of Ohio, Assistant Judge Advocates. The prisoners selected for their counsel, Reverdy Johnson, of Mary land, Thomas Ewing, of Kansas, W. E. Doster, of Pennsylvania, Fred. A. Aikin, District of Columbia, Walter S. Cox, John W. Clampit, and F. Stone, of Maryland. The commission was composed of men of distinguished ability and in telligence. General Hunter is known as a man of superior attainments, and had served on a large number of Courts (15) 16 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Martial. Major General Lew. Wal lace is not only one of the most gal lant officers in the army, but he is also a lawyer of great eminence, ranking among the first legal minds at the bar of his native State, Indiana. He was originally Colonel of the celebrated 11th Indiana Zouaves, and was pro moted to Brigadier General, and af terward to Major General, for gal lantry in the field. At present he commands the Middle Department, headquarters at Baltimore, a position which he has held for nearly two years. General Kautz is the celebrated Cav alry leader, and a man of great deci sion of character. Brigadier General Foster, of Indiana, Brigadier General Howe, of Maine, Brigadier General Harris, General Ekin, and Colonels Tomkins and Clendenin are soldiers who have won most honorable dis tinction in the service during the past four years. Hon. Joseph Holt, Judge Advo cate General of the United States, needs no eulogy. His reputation as a lawyer is known throughout the nation. He was ably assisted by As sistant Judge Advocate Bingham, of Ohio, and Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett, of Indiana, the latter gen tleman having conducted the prosecu tion of the famous Indiana conspira tors, who were found guilty of treason and sentenced to death, but who ulti mately had their sentences commuted to imprisonment for life in the Ohio Penitentiary. Hon. Reverdy Johnson, of Mary land, has a national reputation for legal acumen, and was selected by Mrs. Surratt as her counsel. His argument against the right of the Government to try the prisoners by Court Martial is an ingenious effort. Of the remaining gentlemen defend ing the accused little is known outside the immediate localities where they practice their profession. LABORS OF THE COMMISSION. The following interesting items will give the public some idea of the labor imposed on the Commission : Total number of witnesses subpoe naed, 483 Number examined, . . . 361 Number examined, including re calls, * . . . • -422 Number examined, subpoenaed for prosecution, . . • • 24 T Number actually examined, . 1 98 Number subpoenaed for defence, . 236 Number actually examined, _. 163 Total number of pages of testi mony, legal cap, . 4300 Making a solid pile of MSS. some what over 26 inches in height. The arguments make in addition, TOO pages. The vast mass of depo sitions, &c, taken by three Judge Advocates, Colonels Burnett, Fos ter and Olcott, prior to the opening of the case, employed five short-hand writers a fortnight, and will require two experienced clerks six weeks to brief and file away. In this, as in all State trials, the Government pays the expenses of the witnesses for the de fence, as well as those for the prose cution, at the rate of $3 per diem, and the actual cost of transportation from and to the witnesses' homes. Justice is always sure, sooner or later, to overtake the murderer. For a brief time he may elude the pursu ing fate, and perhaps, as it has often been the case, he may cover up for years his footsteps and be lost to the keen scent of the avenger. But the day must come, when he will meet his deserts. God's eye watches him, and when the hour arrives, the murderer is exposed and justice is at last satis fied. In the case of the assassins of Presi dent Lincoln and Secretary Seward, the criminals were brought, either to a speedy death or arrest. Their plans of escape were well laid and promised success. The first great danger was passed when Booth and Payne made good their escape from the theatre and from Mr. Seward's house. So far all seemed well ; but Booth's fall on the stage, which broke his leg, sealed his fate certainly. It was decreed that he should not long elude the swift punishment due his horrible crime a crime for which there is no name. Payne thrown from his horse, found himself in the limits of the city, and in disguise sought the house of Mrs. Surratt. The ministers of justice TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 11 were there before him, and he fell into their hands unwittingly, though un willingly, a couple of days after the assassination. Harold followed Booth, and proved a coward in the last act of the tragedy in which his principal died the death of a dog ; and, begging*for life, sur rendered. Geo. A. Atzeroth, Michael O'Lough- lin, Samuel Arnold, Samuel E. Mudd, and Mary E. Surratt were also duly arrested as accessaries to the villainous plot, and confined in prison to await their trial, which is fully reported in the succeeding pages. Sketches of the Culprits. Although justice decided that Booth should not be brought to formal trial, it is not foreign to the history of the great trial of the conspirators, that a sketch of the principal actor in the tragedy which amazed the world, should be given in this work. John Wilkes Booth. Booth was born on his father's farm near Baltimore. Like his two bro thers, Edwin and Junius Brutus, he inherited and early manifested a pre dilection for the stage, and was well known to theatre-goers and the public generally as a very fine-looking young man, but as an actor of more promise than performance. He is best remembered, perhaps, in "Richard," which he played closely after his father's conception of that character, and by his admirers was considered superior to the elder Booth. He was quite popular in the Western and Southern cities, and his last extended engagement was in Chicago. Excellent actors say — and actors are not over-apt to praise each other — that he had inherited some of the most brilliant qualities of his father's genius. But, of late, an apparently incurable bronchial affection made almost every engagement of his a failure. The papers and critics apolo gized for his " hoarseness," but it was long known by his friends that he would be compelled to abandon the stage. In the winter of 1863 and '64 he played an engagement in the St. Charles Theatre, in New Orleans, un der the disadvantages of his " hoarse ness," and the engagement termina ted sooner than was expected on that account. He had many old friends in that city, but this was his first ap pearance there since the inception of the rebellion. On his arrival he called upon the editor of one of the leading journals, and in the course of conver sation he warmly expressed his sym pathy with secession. Indeed, he was well known as a secessionist, but he was not one of the "noisy kind." His last appearance in New York was on the evening of November 23, 1864, at Winter Garden, when the play of Julius Caesar was given for the benefit of the Shakspeare Monu ment Fund, with a cast including the three Booth brothers — Edwin as " Brutus," Junius as " Cassius," and John Wilkes as "Marc Antony." In the early part of 1863, during an engagement at McVicker's Theatre, Chicago, he made the remark one day, " What a glorious opportunity there is for a man to immortalize himself by killing Lincoln !" "What good would that do?" he was asked. He then quoted these lines : — "The ambitious youth who fired the Ephesian dome, Outlives in fame the pious fool who reared it." *'Well, who was that ambitious youth — what was his name ?" was then asked. " That I know not," Booth replied. " Then where's the fame you speak of?" This nonplussed him. From this it would seem that the assassin had the commission of this horrid crime in his mind for at least two or three years. He was a young man of slender form, nervous and wiry. He often rendered himself obnoxious in the theatrical circles by the expression of his disloyal sentiments, and was a great admirer of Brutus, the assassin of Caesar, Charlotte Corday, the as sassin of Marat, Joan of Arc, and that class of historical characters. He was subject to occasional sprees of intoxication, and was generally regarded among actors as a reckless TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. and erratic young fellow, though a tragedian of superior ability, origi nality and promise. Lewis Payne. A great mystery envelopes this man i — a mystery which seems impenetra ble. As the assassin who attempted the life of Secretary Seward, more than ordinary interest was attached to the testimony affecting his case. Who he is no one appeared to know on the trial. The nearest approach to any thing satisfactory is, that he is the son of a Rev. Mr. Powell, a Baptist min ister, residing in Florida ; but even this is not positively ascertained. Miss Brandon, a witness, produced in his behalf, remembered him as a nurse in one of the hospitals after the battle of Gettysburg. He then went by the name of Powell ; but, early in 1865, while boarding with MrS. Brandon's mother, in Baltimore, he assumed the name of Payne. During the progress of the trial he remained apparently indifferent to all around, and was possessed of a most extraordinary control over his feelings. He maintained a dogged and sullen demeanor throughout ; and when the colored waiter at Mr. Seward's was placed upon the witness stand, Payne was directed to stand up and face the witness. Both looked steadily at each other for a few moments, when the colored boy pointed to Payne, saying, " That is the man!" This positive recognition did not in the least discon cert the prisoner. But when Sergeant George B. Robinson, the nurse at Mr. Seward's, was called, and Payne was again directed to stand up and look at the witness while he detailed the cir cumstances attending the attempted murder, the prisoner grew red in the face at the recital of Robinson, par ticularly while he held in his hand the knife which Payne used on the occa sion, and gave a demonstration of the manner in which the assassin had struck at the defenceless man as he lay upon his sick bed. The court-room was almost breath less at this moment, every eye being turned upon the prisoner, to read in his countenance the confirmation of the truth of the witness' statement ; but he not so much as stirred. His wild stare was fixed upon the witness. His mouth was closed tightly, as if his teeth were firmly clenched together, and he stood up as straight as a statue, with no sign of fear, trembling, or trepidation. Two coats worn by Payne on the night of the attempted murder were produced. The irons were taken from Payne's wrists, and he was directed to put on both coats and the hat which he dropped at the Secretary's house when he fled. The colored boy was again brought in, and. Payne stood up, dressed in the clothes he wore on that night, and he again identified Payne as the man who forced himself into Mr. Seward's house while in this dress. Facing the witness, Payne would occa sionally betray a sneeriDg 'defiant smile, and looked like a perfect desperado. Major Seward, son of the Secretary, also positively identified Payne as the man who entered his father's house, and, in a tone of deep emotion, nar rated the incidents of the stabbing of his father and brother, and pointed to Payne as the man who did it. He was positive as to his identity, and the counsel for the prisoner, after a short cross-examination, desisted, as a refu tation of this evidence was hopeless. The sleeve of the woolen shirt which Payne had improvised into a skull cap on the night he visited Mrs. Surratt's house, and the pickaxe he carried, were exhibited. The sleeve was put on Payne's head, and he was fully identified' by the re spective officers as the man who at tempted to pass himself off as a labor ing man when he was arrested by the detectives at Mrs. Surratt's. The boots he wore on that night were also given in evidence, and it was shown that the name originally inside of them had been blotted out to prevent identification, but being experimented upon with oxalic acid, the name of "J. W. Booth" appeared. This com pleted the chain of evidence connect ing Payne with Booth. An attempt was made by his coun sel to prove him insane ; but a rirajly and patriotically, of the'peoplo oi Western Virginia. There were other topics involved In the Constitution wnic i influenced theWotes of those who voted against it, to which it is unnecessary and useless here to refer -B«t I deny, and deny implicitly, that there was a single man who voted because of that opinion, or who took the oath with a view to vote, thereby to violate Court to measure the moral character of every counsel who ma/ appear belore them? Is that their 'function? What .nnuence has that upon the Conn by which their judgment, could be led astray. His client may suffer TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 23 ftom the possible prejudice it may create in the minds of the Court. But how can the Court suffer? Who gives to the Court the jurisdiction to decide upon the moral char acter of the counsel who may appear before them? Who makes them the arbiter of public morality, or of my pro essional morality? What author. ty have they under their commission to rule me out, or any other counsel out, upon the ground that lie does not recog nize the validity of an oath, even if they believed it? But I put myself on no such grounds. I deem raysel , In all moral respects, to be the equal of any memberof this tr bunal. They may dispose of the question as they please, it will not touch me. Response of Mr. Harris. The Court will understand me as not intending to cast any reflection upon the people of Maryland in re gard to loyalty and morality, or in regard to patriot ism. I am proud to say that they have a good record in this great contest through which our countrvhas Just passed. Whilo it is true of Maryland, I am sorry to say it is equally true of my State, that many joined the Rebellion, andhavemade for themselves a terrible record. But the circumstances of this case were ra her peculiar. The people of Maryland were about to vote upon an alteration in the fundamental law of the Statetupon the adoption of a new constitution— a con stitution which made some radical changes in regard to thesoclalstatus of the people of Maryland. Slavery was about to be blotted out, that was the purpose, and it is an unfortunate fact that that portion of the people interested in tbe proposed change were. as a general thing, the disloyal portion, audit was in reference lo the e.fect which this opinion expressed by the honorable gentleman in the letter referred to had upon that vote, and upon the action ot this portion of the people, that my objection was in part founded, for it did seem as though they understood it as I did. In regard to the right of the court to inquire into the moralstanding of counsel wehave no such right, but theorder constituting this Court mukes provision for the prisoners or the accused having the a:d of counsel. The provisions in reference to that matter is that gentlemen shall exhibit a certificate of hiving taken tbeoatn, or shall take it in presence of the Court, and thus the obligation of an oath is here aspeciai question. If it does not appear that he ignores the moral obli gation, and we admit him, it defeats tho v^ry provi sions of theorder, hence I think thatitis'properin me, as a memberof the Court, to found an objection otthat character Tipon such grounds, wli ether the objection is sustained or not. The gentleman disclaims any sucn intention, but th at is a tacit admission thaMhc language ofthatletter may have been unguarded, that ic may have had the effect supposed, though it wa3 not in ac cordance with the intention or' his mind in writing it. It is an unfortunate thing if he wrote a letter so mis construed, but if it was not theintenton of the writer, that of course must-exonerate him. He disavows hav ing auy such intention, and claims for himself a moral character, which he is not ashamed to put in compari son with that of any memberof the Court. Nowitis not my purpose to measure characters at all. but simply to bring forward an objection. Ifeltit my duty to bring, and nothing else, an objection founded on the understanding Ihad of the letter re ferred to. I was sorry to have to do it, but I did.it in no spirit of personal ill will or bad leeling. I was sorry that it was my duty to do such a thing, but I could not do anything else with the im ression I had on my mind, and he, as an honorable genileman, will understand what I mean by this. He understands, too. what the force of consc.entious convictions must be, and that it a man acts from principle, this thing willoccasionally impose upon him some unpleasant duties. His di -avowal of any such intention as I de rived from memory of his letter I am bound to take: but this I must insist upon, that there was some ground for the objection. Reply of Mr. Johnson. Mr. President, one word more. All I propose to say is that the order confers no authority to reluse me ad mission, on the grounds claimed by the honorable member, because you have no authority to adminis ter tbe oath tnme. I have taken it in the Senate of the United States, in the Circuit rourt of my State, in the Supreme Court of the United States, and I am a practitioner in all the courts in nearly all the States; and it would be a littie singular if one who has a right to appear before the Supreme Court of the land, and who belongs to the body that creates courts-mar tial, shall not have the right to appear before cou**fs-martial Major-General Hunter.— Mr. Johnson has made an intimation as to holding members of the court person- all v responsible. Mr. Johnson— I made no such intimation, nor in tended it. Major-General Hunter— I shall say no more than I was going to say. The day h.id passed when freemen irom the North were to be bullied and insulted by the humbug chivalry of the South. The Courthere took a recess for half an hour, and when it returned, went into secret session, in order to deliberate upon the objection so lengthily discussed. The Court being reopened, General Harris stated that he desired to withdraw his objection, as he con sidered Mr. Johnson's explanation a satisfactory re moval of the grounds on which the obtoction waa founded. Mr Johnson expressed his desire and willingness to take the oath, but the Court deemed it unnecessary, and the oath was not taken. Tbe Testimony. A,. W. Lee, being sworn, testified as follows: Q. Do you belong to the police lorce? A. Yes sir, to the m.litary police. Q. Stale whether atanytlme you examined the room of Atzeroth, at the Kirk wood House. A. Ye3sir. I waa ordered by Major O'Beirne to go into t he principal part of tue building and see how the house was situated. I made the f xamination,and told him one could get irom the roof to asLairway in the back of the buMding which would admit him into any part of the building. I to.d the Major the circumstances. Q. When was that? A. (Here the witness looked at a paper.) It was the night of the 15th of April. 1 then went, and while there alriend came to meandsaid there was a rather suspicious looking man who had taken a room there the day previous, and I had better go and look. I went, and found in the register, badly written, the name of Atzeroth— E. A. Atzerott— I made it out; but in fact nobody could roako it out until I asked the proprietor, and he mane it out on the register. Q. Where did you go after that? A. I went up stairs to the room, and saw one of the clerks, and I asked him to go up to the room with me; found the door locked, and he said the party had taken the key with him: I went to one of the proprietors and ask^difhe had any ob jections to my goingiutotheroom.ifwecouldfind akey to fit it; he said no; but though he tried his keys, we could not get in. I asked him it we might burst in tho door; he said he had no objection, and we burst tho door open; when we went in I saw a coat hanging on the wall. Colonel Burnett here ordered a bundle to be passed to the witness. This bundle, on being opened by the Colonel, was found to be a coat, rolled in which were sundry small articles. Witness— That coat was hanging upon the wall, just in that way as you go in, on the left-hand side. That's the coat, sir. Q. State what examination yqu made of the room? A. Well,! saw that coat right opposite; the bod stood on the right; I went towards the bsd. and underneath the pillow or bolster found a revolver bound with brass. Here a pistol was shown to witness, passing through the bands of Mr. Johnson, who re marked, "It is loaded." Witness— I then went down stairs to find Major O'Beirne, and we went upstairs to the room again; I took the coat down and found this book and that also. Q. I i the pockets? A. Yes sir. Q. Look inside that book and see what was written in it? A. Yes sir; there was an account, too. on the Ontario Bank of fourhundred and fifty-live dollars; I then put my handin thepocket again and found this handkerchief with the name ot M.'.ry It. Eooth on it; I then pulled out this other handkerchief, and had some. difiiculty in making outthemark, but i tnink it is I? E. Nelson or l-\ A. Nelson upon it; 1 found this hand kerchief with M. H. on the corner; 1 got this newpair of gauntlets: I labeled all these things myself, and I got these three boxes of Colt's cartridges. Q. Do they fit- the pistol? A. 1 never loaded the pis oi, sir; I don't know; I found this piece of licorice and this brush. Q,. This writing was in the back of that boob, Mr J, Wilkes Booth, in account with the Bank of Ontario. four hundred and fifty dollars? A. Yes, sir; I then got that si.ur and pair of socks; ihat is all I got out of the pocke:s, Q. Do you remember the number of the room? A. It was rojra I2fi, sir. Q. Was it over where Vice-President Johnson was at that time? Tbe witness here entered into an explanation of the locality totally unintelligible, but upon being shown a plan or sketch by Mr. Ben. Pitt- man, seemed to recognize the situation of the room. This plau, however, was not admitted in evidence. A. I went around the room, took up the carpets, took out the waahstand, moved the stove and madea thorough search, aud then went to the bed again, took o.f the clothes piece by piece, and after I came down underneath the sheets and mattrasses I got those bowie knives. Here a knife was shown tbe witness, and handed to the various members of the Court. It was long and stylus-shaped, like that used by Booth, horn bandied and sheathed in red leather. Q. You did not see him in the room yourself? A. No sir; he had left the day before: the clerk who was there said he would recognize the man. 24 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Q. Go and get him after you have been examined, with or without a subpoena; bring him as soon as you can. Here the examination in chief, which had been conducted by Judge Holt, Advocate-Gene ral of the United States, was closed. Cross-examination— Q. What is your business? A. Detective officer of the Board of Enrollment of the District of Columbia, of which Major O'Beirne is Pro vost Marshal. Q. How long have you followed the business ? A. I have been in service ever since I left New Yortcon the commencement ot the war; I was in the Ninety-fifth New York Volunteers. Q. How long have you been a detective in Washing ton ? A. Ever since the burning of Aquia Creek; I had been discharged as a volunteer irom. the Ninety-filth New York. Q. You mentioned a conversation with some one in reierence to a suspicious character at the Kirkwood House. Where did you first see the man who told you his name ? A. I first saw him in the house. Q. Was he a clerk ? A. A night watchman, I think. Q. What was his precise language to you? A. He said to methere was a suspicious, bad, villainous look ing fellow came into the place aud took a room, and he didn'tlike the appearance of him. Q. When was it that person had come and taken a room ? A. I think it was the day betbre. Q. Can you say for certain ? A. No sir ; I would not beposiiive.about it; I think to the best of my know ledge it was the day before. Q. Did he describe his appearance to you? A, Yes sir, he did. Q. Bepeathis description. A. I don't think I could, as he described it to me ; I don't recollect; I think he said he had a grey coaton. ©. Have you ever seen, to your knowledge, Mr. At zeroth? A. I don't know that I have ever seen him; I have seen most everybody knocking around about Washington; I don't know as I ever saw him to know him by name; can't say that I have or have not. Q, What first brought yon to the Kirkwood' House? A. I was at home eating my supper ; Mr. Cunningham came alter me, one ot our force: no, I had gone out alter supper and I think I met him asquare irom the house; says he, you are wanted immediately at the Kirkwood House; I went, aud there was Major O'Beirne: I found men all about there, detailed for duty to protect the President, or at that time the Vice Pre sident. Q,. Describe the appearance of the man who gave you the inlbrmatiou. A, The man was about your build, He may be a little heavier, but about your height. Q. How old does he look to be ? A. Somewhere about your age. Q. What is my age ? A. I take you to be about thirty, Q. Don't you know his name? A. No sir. I don't. Q. Now will you describe the relative position of Johnsons room and the room in which you iound this coat? The witness here entered into a series of gesti culations and explanations, from which neither court, counsels or reporters could derive ativ understanding of his meaning or the locality he sought to describe. Q. Did you find any signature of Atzeroth in the room? A. I did not. Q. What made you think it was his room? A. Be cause it said so on the register. It was No. 126. Q- You have no other evidence except tbe register? A. No sir. I don't know as I have any other eoidence. Q. That is all. Testimony of Lewis J. Weiehinan. Q. State to the Court if you know James H. Surratt. A. I do. I first made his acquaintance intheiallof 1862, in St. Charles county. Maryland, or in the fall of 1859, 1 should say. Q.. Plow long were you together then? A. Until 1862; I renewed my acquaintance with him in January, 1863. Q. In this city? A. Yes sir. Q. When did you begin to board at the house of his mother, the prisoner here? A. On the 1st ot Novem ber, 18ti4. Q. Where is her house? A. On H street. No. 541. Q. See if that is Mrs. Surras sitting by you there? A. Yes sir, that is Mrs. Surratt. Q. "Vv ill you state when you first made youracquaint- ance with Dr. Mudd. A. It was on or about the 15th of January, 1865. Q. State under what circumstances. A. I was pass ing down Saventh street, with Surratt, and when nearly opposite Odd Fellows' Hall, someone called out, "Surratt, Surratt." On looking around Surratt recognized an old acquaintance of his, of Charles county. Maryland; he introduced Dr. Mudd to me, and Dr. Mudd introduced Mr. Booth, who was in company with him, to both of us; they were coming up Seventh- street and we were coming down. Ci. By tbe Court. Do you mean J. Wilkes Booth? A. Yes sir, J. Wilkes Booth. Q. Wheredid you goto then? A. He invited us to bis room at the National Hotel. ^ . Q. Who? A. Booth; he told us to be seated, and ordered segars and wine to tho room for four, and Dr* Mudd then went out to the passage and called Booth. out and had. a private conversation with him. Booth and the Doctor then came in and called Surratt out, leaving me alone. Q. How long? A. Fifteen or twenty minutes. Q. Do you know the nature of their conversation? A. No; I wassittlngon a lounge, near the window; they came in at last, and Mudd came near me on the settee, and apologized lor their private conversation, stating he had private business with Booth, who wished o purchase his farm. Q. Did you see any manuscript of any sort on the table? A. No, Booth at one time cut the back of an enveloDe and made marks on it with a pencil. Q. Was he writing on it? A. I should not consider it writing, but marks alone ; they were seated at the table in the centre of the room. Q, Did you see the marks? A. No sir; just saw motion of the pencil; Booth also came to me and apolo gized, and said he wished to purchase Mudd'siarm; Mudd had previously stated to me that he did not care to sell his larm to Booth, as he was not willing to give him enough ibr it. Q. You didii t hear a word spoken between them in regard to the farm? A, No sir; I did not know the nature of their conversation at*all. Q. Did I understandtyou to say that you did not hear any of their conversation at the table, but omy saw the motion of the peucil? A. Yes s'r. Ci. You continued to board at Mrs. Surratt's? A. I boarded there up to the time of the assassination. Q,. Alter this interview at theNational, state whether Booth calledfrequently at Mrs. Surratt's? A. Yes Sir. Q. Whom did he call to see? A. He generally called for John H. Surratt, and, in his absence, called ior Mrs. Wurract Q. Were those interviews held apart, or in presence of other persons? A. Always apart: I have been in company with Booth in the parlor with Surratt, but Booth has taken Surratt to a room up stairs, and en- gagein private conversation up there; hewouldsay' "John, can you spare meaword? come up stairs;" they would go and engage in private conversation, which would la t two or three hours. Q. Did the same thing occur with Mrs. Surratt7 A. Yes. Q. Have you ever seen the prisoner Atzeroth? A. I have sir. Q. Do you recognize him here? A. Yes sir; that is he. Cj. Have you ever seen him at Mrs. Surratt's? A. He came there about three weeks alter I formed the ac quaint, nice of Booth. * Q. Who did he inquire for? A. For Mr. Surratt, John II. ' Q. Did you ever see him with Booth there, or only withSurrati? A. I have never seen him in the house with Booth. Q. How often did he call? A. Some ten or fifteen times. Q. What was the name by which be was known by the young ladies ot the house? A. They understood tli at he came from Port Tobacco, and instead of calling him by his own name, they gave him the nickname or Port Tobacco. Q. Did you ever see him on the street ? A. Yes sir. I have mc th;m on the corner of Seventh and Penn sylvania avenue; it was about the time Booth played Pescara, in the Apostate; Booth had given Surratt two complimentary tickets, on that occasion, and we went down and met Atzeroth; we told him where we were going, and he sa d he was going too, and at the theatre we me v David O. Harold. Q. Do you know Harold ? Do you see him here » A. Yes sir. Here Harold bent forward, and laughingly inclined toward the witness. Witness-We also met another gentleman there, named llollahan, who stopped in the house; we met him in the theatre, and we remained until the play was over, and the fave of us left together and went toother as far as the corner ot Tenth and E streets, but on TTn^h? £r£JnJLb^att- notice<* th»t Atzeroth and Harold wore not iollowing, and I went and found them in the restaurant adjoining the theatre, talking contidentially with Booth; on my approaching thev separated, and then we took a drink, and there was a gentleman there whose face I remember; we left and jo.ned the other two gentlemen, and went to another restaurant to have some oysters anotner Q. Did you ever see Atzeroth there? A Yes sir nn the day of the assassination. ies,sir, on 8- What time wasjt? A, Abouthalf-pasttwo o'clock Q. What was he do ng? A. He seemrfKhJS a horse: I had been sent by Mrs IS, t0 £ *f buggy: when I got there I saw Atzeroth, and asked what he wanted; he said he wanted to hire a horse- ne asked Brooks if he could have a horse, and he told him he could not; then we left, and both of us went as far as TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTOA. 25 the Post Othce; I had a letter to draw out, and after that he went off towards Tenth street. Q. Was this horse that was kept there Surratt's or Booth's? A. I will state that on the Tuesday previous to the assassination I was also sent to the National Hotel to see Booth, and get his buggy for Mrs. Sur ratt. She wished me to drive her into the country. Booth said he had sold his buggy, but he would give me ten aollars. and I should hire a buggy for Mrs. Sur ratt. and spoke of the horses he kept at Brooks' stabl es. I then said they were Surratt's; he said they " were mine." Q. Did Booth give you ten dollars? A, Yes, sir. CJ. Did you drive her out? A. Yes, s r. Q. To what joint? A. ToSurrattsville; weleitat ten and reached there at twelve; that was on Tuesday, the llth. Q. Did you return that day? A. Yes sir; we only remained half an hour; Mrs. Surratt sa d she went for the purpose of seeing Mrs. Nothy, who owed her money. Q. You continued to board at Mrs. Surratt's? A. I boarded there up to the time of the assassination. Q. Alter the interview at the National, statewhether Booth called frequently atMrs. Surratt's. A. Yes sir. Q. Whom did he call tosee? A. Hegenerallycalled for John H. Surratt, and in his absence called ior Mrs. Surratt. Q. Were these interviews held.apart or in presence? A. Always apart; I have been in company with Booth in the parlor, with Surratt, but Booth has taken Sur ratt to a room upstairs and engaged in private conver sation up there; he would say, ''John, can you spare a word?— come up stairs." They would go and engage in private conversation, which would last two or three hours. Q. Did the same thing ever occur with Mrs. Surratt? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you ever seen the prisoner Atzeroth? A. I have, sir. Q, Do you recognize him here? Yes, sir, that is he. Q. State whether on the following Friday, that is the day ot the assassination, you drove Mrs. Surratt into the country? A. Yes sir. Q. Where did you drive to? A. To Surrattsville; we arrived there about half-past four. Q. Did she stop at tbe house ot Mr. Lloyds? A. Yes sir; she went into the parlor. Q. What time did you have to return? A. About hall-past six. Q. Can you go down therein two hours? A. When the roads are good you could easily get down there in two hours. Q. State whether you remember, some time in tbe month of March, a man calling atMrs. Surratt's, and fivingliimself the name of Wood. and inquiring ior ohnH. Surratt? A. Yes, I opened the door for him. He asked it Mr. Surratt was in; I told him no, but I introduced bim to the family; he had then expressed a wish t3 see Mrs. Surratt, Q. Do you recognize him here? A. Yes, sir; that's he; that's tbe man Payne; be called himself Wood then. Q. How long did he remain with Mrs. Surratt. A. He stopped in the house all night, and had supper served up to him in my room; they brought him sup per from the kitchen. Q. When was that? A. As nearly as I can recolleet, it was about eight weeks previous to the assassination. I have no exact knowledge of thedate. Q. Did he bring apackage? A. No, sir. Q. How was he dressed? A. He had a black over coat on and a black frock coat with grey pants at the time. CJ. Did he remain till the next morning? A. Yes; he left in the earliest train lor Baltimore. Q. Do you rememOer whether, some weeks after, the same man cdied again? A. Yes. I should think it was about three weeks, and I again went to the door. I then showed him into the parlor, and again asked his name. That time he gave the name of Payne. Q. Did he then have an interview with Mrs. Surratt? A. Miss Fitzpatrick, myselt and Mrs. Surratt were pre sent; he remained about three days, and represented him°elf to be a Baptist preacher; he said he had been in Baltimore about a week, had taken the oath of alle giance, and was going to become a good loyal citizen. Q. Did you hear any exulanation why he said he was a Baptist minister? A. No; Miss Surratt said he was a queer-looking Baptist preacher. Q. Did they seem to recognize him as the Wood of former days? A. Yes, sir; in conversation one of tbe ladies called him Woods, and then I recollected that on his previous visit he had given tbe name of Wood. Q. How was he dressed then? A. In a complete suit of grey. Q. Did he have any baggage? A. Yes sir; he had a linen coat and two linen shirts. Q. Did you observe any trace of disguise orprepara- tlonsfor disguises? A. One day I found a false mous tache on the table in my room; I threw it into a little toilet box, and Payne searched for it and inquired for his moustache; I was sitting in the chair and did not say anything; I retained it ever since; it was found in my baggage among a box of paints I had in my trunk. Q. Did you see him. and Surratt together by them selves? A. Yes; It was on the same day; I went to the third story and found them sitting on a bed playing with bowie knives. Q. Did you see any other weapons? A. Yes, sir. Two revolvers and lour sets of new spurs. Here the witness was shown a spar and identified It as one of those he bad then seen, saying. " Yes, these are the spurs, three ot those were in my room." Q. By the Court. That is the spur found in Atzeroth's room ? The witness was then shown the knife which had been identified by Mr. Lee as the one found in Atze roth's room. But witness stated that he did not re cognize it, and that the knife that Payne had on the bed was a smaller one. Q. They hadabraceofpistols,didyousay? A. They had two long navy revolvers. Here the witness was shown tbe pistol pro duced during Lee's examination and said "that looks like one of them." Q. Was the barrel round or octagonal? A. Octa gonal. Q. Doyou remember having gone with Surratt to the Herndon House to hire a room? A, Yes, sir. Q. What time was that? A. It must have been the 19th of March. CJ. For whom did he wish to rent this room? A. Well, be went and inquired for Mrs. Mary Murray, and whenshecame.be had apiivate interview with her, but said that she did not s'^em to comprehend, though he thought that a Mi^s Waid had spoken to her already on the subject, and he said to Mrs. Murray, Miss Ward may have spoken to you about the matter of hiring a room for a ceilca^e gentleman, and Mr. Surratt added he would like to havethe room by the following Mon day, as the gentleman wanted to take possession on that day; I think that was the Monday previous; it was the 27th of March. Q. The name of the person wasnotgiven? A. No, sir, nonamew s mentioned at all. CJ. Did you afterwards learn that Payne was at that house? A. Yes, sir. I met Atzeroth on the street, and asked him where he was going? He stated that he was going to see Payne. I asked him. Is it Payne that is i t the Herndon House, and he said yes. Q. Did y;.u evermeet Harold atSurratt's ? A. Once. CJ. Where else did you see him? A.I met him on the occasion of the visit to the theatre, when Booth played "Piscara;" also, atMrs. Surratt's, in t:-.e Spring of 1863, when I first-made her acquaintance; he was there with some musicians who were serenading some county officers after an election; 1 next met him in 1864, at church; tliese aretue only times I recollect. CJ. Do you know either of the prisoners. Arnold or Laugh Mn? A. No, sir. Q. What knowledge, if anv, have you of Surratt's having gone to Richmond. A". About the 23d of March —no. it was the 17th. There was a woman named Sla- der came to tbe house: she went to Canada and re turned on Saturday, tbe 23d of March. Mr. Surratt drove her into the country, about eight o'clock in the morning, and I understood that he had gone to Rich mond with Mrs. Slader. This Mrs. Slader was to meet a man named Howe, but this man was captured and could not take her. Q. She was a blockade runner ? A. Yes, sir, or the bearer o'l"despi!t2hes. Q. D'.d Mrs. Surratt tell you so ? A. Yes , sir. Q. Wnen did he return? A. He returned on the third of April. Q. Do you know of his having brought any gold with bim? A. Yes, he had some nine cr eleven twenty dollar gold pieces, and he had some greenbacks, about filty dollars; he gave Jorty dollars in gold to Mr. Hollihan, and Mr. Hollihan gave him sixty dollars In greenbacks; he remained in the house about an hour, and told me lie was giving to Montreal; he asked me, however, to go and take some oysters with him, and we went down to the corner of Seventh street and Pennsvlvania avenue, and took some oysters. CJ. And he left? A. Yes, he left that evening, and since that time I have not seen bim. Q. Haveyou seen any letter trom him? A. Yes.Isaw a letter to his mother, dated April 12th; it was received hereon the 14tb,I also stiw another written to Miss Ward, I did not see the date, but the receipt of the letter was prior to the one of his mother. , Q. Did he have any conversation with you, as he passed through, about the fall of Richmond? A. Yes, heto'dmehe did not believe it; he said he had seen .Benjamin and Davis, and they had told him that it would not be evacuated, and he seemed to be incredu lous. Q. Have you been to Canada since? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you there learn of Surratt? A. That he had arrived at Montreal on the 6th; and returned for the States on the 12th, returning again on the isth, and engaging rooms at the St. Lawrence Hotel. He left the St. Lawrence that night at half-past ten. He was seen to leave the house of a Mr. Butterfield, in company with three others, in a wagon. Objected to. and the statement not insisted on as a part of the record. Q. Doyou remember earlier in April that Mrs. Sur ratt sent for you, and asked you to give Mr. Booth no tice that she wished to see him? A. Yes, sir. 26 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Q. What was the message? A. Merely that she wished to see him. CJ. Did she say on private busines3,oruse any expres sion of that kind? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did you deliver the message? A. I did. Q. What did Booth say? A. He said he would come to the house immediately, or as soou as he could. Q. What time was this? A. Some time in April; it Was the second; when she sent me 1 found m Booth's room Mr. McColiom, the actor; I cornmun cated to Booth her desire, and he did come in the evening of the 2d. CJ. State whether he called on the evening of the 14th ot Aprii, the day of the assassination? A. Yes, sir; about halt-past two. o'clock, when 1 was .going out at the door I met Mrs. Surratt, speaking to Booth. Q. Were they alone? a. Yes, sir; they were alone in the parlor. CJ. How long was it after that when you started for the country? A. He didn't remain more than three or four minutes. CJ. And immediately after that you set out for the country? A. Yes, sir. This examination In chief, like the preceding one, was conducted by General Holt, Judge Advocate of the United States. Cross examination by Reverdy Johnson: — Q. How long have you been at Mrs. Surratt's? A. Since December, 1864 ; Mrs. Surratt at mat time had moved to the city irom the country; she had rented her farm. CJ. Did you ever live with her in the country ? A. No, Sir; but 1 had visited her. Q. You knew her very well at that time? A. Not very well: I made her acquaintance through her son, who was a school-mate of mine: I, sometimes went there, and always experienced kindness and courtesy. CJ. What sort of a house had she in the city here? A. It contained eight rooms— six large aud two small. Q. Was she in the habit of renting her rooms out? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did she furnish board, as well as rooms? A. Yes sir. CJ. Didyousay thatyoungSurratttoldyou in April he was going to Montreal; did yju ever know him to go there before? A. No sir; he was there in the win ter of 1S64 and 1865; sometimes at home and sometimes not; during tbe winter of 1S64, especially during No vember, he was in the country most of the time; his stay at home was not permanent; he was sometimes away for three or four weeks. Q. During the winter, was he long enough away to have been In Canada without your knowing it? A. Yes, sir. He could have gone but not returned to the house without my knowledge. CJ. Have you any knowledge that he was then in Canada? A. No sir. CJ. Were you on intimate terms with him? A. Very Intimate, indeed. CJ. Did he ever acknowledge to you any purpose to assassinate tbe President? A. No sir, he stated to me and to his sister, that he was going to Jfiurope on a cot ton speculation; lie said be had had three thousand dollars advanced to him by a gentleman; thathe would go to Liverpool, thence to Nassau, and irom there to Matamoros, to find his brother, who was in the Rebel army— in Magruder's army. CJ. Did he go to Texaj before the Rebellion— the bro ther I mean. A. I don't know; never saw the bro ther. CJ. Were you in the habit of seeing young Surratt al most every day. A. Yes sir. He would be seated at the same table, We occupied the same room. He slept with me. CJ. During the whole of that period you never heard him intimate it was his intention to assassinate the President? A. No sir. CJ. Did you see anything that led you to believe? Question was objected to by Colonel Burnett, Assistant Judge Advocate, and was waived by Mr. Johnson. CJ. You never heard him or anybody else say any thing about it from the month of November to the time of the assassination? A. No sir; he said once he was going with Booth to be an actor, and he said he was going to Richmond; he was well educated, and was astudent of divinity. CJ. Were you a student with him? A. Yes Bir; I was in the College one year longer than he. CJ. During that period what was his character? A. It was excellent; when be left he shed tears, and the Superoir told him he would always be remembered by those who had charge of the Institution. Q. When did you first drive into the'eountry with Mrs. Surratt? A. The first occasion was on the Uth of April. CJ. Did she tell you what her object was in going? A. She said to see Nothy, who owed her some money and the Interest on it for thirteen years. Q. Is there such a man? A. Yes-sir, there is. CJ. Do you know whether she then saw him? A When we arrived at the village Mr. Nothy was not there and she told the bar-keeper to send a messenger for him, and he sent one; in the meanume we went to Captain Gwynne's house; remained there two hours and took dinner; he said he would like to return with us, and he did, to Surrattsville; on returning we found Nothy and she transacted her business with him. Q. Did you know the man? A. No; Mr. Nott, the barkeeper, said he was in the parlor ; I didn't go in. Q. State what her purpose was in the second visit. A. She said she had received a letter in regard to this money due her by Mr. Nothy. CJ. Was the letter of thesame date? A. Yes. and she stated she was compelled again to go to the country, and asked me to drive her down, and I consented. Q. Did you see theletter? A. No— no, sir; she said that she had received it, and that it required her to go to Surrattsville; that's all I know. Q. Did ycu go in a bufigy ? A. Yes sir. CJ. Any one else go with you ? A. No one but I and ber went. CJ. Did she take anything with her? A. Only two packages, one with letters concerning her estate, and a smaller package, about six inches in diameter; it looked like two ortaree saucers wrapped in brown paper; this was put in the bottom of the buggy, and taken out when we got to Surrattsville. Q. How long d.d you remain ? A. Till ha! f-past six, CJ. What- time did you reach home? A. About hall- past nine or ten. CJ. Whendid you hear, or did you hear of the ssassi- nation of the President or the attack on Secretary Sew ard? A. I heard it at three o'clock on Saturday morn- QZ Who came to the house within the period from your return to the time you beard of the assassination 01 the President? A. There was some one rang the bell, but who it was I don't know. Q. Was the bell answered? A. Yes sir. Q. By whom? A. By Mrs. Surratt. CJ. Was there any one at tbe door? A. Yes sir; I heard footsteps going into the parlor, and immediately going out. Q. How long was that after you got back? A. About ten minutes; I was taking supper. CJ. That was belore ten o'oock? A. Yes sir. CJ. Then it was belore the time ot the assassination, which is said to have been about ten o'clock? A. Yes, sir. Q. Had persons been in the habit of coming for rooms to the bouse?' A. Yes; coming irom the country they would stup at the house; she had many acquaintances and was always very hospitable, and tney could get rooms as long as they chose. CJ. Did Atzeroth take a room? A. Atzeroth, to my knowledge, stopped in the house but one night. CJ. Did be take a room? A. Not that I know of. Q. What room did he sleep in? A. On the third story. CJ. Then he bad a room there that night? A. Yes. Q. Did he leave next day? A. Yes. Q. You saw Paine yourself wben he came to the house? Yes sir; the hrst time he gave the name of Wood; I went to the door, and opened it, and he said he would like to see Mrs. Surratt. Q. What was his appearance, genteel? A. Yes, he had on a loi:g black coat, and went into the parlor: he acted very politely; asked Mrs. Surratt to play on the piano lor him. CJ. Do you kbow why Atzeroth left the house? A. No sir. CJ. Was there any drinking in the house at tbe time that Atzeroth was there? A. Yes sir; in February there was a man there named Harland; John teurratt had been in the country, and had remrned that even ing; he slept that night with Howe. CJ. Was there any drinking in the room occupied by Atzeroth? A. Yes. Q. Was he noisy? A. No sir. CJ. Have you any knowledge that hewas told that he could stop there no longer? A. No. Q. Diet he leave there next day? A. Yes sir; his leaving wasowingto the arrival or Surratt; hesaidhe wanted to see John, and having seen him. he left- I heard them aiterwards-say they did not care to have him brought to the house. CJ. What reason did they give for that? A. Mrs Surratt said sue did not tare to have such sticks brought tp the house; they were no company for her. of A rh d,dnotcon:ieaay more? A. Notsince the2d J^X0^ say 5",ou found upon your own table a false moustache; what was the color of tbe hair? A, CJ. Was it large ? A. About medium sized CJ. This you put into your own box? A.'Yes in a toilet box and alterwards in a box of paints- it was iound in my baggage. F W| "was u?" ^ va bf cam^ ho,m? ne seRmed to be looking for ilr\ £v„Yes:Jiesaid "Where js my moustache?"5 T ft W£y $a you not Sive it to him? A. I suspected I thought it queer. au&peoieu, Q. But you locked it up? A. Yes, I didn't like tn have it seen in my room. nut, to CJ. But you could have got it oot of your room hv ivingitto him when he asked lor it' AlthomS ;.o honest person had a reason to wear a false mS tache. J took it and exhibited it to some of the c?erIS in the office. I put it on with specs, and was makhT| TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 21 CJ. Can you describe to the court young Surratt's height and general appearance? A. He is about six feet: prominent forehead and very large nose; his eyes are sunk: he has a goatee and very long hair, black. CJ. Do you recollect how he was dressed when he said he was going away? A. He had cream colored pants, grey frock coat and grey vest, and had a shawl thrown over him. CJ. One of those scotch shawls? One of those plaid BhawK CJ. When he returned from Kichmond you say he had in his possession twenty gold pieces? A. No, sir; I say nine or eleven twenty-dollar gold pieces. CJ. Did he tell you where he got them? A. No. CJ. He said he bad seen Davisand Benjamin; did you understand, by Benjamin.tne person who acted as Secretary of State for the Rebel Confederacy? A. All I know is, he said he saw Davis and Benjamin, and that Richmond would not be evacuated. CJ. You didn't ask him. nor did he voluntarily tell you where he got that money? A. No, sir. CJ. Give the date of the letter his mother received from him since be left. A. It was dated Montreal, April 12th. and was received here April 14th. Q. How d.d you become acquainted with the date of the letter; by tbe postmark? A. By the heading ol the letter: the letter was written in general terms; it stated that he was much pleased with the Catholic Cathedral, and that be had bought a French pea- jacket aud paid ten dollars for it. but that board was toohighatthe St. Lawrence Hotel (two dollars a day in gold), and that he would go to a private boarding house, or to Toronto. CJ. How was the letter signed ? A. John Harrison; his name is John Harrison Surratt. Q. Was the handwriting disguised? A. It was un usually good for bim. CJ. Unusually good, but not disguised? You knew it at once, didn't you? A. Yes. and I remarked to Mrs. Surratt, John is improving in his writing. CJ. Doyou know anything about the letter that was received' by Miss Ward ? A. I only know? that a letter was received by her. Q. Who is Miss Ward? A. A teacher in the school on Tenth street. CJ. What was the date of tbe letter? A. I did not see that letter, Sir. I was merely told that she received a letter, and came to the house. CJ. Did the letter go to her directly, or through any other person? A, I understand it went directly to her, and was received in the usual course. Q. Do you know what that letter was about? A. No sir; I merely heard Mrs. Surratt say that Miss Annie Ward had received a letter irom John, What it was about I don't know. CJ. You have known Mrs. Surratt since November? A. I have known her since the spring ot 1863. Q. And have been living there since November? A- Yes. CJ.' What has been her character since that time? A. Her character was exemplary and ladylike in every particular. Q. Is she a member of the church? A. Yes sir. CJ. Isshearegularattendant? A. Yessir. CJ. Of the Catholic Church. A. Yes sir. CJ. Have you been with her to church? A. Every Sunday, sir. Q. As faras you could judge her character in a reli- gousand moral sense.it was every way exemplary? A. Yes, sir ; she went to her duties every two weeks. Q. Did she go in the morning? A. It was sometimes In themorning and sometimes in the evening. Q. Was that the case all the time you knew her? A. Yes sir. it ,. CJ. If I understand you, then, she was apparently dis charging all her duties to God and to man? A. Yes sir. Mr. Reveredy Johnson here said:— "I am done, sir!" and rising, left the court room, and the cross-examination of the witness was con tinued by other counsel. Question. What time was it you said Dr. Mudd in troduced Booth to yourselt and Surratt? Answer. On tbe 15th oi January, I think. Question. Have you no means of fixing the exact date? Answer. Yes, sir, if the register at the Pennsylvania House could be had; Dr. Mudd had his rooms tbere at that time. _ _ . Question. Are you sure it was before the 1st of Feb ruary? Answer. Yes.sir. I am sure. Question. Are you sure it was after the 1st of Ja nuary? Answer. Yes. „ . l ai _. Q. Why. A. From a letter receivedabout that time, about the 6th of January, and from a visit I made there again; it was immediately alter tbe recess ot Congress, and the room of Booth had been previously occupied by a memberof Congress, and Booth pulled down some Congressional documents and remarked what good reading he would have when left to himself. Q. You are certain it was after the Congressional holiday, of the occasion, and have no other means of knowing, A. No, sir. Q Did you ever have any means of knowing it was after Christmas ? A. Merely thSt it was alter the Congressional holidays. Q. Well, who said anything about the member not having returned ? A. Booth did. Q. Doyou know who the member was ? A. No. CJ, How did you know that pretty much all the other members had returned ? A. Because Congress was in session at the time. Q. How do you happen to recollect Congress was in session at the time? A. Well merely by Booth's taking down the documents and saying what good reading he would have when le.t to himself. Q. Was it the first day of Booth's arrival in the city? A. It was the first day of his taking possession of that room. Q. Do you recollect that it was after the Congres sional holiday as distinctly as any part of the conver. sation that took place? A. I don't recollect that fact as distinctly as I do the conversation about the pur chase of the larm. Q, Have you any memorandum of your own that will enable you to fix the date? A. The date could probably be fixed by the register at the Penusylvania House. Q. On what street was it that you met Mudd ? A. Ou i Seventh street opposite Odd Fellows' Hall Q. What did Mudd say in explanation of the Intro duction? A. Nothing that lean remember. Surratt introduced me to him, aud he introduced Booth to both of us. Q. Which introduction came first? A. That of Mudd by Surratt to me. CJ. Aud did Booth immediately invite you all to his room? A. Yes. Q. What was said while you were going to the room? A. Nothing that I know. Q. Did he give any reason for wishing vou to go? A. No. In going down Seven th street Surratt took Mudd's arm and 1 took that oi Buoth s. Q. And you went directly to Booth's room, and how long in all did you stay there? A. That I can't say exactly. CJ. You say Mudd wrote something on a piece of paper? A. I say Buoth traced 1'nesonthebacko. an en velope, and that Surratt and Mudd were looking at it, and were engaged in a deep private conversation scarcely audible. CJ. Were you in the room all that time? A. Yes sir. CJ. How close to them? A. About as far as that gen tleman is from me. , Q. Was the conversation in part audible? A. It was an indistinct murmur. Q. You heard none of it? A. No. Q. Who went out the door? Did Mudd go first? A. Booth wentfirst. Q. Are you sure? A. Yes sir. Q. How long were they out together? A. As near as I can judge, not more than five or eight minutes. Q. Where did they go? A. Into a passage that leads past the door. Q. How do you know they stopped there? A. I don't know, for the doorwas closed after them, but by tbeir movements I judge they stood outside. Q. Why? A. I did not hear any retreating footsteps. Q. Surratt went out with them? A. Yes. Q. Are you sure Booth was w);h them when they went out the second time? A. Yes sir. Q. Did Mudd say anything as to how he came to in troduce Bootb to Surratt? A. No sir. Q. Which one of them said it was about the farm? A. Modd apologized to me ior the privacy of the con versation, and said that Booth wanted to purchase his farm, but that be would not give a suiheieut high price and he did not care about selling it. Q. You had never seen Mudd before? A. No sir. Q. Had you heard him spoken or in the house? A. I had heard tbe name mentioned, but whether it was this particular Dr. Samuel Mudd I cannot say. Q. Didyou hear it mentioned in connection withany visit to the house? A. No sir. Q. Do you kuow whether he did visit the house during the time you were there? A. No sir. Q. Where did Mrs. Surratt formerly live? A. At Surrattsville. n , _ Q On the road to Bryanstown? A. I can't say ex actly. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the*oun- try. Q Do vou know whether it is on the road leading to Mudd's house? A. There were several ways of arriving at Mudd's house. One road, called the Port Tobacco road, out by Piscataway. -...«** Q. How far is Mudd's house from the city? A. I don't know. , . ., _ Q. How far is Surrattsville? A. Abouttenmilesfrom O Didyou ever hear his name mentioned in the fam'ly9 A Yes. I heard tbe name of Mudd; Dr. STaiteraBcit0h.IL°rmiind fed returned from th. passage outside, how long did you remain together? A. About twenty minutes. „»«,,, Q. And then where did you all go? A. We left the hotel and went to the Pennsylvania House, where Dr. Mudd had rooms, and Mudd went into the sitting room and sat down with me and talked about the war, and expressed the opinion that it would soon come to an end and spoke like a Union man; Booth was speaking 28 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. with Surratt; Booth left, and bade us goodnight and wentout: Dr. Muddremained therebi.it leftnext morn ing; ho said he was going to leave, whether he did or not I cannot say. CJ. What time was it when you separated? A. It must have been about half-past ten in the evening. Q. Was Booth talking when drawing those lines? A. Yes sir. Q. And Mudd and Surratt were attending? A. Yes; all three sat around the table, and looked at what Booth was marking. Q. Are you sure tbey were looking at what he was drawing, or simply attendingto what he was saying? A. They looked beyond Booth; their eyes on the en velope. Q. How near were you to them? A. As I stated about as near as that gentleman over there, (pointing to Judge Holt). Q. Well, now, what distance is that in feet? A. Per haps eight feet. Q. How large was the room? A. I have no means of arriving at that. About how large? A. I could not tell exactly how large it was. Q. I do not expect you to do that; about how large? A. About naif the size of this room. Mr. Pitman here asked the witness whether he meant half the room in length and half in breadth, which, would he quarterof the room, or merely half the length, with the same width. Thewitness then pointed to a dividing railing in the room, and said about the size from there. Q. Have you ever heard any conversation having reference to Payne's assignment to the murder of the Secretary of State? A. No sir. Q. In what part of the room was the table situated? A. In tbe centre. Q. You say you saw Mr. Harold in the summer of 1862, at Mrs. Surrat's. atSurrattsville? A. It was at the time of the election of county officers; a bandhadgone down to serenade the officers who had been elected, and in returning they serenaded us; I also saw him in July at Piscataway Church, and also the time at the theatre. Q. When you left the theatre you all walked down the street together a portion of the way? A. Five of us left together. and when we came to thecorner of Tenth andEstreets, we turned around, at least Surrattdid, and saw the other two were not following, and told me to go back and find them; I went backhand found them engaged in close conversation with Booth. CJ. You met them at the restaurant? A. Yes.sir.and on my approaching them Booth asked me to take a drink, and intrnduced me to a man whose name I do not remember, but whose face is familiar lo me. CJ. Did you take a drink? A. (emphatically), Yes, Sir. Q. They were all standing together when you ap proached? A. Yes. Q. Near the bar? No, sir, around the stove. CJ. Was it a cold evening? A. No, sir; there was no fire in the stove; itwasa very pleasant evening. Q. Doyou know whether Harold and Atzeroth had taken a drink together before you came in? A. No, sir. Q. When you left, did you all leave together? A. Harold, Atzeroth and I left together, and overtook Surratt on Seventh street ; he invited us to take some oysters, but Harold went down Seventh street. Q. Doyou know where Harold lived? A. I was at the house only once; I don't know theprecisespot. CJ. You remarked sir, that at some time when you were in company with Mrs. Surratt, a parly Would call to see her. Do you remember of Mrs. Sur ratt sending a request- to have a private conversation with Booth? A. On the 2d of April she sent me to the hotel and told me to tell him that she would like to see him on some private business. Q. In reference to that ten dollars given you bv Booth to obtain the buggy? A. I thought it an act of friendship. Booth had been in the habit of keeping a buggy and bad promised to let Mrs. Surratt have the loan of it, and when I went for it he said, "Here is ten dollars; go and hire one." CJ. You spoke of going to Montreal; at what time was that? A. On the 18th of April, the Monday after the assassination. Q. What business had you there? A. I was seeking Surratt. Q. Did you find him? A. No sir. Q, Did you ever see Mrs. Surratt leave the parlor to have a private interview with Booth? A. Frequently; she would go into the passage and talk with him. Q. How much time did these interviews generally occupy? A. Generally not more than five or eight minutes. Q. Well, sir, by any conversation with her were you ever led to believe she was in secret conspiracy with Booth, or any of bis conlederates? Here it was remarked by a member of tbe Court that tbe witness nad better confine himself to a statement of facts, and the question was waived by the cross-ex amining counsel. It was also here stated by the Court that it was a rule in the examination of witnesses that each one should be examined by one J udpe- Advocate and by only one counsel to each prisoner. Q. Did you ever transact any business for Mrs. Sur ratt? A. I only wrote a letter to Mr. Nothy. Q. What was that? A. It was a3 follows:— Mr. Northy, unless you come forward and pay that bill at once I will begin suit against you immediately. Q. Anythingelse? A. I figured some in-erest sums for her, the interest on §439 lor thirteen years. Q. Doyou know of anv interview between Atzeroth and Surratt? A. I have been there frequently at in terviews with Surratt in the parlor. Q. Do you know of any between Payne and Atze roth? A. Yes; on the occasion of Payne's last visit to the bouse Atzeroth called to see Surratt once, and they were in my room. Q. Do you know of any conversation in reference to the assignment of Atzeroth to the assassination of the Vice President? A- No sir. Q. Now you say, that at 2^ o'clock on the evening of the Hth ot April, you saw Atzeroth at a livery stable? A. Yes sir. Q. Trying to get a horse; did he say what he was going to do with the horse? A. He said he was going to take a pleasure ride out in the country. Q. You say he did not get the horse? A. The stable keeper refused to let him have one. Q. Do you know whether he succeeded in getting one that day? A. No, sir. Q. When did you part with him? A. Immediately after at the Post Office; I dropped a letter and came oack to tbe stable. Q. Was that the last interview you had with him until the assassination? A. Yes sir. CJ. Where did you see him again? A. In the dock there. . ,,- Q. To-day? A. Yes sir; to-day. Q. You say you recognized that spur as having been seen hy you on the bed of Payne at tae house of Mrs. Surratt." What makes you recognize it? what marks are there that distinguish it from spurs in general? A. I had them in my band. Q. Was ft the same with the knife? I understand you to swear you saw that kniie there. A. No, not that kni'e. Q, On the 4th of April do you know where Payne was stopping? Do youknow anything about Payneon that dav? A. Yes, sir, I rememberthat Atzeroth and I met and I asked him where be was going, and hesaidne was going to get a horse for Payne. CJ. But where was Payne? A. I don't know; I only saw him on those two occasions. CJ. Where then was Atzeroth stopping? A. I don't know. Q. Did not be speak of the place where Payne was stopping? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know of his having stopped at tbe Hern don House ? A. I know it because Atzeroth told me; I met him one day on Seventh street; he said he was going to see Payne, and I asked bim if it was Payne that was at the Herndon House, and he said yes. Q. You said Payne paid a visit to Mrs. Surratt, and stopped only one night? A. Yes, sir. CJ. With whom did he appear to have business? A. He appeared to have business with Mrs. Surratt. Q. Did he have any other dress, goingto show that he wanted to conceal himself, that you saw? A. No, sir. Q. Have you seen Payne si nee the assassination until to-dav? A. No, sir, I believe not. Q. Was he received by Mrs. Surratt as an intimate friend? A. He was by Mrs. Surratt; he was treated as an o'd acquaintance on his first visit, Q. Now you say he represented himself to be a Bap tist minister; did they regard him as a man in disguise, or as a minister? A. Oneof tbe young laclips remarked that be was a queer looking Baptist preacher; that he wouldn't convert many souls. Q. Did you ever see Payne and Atzeroth in company? A. Yes; Atzeroth was at the house on the occasion of Payne's lastvisit. Q. Were you, or were you not at Mrs. Surratt's when Payne was arrested? A. No sir. Q. Were you in the house at 3 o'clock on Saturday morning, when the officers took possession? A. Yes Q. Was Payne not there then? A. No sir Q. I would like to know what professional employ ment you are m? A. Clerk in the office of the Com missary General of Prisoners, and have been since the 9th day of January, 1SG4. »**«-» m« Q. Colonel Hoffman's office? A. Yes sir It was here moved that tbe Court adjourn, but after some discussion the adjournment waa postponed. Testimony of Robert R. Jones. Robert B. Jones, sworn— Q. You are a clerk at- fhe, Kirkwood House? A. Yes sir. cierkatthe Q. Look at that paper and say if it ia a paee takPii from the register of that hotel? A. Yes sir Q. Doyou read upon it the name ot Atzeroth? A Yes sir, A. night. CJ. And were they called for by Booth and Harold that night? A. They both came, Bioth and Harold, and took their whisky out of the bottles; Booth did'nt come in but Harold did; It was not over a quarter after 12 o'clock; Booth was a stranger to me; Harold came in and took the whisky, but I don't think he asked for it; he said to me, get me those things. Q. Did he not say to you what those things were? A. No; but he was apprised that already I knew they were coming for them; I made no reply, but went and got them: I gave him all the articles, with the field glass and a monkey wrencb. CJ. She told you to give them the whisky, the car bines and the field glas. A. Yes sir. Q. How long did they remain at your house? A. Not over five minutes. Q. Did they take both the carbines, or only one? A. Only one; Booth said he could not take his, because his leg was broken. Q. Did he drink also? A. Yes, while sitting in the porch; Harold carried the bottle out to him. Q. Did they say anything' about the assassination? A. As they were leaving Booth said, "I will tell you somenews; I am pretty certain we have assassinated the President and Secretary Seward." Q. Was that in Harold's presence? A. I am not cer tain. I became so excited that I am not certain. CJ. At what hour was the news jo f the President's assassination afterwards received by you? A. I sup pose it was about nine o'clock. Q. As the news spread was it spoken of that Booth was tbe assassin? A. I think it was, on several occa- Q. Did you see the prisoner, Dr. Mudd, before? A. I never saw htm before. I am uot acquainted with him at all. ^, _. . , Q. What was the exact language used when Harold asked you for those things? A. For God's sake make haste and get those things. Cross examination.— Q. At what time did you rent the house? A. About the 1st of December last. Q. At the time you commenced the occupation of the premises did you find any arms in the house? A. No sir. Q. No guns or pistols? A. There was a broken gun, a double barreled gun. CJ. Do you keep a bar there? A. 1 do, sir. 30 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Q. Detail the first conversation you had with Mrs. I Surratt on the two last times you saw her. A. It was out of Uniontown; we had passed each other; I stopped and saw it was her and got out and went to her buggy and she spoke to me in a manner trying to draw my attention to those things, the carbines, but she finally came out plainer, though 1 am not quite positive, but I think she said shooting irons. Q. Can you swear, Mr. Floyd, on your oath that she mentioned shooting irons to you at all? A. I am pretty positive she did on both occasions, and I know she did on the last. Q. At what time on Friday did you meet Mrs. Sur ratt? A. I did not meet heron Friday at all; I was out and when I returned borne I found her there. Q. How long did she remain after you returned 7 a,. Not over ten minutes. , . Q. Now state the conversation between you and her during those ten minutes. A. Tbe first thing she said was, *• Talk about the devil and some of bis imps wui appear." Then she said, " Mr. Floyd, I want you to have the shooting irons ready, some parties will call tor them to-night;" she gave me a bundle, but I aidn t open it until I got up stairs, aud I found it was a field- glass. ,. Q. At what time of day had you this conversation with Mrs. Surratt? A. I judge it was about 5 o clock, but it might have been later. She told me to have those shooting irons ready, and I carried them and the other things into the house. That is all the conversa tion I had with her in reference to that. I went into the barn and she requested me to fix her buggy, the spring of which bad become detached from the axle. Q. Was any other person present during this inter- View? A. Mrs. Offet was there. Q. Was she within hearing distance? A. I don't know; I suppose Bhe was. Q. This was in the yard? A. Yes sir. » Q. Is Mrs. Offet a neighbor of yours? A. She is my sister-in-law. . „ x Q. When did you first have occasion to recollect these conversations? A. When I gave all the particu lars to Captain Burnett, tbe Saturday week following. CJ. Was that the first time you detailed those conver sations? A. Yes. CJ. Did you relate any of the circumstances to any other person? A. Only to Lieutenant Lovett and Cap tain Cunningham. I told them it was through the Surratts I got myself into difficulty, and if they hadn't brought those arms to the house I would not have been in any difficulties at all. Q. Were Lovett and Cunningham together when you told them? A. Yes. Q. Did you talk to Mrs. Offet about it? A. I don't think I did; I am not so positive about that. Q. How soon alter Booth and Harold left did you learn positively of the assassination of the President? A. I got it from them. CJ. How soon after did you get it from other parties? A. About eight or nine o'clock the next morning. Q. Did you have any conversation with tbe soldiers In regard to it? A. No sir. Q. Did you tell them about Booth and Harold being at your place? A. I did not, and I am only sorry that I did not. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt have any conversation with you in reference to any conspiracy? A. Never sir. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt hand anything to you when she spoke about those shooting irons? A. Yes sir; the field glass. Q. Have you any family? A. I have a wife. Q. Have you a son? A. No sir. Q. Does any person work for you? A. Yes sir, a couple of colored men. Q. Were any of them present at the conversation be tween you and Mrs. Surratt? A. No sir. . Q. Was tbe package banded to you by Mrs. Surratt's own hand? A. Yes, by herself. Q. Where were you standing when she handed it to you? A. Near the woodpile. Here a different counsel entered upon the task of con- tinuiug'thecross-examination rendered exceedingly te dious by theansufficient voice of the witness, whom tbe Court and counsel could scarcely hear. Q. Mr. Floyd, can you recellect who it was, after Booth andHaroldleit the house, that first told you it was Booth who killed the President ? A. I cannot; it was spoken of in the bar-room the next morning and throughout the day. Q. Were the circumstances told, and tbe manner in which he did it? A. I don't remember any circum stances being told. Q. Do you know whether the soldiers who first came to the house knew it was Booth? A. I do not; I sup pose they knew it, as they brought the report irom the city. Q. Mr. Floyd, how long beforethe assassination was it that the three gentlemen you referred to came to your house. A. About six weeks; they had two buggies; Surratt and Dave Harold were in the buggies; Atzeroth came on horseback. Q. They all came together? A. Yes. Q. Well who went down to this place called T. B? A. Surratt and Atzeroth. Q. Did Harold go with them then? A. No: Harold was there the night before; he had gone down the country, and told me he bad come from T. B.,when they all three came back. . i* an Q. How long were they gone ? A. Not over han an Q. Who banded the carbines to you? A. John i Sur ratt ; when they all came into the bar. Surratt told me he wanted to see me, and took me to the front parlor, and there, on the sofa, were the carbines. Q. Do you know which buggy they were taken from? A. I did not see anything of any arms at all until they were on the sofa. , ^ , Q. What became of the rope that was not taken away? A. It was put in the store-room with the monkey wrench. I told the Colonel all about it at the Old Capitol, and I suppose he sent for it. Q. Did at any time any conversation pass between you and Harold about tbe arms. A. The night of the assassination when begot the carbines. Q. Which road did they take? A. Towards T. B. Q. Did Booth and he start off together? A. They did. Q. Can you say whether it was in Harold's presence that Booth told you he had killed the President? A. I am not sure, because Harold rode across theyardlike. CJ. You were arrested on the Tuesday following? A. "Yes sir Q. Where? A. About fifteen hundred yards from T, B., on my way home. Q. Did Harold take a drink at the bar? A. He did. Q Did he take the bottle back? A. He did. Q. Did he pay for the drink? A. He said, "I owe you a couple of dollars, and he gave me one dollar. Q. Was it light enough for you to observe the kind of horses they had? A. One was almost a white horse and the other was a bay. The bay was a large horse. Harold was riding on the bay. Here another counsel took up the cross-examination, beginning with the oft repeated injunction to the wit ness to speak louder. CJ, Mr. Floyd, you say you met Atzeroth in company with Surratt and Harold? A. He came there five or six weeks before in company with Surratt. Q. Did you ever see him before that time? A. Yes; he had been to my house before. Q. Did be ever deliver to you anything? A. Never. Q. Have you seen him since the assassination? A. Never till now. Q. Did you ever see the prisoner Arnold ? A. I don't know him. Q. Did Booth take a rifle wiih him ? A. No sir, but Harold did. Q. Where were the arms, then ? A. They were in my bed chamber. CJ. When did you bring them there? A. After Mrs. Surratt left, in consequence of her order. Q. Did you give them the carbines before they said anything about shooting the President? No sir: after wards. Q. What time was it? A, A little after twelve; I woke up just before twelve o'clock; I had gone to bed about nine o'clock. Q. When the soldiers searched did you give them aid? A. I told them 1 did not know any thing about it; I should have been perfectly free if I nad given them tbe information they asked for. Q. Did you have any conversation with Mrs. Offet after Mrs. Surratt went away ? A. I am not certain; I think I told her. Q. Where were you standing? A. Near the wood pile. The court adjourned till Monday morning. Washington, May 15.— The witnesses examined this afternoon showed the intimacy of Booth, Arnold and O' Laugh lin. Mr. Cox, for the defense, objected to the whole of this evidence, on the ground thatthe mere fact of inti macy was not evidence of conspiracy. Judge Advocate Holt said they had fully established the intimacv of the party in Washington, and simply proposed to show the intimacy which existed in Balti more, The Court overruled the objection; but ordered it to be put onrecord. It appeared from the testimony of David Stantou that on the night of the illumination, the 13th of April, O'Laughlin was prowling in the house of the Secretary of War; but having no business there, he was ordered out. General Grant was in the parlor at that time. The Court remained in session until 7 o'clock. A number of witnesses were examined as to tbe oc currences at the theatre on the night of the assassina tion. The Charges and Speclficatnons. The following is a copy of tbe charges and specifica tions against David E. Harold, Geo. A. Atzeroth, Lewis Payne. Michael O'Laughlin, John H. Surratt, Edward TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 31 Spangler, Samuel Arnold, Mary E. Surratt, and Samuel A. Mudd:— Charge 1. For maliciously, unlawfully, and traitor ously, and in aid of the existing armed Rebellion aErainst the United States of America, on orbeioretbe 4th day of March, A. D. 1865. and on divers other days between that day and tbe 15th day of April, A. D. 18G5, combining, confederating, and conspiring together with one John H. Surratt, John Wilkes Booth, Jeffer son Davis, George N. Sanders, Beverley Tucker, Jacob Thompson, William C. Clearv. Clement C. Clav, George Harper, George Young, andothers unknown. within the Military Department of Washington, and within the fortified and intrenched lines thereof, Abraham Lincoln, late, and at tbe time of said combining, confederating and conspiring. President of the United States of America, and Commander- in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof; Andrew Johnson, then Vice President of the United States aforesaid; William H. Seward, Secretary of State ottheUnitedStatesaforesaid, and Ulysses S. Grant, Lieutenant-Generalofthe Armv of the States afore said, then in command of the Armies of the United States, under the direction of the said Abraham Lin coln, and in pursuance of, and in prosecuting said malicious, unlawful, and traitorous conspiracy afore said, and in aid of said Rebellion, afterwards, to-wit:— On tho 14th day of April, A. D.,1865, within the Mili tary Department of Washington aforesaid, and within the fortified and intrenched lines of said Militarv De partment, together with thesaid John Wilkes Booth, andJobn H. Surratt, maliciously, unlawiully, and traitorously murdering the said Abraham Lincoln, then President of the United States and Commander- in-Chief of the Army and Navy of tbe United States as aforesaid, and maliciously, unlawfully, and traitor ously assaulting with intent to kill and murder the said William H.Seward, then Secretary oi State of the United States as aforesaid; and lyingin wait with in tent maliciously, unlawfully, and traitorously to kill and murder the said Andrew Johnson, then being Vice-President of the United States, and the said Ulysses S.Grant, then being Lieutenant-General and in command of the armies of the United States as aforesaid. Specification 1. In this, that they, the said David E. Harold, Edward Spangler, Lewis Payne, John H. Sur ratt, Michael O'Laughlin, Samuel Arnold, Mary E, Surratt, George A. Atzeroth and Samuel A. Mudd, In cited and encouraged thereunto by Jefferson Davis, GeorgeN. Sanders, Beverley Tucker, Jacob Thompson, William C. Cleary, Clement C. Clay, George Harper, George Young, and others unknown, citizens of the United States aforesaid, and who were then engaged in armed Rebellion against tbe United States of America, within the limits thereof, did, in aid of said armed Re bellion, on or before the 6th day of March, A. D. 1865, and on divers other day and time between tbat day and the 15th day of April, A. D. 1865, com bine, confederate and conspire together at Wash ington city, within the Military Department, and within the intrenched fortifications and military lines of the said United States, there being unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously to kill and murder Abraham Lincoln, then President of tbe United States aforesaid, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, and unlawfully, mali ciously, and traitorously to kill and murder Andrew Johnson, then Vice-President of the United States, upon whom on the death of said Abraham Lincoln, after the 4th day of March, A. D. 18G5, the office of Pre sident of the said United States, and Commander-in- Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, would devolve, and to unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously kill and murder Ulysses S. Grant, then Lieutenant- General under the direction of the said Abraham Lincoln in command of the Armies of the United States aforesaid: and unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously to kill and murder William H.Seward, the Secretary of State of the United States afore said, whose duty it was by law upon thedeathof said President and Vice President of the United States aforesaid, to cause an election to be held for electors of President of the United States, the conspirators aforesaid designing and intending by tbe killing and murder of the said Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant and William H. Seward aforesaid, to deprive the army and navy of the said United States ot a coustitutional commander-in-chief, and to deprive the armies of the United States of their lawful commander, and to prevent a lawful election of President and Vice President of tbe United States aforesaid, and by the means aforesaid to aid and com fort the insurgents engaged in armed rebellion against tbe said United States as aforesaid, and thereby to aid in the subversion and overthrow of the said United States „ . , And being so combined, confederated, and conspiring together in the prosecution of such unlawful and trai torous conspiracy, on the night of the 14th day of April A. D., 1865, at the hour of about 10 o'clock and 15 minutes P. M., at Ford's Theatre on Tenth Street, in the cityot Washington, and within the Military De partment and military lines aforesaid, John Wilkes Booth, one of tbe conspirators aforesaid, in pursuance of said unlawful and traitorous conspiracy, did then and there unlawfully.maliciously, traitorously and with intent to kill and murder the said Abraham Lincoln, discharge a pistol,»held in the hands of him, tbe said Booth, the same being then loaded with powder and a loaden ball, against and upon the left and posterior side of the head of Abraham Lincoln, and did thereby then and there inflict upon him, the said Abraham Lincoln, then President of the said United Stales and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, a mortal wound, whereof afterwards, to wli, on the 15th day of April, A. D. 1865, at Washington City afore said, the said Abraham Lincoln died, and thereby then and there, in pursuance of saitf conspiracy, the said defendants, and the said John Wilkes Booth, did un lawfully, traitorously, and maliciously, and with the intent to aid the Rebellion as aforesaid, murder the President of the United States as aforesaid, In further prosecution of the unlawful, traitorous conspiracy aforesaid, and of the murderous and traitor ous intent of said conspiracy, the said Edward Spangler, on the said 14th day of April, A. D. 1865. at about the same hour of tbat day ns aforesaid, within said mili tary department and the military lines afbresaid, did aid and assist the said John Wilkes Booth to obtain en trance to the box in said theatre in which said Abra ham Lincoln was sitting at the time be was assaulted and shot as aforesaid by John Wilkes Booth, and also did then and there aid said Booth in barring and ob structing the door of the box of said theatre so as to hinder and prevent any assistance to or rescue of the said Abraham Lincoln against the murderous assault of the said John Wilkes Booth, and did aid and abet him m making his escape after the said Abraham Lincoln had been murdered In manner aforesaid. Andin further prosecution of said unlawful, murder ous and traitorous conspiracy, and in pursuance there of, and with the intent as aforesaid, the said David E. Harold, on the night of the 14th of April. A. D. 1865, within the Military Department and military lines aforesaid, abet and assist the said John Wilkes Booth in the killing and murder of the said Abraham Lin coln, and did iheu and there aid. ard abet and assist him, thesaid John Wilkes Booth, In attempting to es cape through the military lines aforesaid, and accom pany and assist the said John Wilkes Booth in at tempting to conceal himself and escape from justice after killing and murdering the said Abraham Lincoln as aforesaid. And in further prosecution of said unlawful and tral torous conspiracy, and of the intent thereof as afore said, thesaid Lewis Payne did, on the same night oi the 14th day of April, A. D. 1865, about the same houi of 10 o'clock 15 minutes P. M., at the city of Washing ton, and within the military department and military lines aforesaid, unlawfully and maliciously make an assault upon the said William H. Seward. Secretary oi State as aforesaid, in the dwelling bouse and bed-cham ber of him, the said William H. Seward; and there, with a.large knife held in his hand, unlawfully, trai torously, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, strike, stab, cut, and attempt to kill and murder the said William iH. Seward, and did thereby, then and there, and with the intent aforesaid, with said knife inflict upon the face and throat of the said William H. Seward divers grievous wounds; and the said Lewis Payne, in further prosecution of the«said conspiracy, at the same time and place last aforesaid, did attempt, with the knife aforesaid, and a pistol held in his band, to kill and murder Frede rick W. Seward, Augustus W. Seward, Emerick W. Hansell, and George F. Robinson, who were then striving to protect and rescue the said William H. Se ward from murder by the said Lewis Payne, and did then and there, with the said knife and pistol held in bis band, inflict divers wounds upon the head of the said Frederick W. Seward, and upon the persons of the said Augustus W. Seward, Emerick W. Hansell, and George F. Robinson. And in the further prosecution of the said conspiracy and its traitorous and murderous designs, the said Geo. A. Atzeroth did, on the night of the 14th of April, A.D. 1865, and about the same hour of the night aforesaid, within the military department, and the military lines aforesaid, lie in wait for Andrew Johnson, then Vice President of the United States aforesaid, with the in tent unlawfully and maliciously to kill and murder him, the said Andrew J'dhnson. And in the further prosecution of the conspiracy aforesaid, and of its murderous and treasonable pur poses aforesaid, on the night of the 13th and J 4th of April, 1805, at Washington City, and within the mili tary lines aforesaid, the said Michael 0*Laughlin did then and there liein wait lor Ulysses S. Grant. And in the further prosecution of the said conspiracy, the said Samuel Arnold did. within tbe military de partment and military lines aforesaid, on or about tbe 6tb day of March, A. D. 1865. and on divers other days and times between that day and the 15th day ot April, A D 1865. combine, conspire with and aid, counsel and abet, comfort and support the said John Wilkes Booth, Lewis Payne, George A. Ataerotb. Michael O'Laugh- lin, and their confederates in the said unlawful, mur derous and traitorous conspiracy, and in the execution thereof as aforesaid. Andin the further prosecution of the said conspi racy, Mary E. Surratt did, at Washington City, and 32 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. within the military department and military lines a'brtsaid. on or be o^e th° 6th day of March. A D. 1865, and at divers other finvs and times between that day and the 20tb day of April, A. D. 1865, receive, entertain, harbor and conceal, aid rnd assist, the said John W'lkes Booth. David F. Hnrold, Lewis Payne. John H. Surratt. Michael O'Laughlin, George A. Atzeroth. Samuel Arnold, and their confederates, with a knowledge of the murderous and traitorous conspiracy aforesaid, and with intent to aid, abet and assist them in the execution thereof, and in escaping from justice after the mnrder of the said Abraham Lincoln, as aforesaid, with Intentto aid, abet and assist them in the execution thereof, and in escaping from 'justice after the murder of the said Abraham Lincoln, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, in the manner aforesaid. By order of the President of the United States. J. HOLT. Judge Advocate-General. 'Proceedings of Monday, UEay 15. On Saturday it was moved that if the record created no objection on the part of the Judges Advocate, or of the counsel for any or all of the accused, the presence of the several witnesses need not be considered of ma terial necessity. Mr. Aiken, assistant counsel for Mrs. Surratt, ex pressed his willingness to accede to such an arrange ment, except in the case of Weichman. whom he desired present not, however, tbat tbe witness might hear the record of his testimony read, but that he might re-examine him on new ground, which, as he alleged, had been brought forth in the examination of the subsequent witnesses. It was decided by the Court that tbe reason so stated did not justify the delay that the finding and recalling of Weichman would occasion, and the reading of the record was proceeded with. After a time Mr. Weichman entered and heard the reading of the portion of his cross-examination con ducted by Mr. Ewing. and several corrections made. Mr. Johnson.thesoniorcounsel of Mrs. Surratt. when the whole of the testimony rendered by Mr. Weich man had been read from the record, applied to be per mitted to ask of him some question before he retired. This was objected toby Mai or-General Wallace. The President then i emarked that the witness had been already examined by tbe counsel, and a fair -oppor tunity afforded. The Judge Advocate General then asked whether it was to be a cross-exam ation, and being told by tbe counsel that it was, the Court, under the Advocate's suggestion, determinedthatashe could call up the witness hereafter of the defense, it would be an economy of time. General Wallace withdrew his objection, adding, h.wever. tbat he did so only for this lime. Hesaid:— '"I placed mv .objection on the ground that these objections would prove intermina ble, unless stopped by some rule, after counsel have once had a full opportunity for cross-examination Examination by Hon. Reverdy Johnson— Q. I under stood you to say on Saturday that you went with Mrs. Surratt the first time, on Tuesday before the assassi nation, in a buggy. Do you recollect whether you stopped on the way to Surrattsville? A. Yes sir. CJ.~Where? A. We stopped on two or three occa sions. CJ. Did you stop at Uniontownl A. I do not know the particular point, whether it was at Uniontown or not. Q. Did you stop at a village? A. We stopped on the road at no parti ularviilage that I remember. CJ. How do you know Mr. Floyd? A. I have met him three ttmes. Q. Did youknow him as the keeper of thehotel? A. I knew him as the man who had rented Mrs. Sur ratt's bouse from her, because I copied off the instru ment. CJ. Do you recollect seeing bim buy a buggy on tbe way from Washington to Surrattsville, on Tuesday? A. Yes, sir: we met his carriatre; it drove pastus; Mrs. Surratt called to Mr. Floyd; Mr. Floyd got out and ap proached the buggy; Mrs. Surratt put her head out and had a conversation with him. Q. Did you hear it? A. Nq_gir. CJ. Did you bear anything about shooting-irons? Question objected to by Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. Tbequestion was then withdrawn. Witness— T heard nothing mentioned about shooting irons; Mrs. Surratt spoke to Mrs. Offatt about having this man, Howell, take tbe oath of allegiance and get released, and said she was going to apply to General Augur or Judge Turner for that purpose. CJ. How long was that interview between Mr. Floyd and Mrs. Surratt on thai occasion? A. Tbat Icouldn't say exactly; I don't think it was more than five or eight minutes; I don't carry a watch myself, and I have no precise means of knowing. By Judge Holt— CJ. I understood you to say you did not hearthe whole of this conversation? A. I did not bear the conversation between Mr. Floyd and Mrs. Surratt; Mrs. Surratt spoke to Mr. Floyd at some dis tance from the buggy, and I couldn't hear it. By Mr. Johnson— Q. Do you recollect whether it was raining at that time? A. I don't think it was raining at that particular time: it was a cloudy, murky day; I cannot say whether it was raining or not; x aon l ib- The reading of the record was resumed, and being finished by half-past one. the Court took a recess. After the recess, John M. Lloyd was recalled and asked if he could identify the carbines shown to him as the ones referred to in his previous testimony? Witness— The one with the cover on I do not recog nize; I do not think the cover looks V^-f^l^S*1? was a kind of grey cloth; the other looks like the one I saw; I recognize the fixture for breech-loading, which attracted my attention, and which I examin* d; J" J he Court will allow me 1 wish to make a statement. When I was examined before I stated that itwas on Monday when I met Mrs. Surratt at Uniontown. I was con fused by my being summoned to Court on two succes sive Mondays. The first Monday I was summoned to Court I did not go. I met Mrs. Surratt at Uniontown: tbe next day after I went to Court, and consequently it must have been on the Tuesday after the second Mon day I was summoned. I also wish to make another statement. I testified In my last examination that I was notcertain whether I carried the bundle given me by Mrs. Surratt up stairs or not. I cannot nowrecol- lectdistinctly, but I think it likely I laid it on tbe sola in tbe dining mom. _ By Judge-Advocate Holt.— CJ. You are sure it was the same bundle you examined here? A. Yes, sir, I am sure it was tneeame bundle. By Mr. Aiken.— Q. Did I understand you to say you were in liquor at tbe time you had this conversation with Mrs. Surratt ? A. I was somewhat in liquor, as I think I told you on Saturday. ¦ CJ. And on tbat account is it, that you are at fault in ycur testimony, and wish to make this explanation? A. I was not positive whether I carried the bundle up stairs or' not. The question was unexpected. If I bad expected it, I might have recollected more distinctly in my former examination. Testimony of Alary Vantine. Examined by Judge Holt.— Q. Doyou reside in the city of Washington? A. I do; at No. 420 G street. CJ. Do you keep rooms for rent? A. I do. CJ. Will you look at the prisoners at the bar and state whether, in tbe month of February last, you saw any of them; and if so, which? A. Two of those gen tlemen had rooms at my house, Arnold and O'Laugh lin. CJ. What time in February did they take rooms in your house? A. As near as I can recollect it was on the 10th. I cannot state positively the date. CJ. Did you know J. Wilkes Booth in his lifetime? A. I knew him by his coming to my house to see gen tlemen who bad rooms there. CJ. Did heor not comevery often to seethe prisoners, O'Laughlin and Arnold? A. Yes, frequently. CJ. Would he remain for a goodwhile in conversation with them? A. As a general thing he would go into their rooms and I could see nothing further of them. CJ. Did these prisoners leave thecity and return seve ral times? A. They left on Saturday to go to their homes, as I understood, in Baltimore. CJ. Doyou know whether Booth accompanied them or not? A. I think not. Q. Were these interviews between Booth and them alone or was Booth accompanied by other persons? A. 1 never saw any one with him. Q. They told you his name was J. Wilkes Booth, did they? A. Yes, Arnold did; I inquired who he was and he said J. Wilkes Booth. Q. Did he call for them frequently and not find them in? A. Yes; sometimes. CJ. Did he manifest much anxiety to see them on these occasions? A. Frequently; when they were away he would call three or four times before they would return; he would appear very anxious to see them. CJ. Would he on such occasions leave messages for them? A. Sometimes he would request, if they came in before he called again, to say that they would find him at the stable: sometimes he would go into their room and write a note. CJ. Look at the photograph now shown you, and say if you recognize it as the man you call Booth? A.I cannot see without my glasses (glasses broughtinand handed to witness); I should not call it a good likeness; I recognize it as Booth, but like a very poor likeness. CJ. Doyou remember the last time Booth played in this city, about the isrh or 20th of March. A. Yes. CJ. Did these prisoners present you with compli mentary tickets for the play that night* A. Yes. I expressed a wish to see him, and O'Laughlin gave me the tickets. Q- M there seem to be any difference in the inti macy oi his association with these two men, and if so. with which was he the most intimate? A. I can't say. He would sometimes Inquire ior one, and sometimes tor the other, though I think he more frequently in quired for O'Laughlin. J CJ. Did you ever see any arms in their room' A I saw a pistol once, and but once. Q. Do you remember at any time seeing a man call A very, rough looking person-a laboring man or mechanic? A. Not a laboring man. There was a man who used to come sometimes. I think he passed one TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 33 night with them, from his coming out very early In the morning. Q. Do you know his name? A. I would know him If I saw him; he was what would be called a respect able-looking mechanic, not what you would call a gentleman. CJ. Could you describe him at all? A. Not very mi nutely; his skin was hard, as if it had been exposed to the weather. CJ. Do you recognize him as among the prisoners at the bar? A. No. CJ. Did these prisoners seem to have any business transactions with Booth, and if so, of what character? A. They said they were in the oil trade. CJ. Did they seem to have an extensive correspon dence? Did many letters come to them? A. Not a great many. Q. Where did they generally come from? A.I never noticed *, they were brought in and laid down. CJ. They were addressed to the names of O'Laughlin and Arnold, were they? A. Yes; sometimes to one ahdsometimes to the other. CJ. You say Booth came sometimes by day andsome- times at night? A. Not frequently at nhrht; I do not know as ever I saw him at night; be might have come there without my seeing bim; I slept in tbe back part of the house and persons might come out the front part of the house without my seeing them. CJ. You do not know whether, when tbev went out and stayed late at night, they were with Booth or not ? A. No. CJ. You have not seen them since the time they left your house? A. No. Q. Which was about the 20th of March? A. I think so; it was tbe Monday after the Saturday on which Booth played. Q. Did you ever see Booth ride out in the evenings with these men ? A. No, I do not think I ever did. TI could not positively say whether I did or not. He fre- ?[uentlycame to my bouse in a carriage ai?d inquired or them. I never saw them, that I recollect, ride out together. Cross-examined by Mr. Coxe.— CJ. Did these prisoners say they were or had been in the oil business? A. They said that they were in. CJ, Was that during the first or latterpart of the time they occupied a room at your house? A. I think they had been there two or three weeks, CJ. Did they say anythingwhen they went away from yeur house, where they were going? A. To Pennsyl vania. CJ. Did they say anything about having abandoned the oil business? A. No; not tbat I recollect. CJ. Were they much in their rooms, or were they moving about? A. They were not in their room a great deal. CJ. Did they occupy it regularly at night? A. They were out sometimes. CJ. Do you fix tbe 20th of March as the day they left? A. If you can ascertain what night Booth played I can tell you; it was the Monday following. CJ. Was Pescara the play? A. Yes. CJ. You cannot speak with certainty of anybody being with them besides Booth? A. No, not anybody tnat I know; others may have gone into their room, I could not sav in regard to that. Q. I ask you whether Booth's visits were most fre quent in February, or tbe latter part of the time they were there in March? A. I think they were pretty much the same all through the time they were there; he was a pretty constant visitor. CJ. Were you present at any conversations between them? A. No, I was not. Q. You never heard any of their conversations? A. No. CJ. Did they room up stairs? A. No, in the back parlor. Testimony of Henry Williams (Colored). Q. State to the Court whether you are acauainted with the prisoners O'Laughlin and Arnold; look and see if you remember to have seen them before? A. I know Mr. O'Laughlin, but not Mr. Arnold. Q. Did you ever meet Mr. O'Laughlin, and where? A. In Baltimore. CJ. When was that? A. In March last; I carried a letter to bim. , , 4. . _ . „ CJ. From whom did you carry the letter to him? A. From Mr. Booth. CJ. John Wilkes Booth, the actor? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did you carry the letter to,him alone, or to him and Arnold? A. I carried one to Arnold and gave it to a lady, and she said she would give it to him. Mr. Coxe here said that unless this question was to be followed up he would object to i t. The objection of the counsel was overruled, and the examination proceeded. Q. So you delivered It at tbe boarding hou^e of O' Laughlin? Did he tell you where O'Laughlin lived ? A. He said on Exeter street. ...„,¦«. * CJ. But did you carry a letter to Arnold? A. No, sir, I carried one up'there to the house; I did not know who It waB for, myself. , . . . _ _ , Q. Who Irom ? A, Mr. Booth gave it to me ; be first called me and asked me If I would take a letter down there* I didn't know for whom, it was ; he first told me to carry it to the number that was on the letter. Q. Youcarriet? more*hanone? A. Two. CJ. To whom did you deliver the second? A. To Mr, O'Laueblin. CJ., Do you know for whom it was? A. He told me it was for Mr. O'Laughlin; I knew Mr. O'Laughlin, and was glad when I saw him in the theatre, because it savedme night walking. CJ. For whom did O'Laughlin say the letter was. A. Well. I said here is a letter Mr. Booth gave me for you, and that was all. CJ. Booth told you then this letter was tor O'Laughlin? Mr. Cox here remarked again, I must object to this evidence, as it is not followed up as to what he did after the receipt. The Judge Advocate-General remarked that the object was simply to show tbe intimacy of those men by their correspondence. Mr. Cox said be objected to any evidence of Booth's seuding a letter to any individual. It was simply an act of Booth's own, to which the defendant was not privy. Tbe Judge Advocate-General then said tbat they did not offer the letter in evidence at all, but simply their correspondence with each other. The objection was finally entered upon the record, but was overruled by the Court. CJ. When did I understand you to say this letter was carried ? A. It was in March. CJ. Are you sure? A. Yes sir, in March last. CJ. Late or early in March? A. About tbe middle of tbe month; I was coming along there near the mine ral water store, and be said, couldn't I take a note for him; I said I could; I bad to go in front: he said forme to take the note and he would pay me; I asked him where, and he said to Fayette street. CJ, You said something about the theatre; what theatre? A. The Holliday Street Theatre. CJ. You say you found O'Laughlin in the theatre; what part of the theatre? A. In tbe dress circle, in tbe afternoon. CJ. How did you find him? A. I went up with Pitch, and found him there. Q. All you know about it is tbat you just gave the note to him and came away? A, Yes, sir. CJ. When Booth gave you the other letter, that was not for O'Laughlin? A. No, sir; that was for a house in in Fayette Street. He just gave me the number of the bouse. CJ. He did not tell you who It was addressed to? A. No, sir. Testimony of J. P. Early. J. P. Early sworn. CJ. Do you know the prisoners, O'Laughlin and Ar nold? A. I know O'Laughlin. CJ. Have you been on the cars with them coming from Baltimore to this city? A. Yes, with O'Laughlin, on the Thursday previous to tbe assassination. CJ. Was Arnold on the cars? A, No sir, not to my knowledge at least. CJ. That was the day previous to the assassination? A. Yes, Thursday, the night of the illumination. CJ. Do you know where he went to stay after you ar rived? A. There were four ot us, and when we stopped to get shaved between Third and Four-and-a-balf streets, he asked me to walk down as far as the Na tional Hotel with bim. CJ. Did he take a room there? A. No sir, he did not. CJ. Did you see him associate with Booth? A. No sir, I never saw Booth but once, and that was upon the stage. CJ. Did be make any inquiry for Booth? A. I did not hear bim. CJ. Did you see O'Laughlin during that day ? A. I was with nim the greater part of that day. CJ. Where? A. We slept at the Metropolitan that night, and then went to Welch's and had breakfast for four of us; as we were passing the National Hotel. I stopped to go to the water-closet; when I came out I met Mr. Henderson, who said be was waiting for Mr. O'Laughlin, who had gone up stairs to see Booth; we waited three-quarters of an hour, and he not coming down, we went out. CJ. When did you see him again ? A. About four o'clock. Q. What time did he go to see Booth? A. I Should say it was about noon, perhaps. Q. What was the latest hour at which you saw bim, on Friday? A. I don't recollect exactly; I had been been drinking considerably, but I distinctly recollect I saw bim come out of a restaurant pretty late; I can't say whether it was after tbe assassination. Q. Can you give the name of the restaurant? A. I believe the name, at present, is "Lee Shore." CJ. Did you see him at the time or immediately after you heard of the assassination of the President? A. I can't say I did; I went to bed shortly after that; I think I distinctly recollect his coming oU with Fowler. Q. Who is Fowler? A. I don't know exactly; he used to be employed by O'Laugblin's brother once. CJ. Did O'Laughlin go to Baltimore the next day? A. Yes. on the three or half-past three o'clock train; I forget which it is. „, „ CJ Where- did he go to in Baltimore? A. Well, after we arrived we went down Baltimore street, as far as High, down to Fayette, andfrom there we_went andj u TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. asked to see a gentleman's wife who was lying here sick in Washington; and then we came down and went to O'Laughlin's; going down, wemeth's brother on the way, who told O'Laughlin that there had been par ties looking for him: be asked me if I would wait, and then he asked me in; be then went up, and said he was not going to stay home that night. Q, Did he show much excitement about the assassi nation? A. I can't say he did, but his brother said he would be after bim on account of his intimacy with Booth. Cross-examination by Mr. Cox.— CJ. Who was with O'Laughlin besides yourself? A. There was Henderson, Edward Murphy and myself CJ. What was your purpose in coming down? A. We came to have a little good time, and to see the illumi nation. CJ. Did he join you in Baltimore? A. He came with Henderson. Q. Where did you stay on Thursday night? A. At thcNatioual Hotel. Henderson, me and Smith stopped in one room, and as O'Laughlin signed the register last they gave him a room to himself. CJ. Who arranged to sleep separately ? A. Well, he was the man who signed last, and the clerk gave him that room. CJ. How late were yob up that night ? A. It waa about 2 o'clock on Friday morning. CJ. Was it you who woke him in the morning ? A. Yes, sir, and then we went down and got breakfast. CJ. Where ? A. At Welch's, on the avenue, near Tenth street, and alter breakfast we went back, about 10 o'clock, to the National Hotel. CJ. Didyouhear him state what he was going to see Booth for, or thathe was going to see Booth at ail ? A. No sir, not at that time. CJ, Did Booth come down ? A. He did not. Cj. You don't know whether he actually saw Booth or not? A. I donot,sir; weremainedinthehotelthree- qUarters of an hour waiting for bim. and he not com ing down, Henderson concluded to go, but as we went out be bad some cards written by the card-writer there; we walked down the avenue, I think, as far as the " Lee Shore," and be not being there we went back and got the cards tbat the writer bad written for Hen derson; be wroiemy nameonasamplecard; we then Sroposedto send cards to Booth's room as a hint to 'Laughlin to come down ; the cards were returned. as there was nobody in the room. CJ. How long during that day was O'Laughlin in your company ? A. We took a stroll around tbe city, in dif ferent parts of it, and had dinneragain at Welch's. CJ. Did you stroll around together? A. Yes sir. Q. You dined at Welch's? A. Yes sir. CJ. At what hour? A. Between twelve and two. CJ. Do you know Stern's clothing store? A. Yes sir. Q. Was it over that? A. No sir. I think it was fur ther up tbe avenue. CJ, What time did you get through dinner? A. It took us over an hour. CJ. Where did you go after dinner? A. Around town again, and we went on a visit. CJ. Was O'Laughlin with you all the time? A. I can't say he waa alter dinner, but I recollect that between four and five o'clock he went with me to a iriend's house. CJ. To pay a visit? A. Yes sir; and we had dinner a second time. CJ. That was on Friday? A. Yes sir. Q. How soon did you leave there? A. We left there about 6 o'clock. CJ. You are not certain that O'Laughlin was with you all the afternoon? You don't suppose be was with you between the first and second dinners? A. lam not positive; I think we separated, O'Laughlin and Henderson going one way, and Michael and myself another. CJ. Vou are not certain? A. No sir. CJ. After 6 o'clock where did you go? A. After we came up from the place near the Baltimore depot. where we had paid tbe visit, we returned to the Lee Shore House, and were then joined by tbe other two. CJ. How late was that? A. I don't exactly recollect. We stayed around there until between 7 and 8 o'clock, and then went back to Welch's and bad supper. We were there at the time the procession passed up the avenue to the Navy Yard. CJ. What time was that? A. Between eight and nine o'clock. CJ. How late did youstay there? A. Until oursupper was ready: we then went to the Lee Shore House. Q. Did you stay there till you went to bed? A. I did. 6lr. dCJ- Do I understand you to say you were there after the assassination? A. Yes sir. CJ. Where is tbehouse? A. BetweenThirdandFour- and-a-haLf streets, near the Globe office; the second door I believe from the Globe office. CJ. Did you speak to O'Laughlin when he was in com pany with Fowler? A. Yes sir. CJ. Was not that after you received the news of the assassination? A. lam not certain. CJ. Were you all there? A. Yes sir. CJ. Where did you stay that night? A. I staid at that house. CJ. Did p'Laughlin? A. Not that I know of. CJ. Had you been drinking? A. Yes sir. CJ. Now charge your memory whether it was after the news of tbe assassination reached you or not? A. I should judge it was about 10 o'clock. CJ. Where was Murphy? A. He had left us in the avenue. CJ. He was not with vou at that time? A. No sir. Q. Where was Henderson? A. In the bar-ropm, I betieve. Q. Now I will ask you when you came down on Thursday, whether the whole party bad not arranged to go back on Friday? A. Yes, that was the intention; at least I understood so. CJ. Duringthis visit did you see anything in O'Laugh lin— anything desperate, which would lead you to sup pose Objected toby the Assistant Judge Advocate Brig- ham. CJ. How was his conduct? A. The same as lever saw; he was rather jovial. CJ. Was he in good spirits? A. Very much so, com ing down to tb e cars. Q. Any nervousness? A. No sir. Q. I will ask you whether you were near Willard's Hotel during Friday, or Friday evening ? A. We were not as far up as Willard's, I think; I don't recollect passing there. CJ. What induced you to stay later than you in tended ? A. Well, it was the liquor. CJ. Didn't Lieutenant Henderson press you to stay? The question was objected to by Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham, on tbe ground that it was a cross- examination as to Henderson, whose name was not on the record yet. Major-General Lew Wallace remarked that Mr- Henderson himself could be brought into Court. The Court asked Mr. Cox if the question was with drawn, to which Mr. Cox replied— No, sir. The objection, however, was sustained by the Court CJ. You stated that probably the liquor kept you there. Now I will ask you if anything else did ? A I cannot say. CJ. State what time you went up to the depot in the morning? A. We did start to go at eleven on Satur day morning, and wentasiar as thedepot, andHender- son went and got the tickets, but Henderson finally con cluded to stay over the afternoon; O'Laughlin was wanting to go up to Baltimore, and said I to Hender son, if you press him to stay, he will, and so we all concluded to stay until three in tbe evening. Q. Then you went up at three in tbe evening ? A Yes sir. CJ. You say you met his brother, and that be said parties were looking for bim? A. Yes, I remember the remark be made, that he would not like to be ar rested in her bouse; that itwould be the death of h's mother; his brother-in-law went with us to the corner of Fayette and Exeter streets; we stopped there and had a conversation, and I told him he had better stay athome, and thatthose parties would probably come again. He paid:— No, it would be the death of hU mother, and asked me to go up town with him, and I went up, but I do not recollect tbe name of the street; we got into the cars, and when we got out we returnel home. Examination in Chief Resumed. By Judge Holt:— CJ. Do you know the hour that O'Laughlin joined you on Thursday? A. We all tour wenttinto the hotel together. CJ. Atwhatbour? A. About one or two o'clock. CJ. On Friday morning? A. Yes. Q. Where bad you been the previous part of the night? A. After supper we went to see the illumina tions, and went a considerable distance up the avenue. and then turned back, and, at the invitation of Mr. Henderson, went into tbe Canterbury Music Hall. CJ. AH of you? A. Allofus. Q. Did you all continue together? A. Yes sir. &• J^Syougoonywhereelse? a. No sir. CJ. Didn t you go on K street or L street? A. No sir; I can t say; I don't know where that street is mvself. terbuCry? T AS&SSSS?011 WaW ^^ at'th6 C&a~ t&t 2& ?oeo°kra SSfe ^'tZt^ut^ PTeVi0US to Testimony of Lieutenant Henderson. S0^erO^ghm1Ti0.UfS^r0.,1Uainted WMh the »* Q. Did you see him in this city on Friday Antil 14th? A. Yes sir, on Thursday and Friday r' Aplu mm rose^mfnihe^Snh?^ ™ 0° F"day that he was Cross-examination by Mr. Cox— a tha v.- *«n ~~„ hewastoseeLim,orthafhewentSs?ehim' A S ; said he was to see him on Friday ^ag^3roanW^« S- SLd ne tel1 y°u what for? A No sir Q. That is ail you know about it? A. That is all, sir. Testimony of Samuel K. 3. Street Q. Explain to the Court how long you hiyek™ O'Laughlin? A. IkavetaownhimJoryeS a TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 35 Q. Did you see him in the month of April last before the assassination? A. I cau't be positive about its being April, but it was wel I on to the 1st of April. CJ. Did you see him with Booth? A. I did. , Q,. Did the association between them seem to be of an intimate nature? A. It did. Q. Did you see them converse in an intimate man ner? A. I did. CJ. Where was that? A. I don't know the bouse; it was on the right hand side of the avenue as you go up to tbe Treasury Department. CJ. Inside? A. No, outside, CJ. Were they alone by themselves? A. There were three of the party. Q.. Did the third party take any part in the conver sation? A. I think Booth was the speaker, and the other party the listenr. CJ. Did they suspend their conversation whpn you approached? A. O'Laughlin did. He called me on one side and said Booth was busy with his friend talk ing privately. CJ. Do you know this man? A. No sir, CJ. Describe him. A. He was about my height, with curly hair; he was in a stooping position, as if talking toBooth; Ithoughtitillmannersto go- too near them. CJ. Do you recognize auy of the prisoners as being the man ? The witness scrutinized the prisoners in the dock, and answered;— In their present dress, I would'nt swear to any. The question was objected to, and the objection was sustained. CJ. Have you any opinion as to whether-'either of these is the man? A. I feel it my duty to detect the m*in, but it is a delicate question. No sir, 1 will not swear that the man is there. CJ. State whether you are the person reported to have seen Booth aud Harold on the night ofthe assassina tion? A. I don't know Harold, and I never saw Booth but once after that. Cross-examination by Mr. Cox.— Q. You say you saw this conference at the house on the avenue? Can you tell where the house is? A. I paid no attention to the locality; it is between Ninth and Eleventh streets, to the.best of my recollection; I know I was going up to Eleventh street. Q. Can you speak with any certainty as to the date? A. I could if I badtbepasses that I obtained. Then I could come nigh to it; but I can:t now say positively as to the date. CJ. Might it not have been tbat you asked O'Laugh lin to take a drink, and he have replied that Booth was busy with a friend? A. Well, I am in no ways stingy; Imigbt have done so. Q. And what was his answer in reply to your invi tation to take a drink? A. I don't know. Testimony of X*. S. Spragne. By Judge Holt.— Q. You have been a clerk at the Kirkwood House? A. Yes sir. CJ. Were you present when the room was broken opeaafter the assassination? A. Yes sir. CJ. State what was found there? A. All I saw was a revolver. CJ. Doyou recollect tbat in the course of the day some men called to inquire ior Atzeroth? A. No sir, I do not. Cross-examination by Mr. Doster.— CJ. When were you at the desk? A. Icame off duty at 12 in the morn ing. CJ. Did you observe anybody calling and asking for Atzeroth? A. No sir. Testimony of David Stanton. CJ. Look upon the prisoner, O'Laughlin, and state to the Court whether you ever saw him before, and if so, when and where. A. I have seen him. Q. Which ishe? A. That is him; he sits there be tween two soldiers. CJ. State when and where you saw him? A. The night before the assassination: at the house of the Sec retary of War; I simply saw him there; he remained some moments, till Irequested him to go out. CJ. Did you have any conversation with him in the house? A. I asked him what his business was, and he asked where the Secretary was; I said he was standing on the stoop. Q. Did he ask for anybody else but the Secretary? A. No. CJ. Did he offer anv explanation while there? A. No; at first I thought he was intoxicated; but found after wards that be was not. 'CJ. Was General Grant there that night ? A. Yes, in tbe room. CJ. Did he ask In regard to him? A. I don't recol lect that be did. Q. Did he go when you told bim ? A. Yes, sir. CJ. Atwhathourwas that ? A. At 10^ o'clock; there was a crowd there, and a band there serenading Gen. Grant and the Secretary of War. CJ. Do you know anything of a man being seen lurking about the premises? A. No sir, it was eleven O'clock before I got there: bis inquiry was simply where the Secretary of War was; I pointed him out to him> but he did not go to see him, nor did he tell what his message was. Cross-examined by Mr. Cox-Q. Was that the first time you saw this man? A. Yes. Q. Have you never seen him since? A. Yes, on the Montauk, as a prisoner. CJ. How long after was that? A*. I don't remember the date, but it was the day they took Booth's bodv away irom thevessel J CJ. Was it dark or light? A. Not very dark. CJ, Moonlight? A. No sir, dark. CJ How was he dressed? A. In black. Q. Whatkmdofhathadhe? A. Aslouchedhat. Q. Did he have a whole suit of black? A. Yessir. CJ. What kind of a coat? A. A dress coat. CJ. Whs his vest black? A. Yes sir. QjWhere does the Secretary live? A. On the corner of Fourteenth and K; the second house from the cor ner o f Fourteenth. . Q- What peculiarity about the man enabled vou to identify him? A. The ball was well lit up, and"I was directly in front of him. Q. How far Inside the door were you? A, About ten feet, next to the library door. CJ. What do you suppose his size was, standing in the nail? A. About my height; lour leet five, or five feet four I should say. CJ. When you saw him on the monitor was he stand ing or sitting? A. He stood up; I had an indistinct view of him on the monitor, it was so dark. CJ. You at first thought he was Intoxicated, and then that he was not? A. Yes sir. CJ. There were a good many people in front ofthe door. A. Yessir. CJ. Was there any one else about the hall? A. No sir. CJ. Who was on the door-step? A. The Secretary and another gentleman were on the door-step. CJ. He bad got behind them? A. Yes sir. CJ. Was General Grant in the parlor? A. Yes sir. CJ. Was that lit up? A Yessir. CJ. Did he have the same beard ashehasnow? A* I see no change except from the want of shaving. Testimony of Mr. I>. C. Read. CJ. State whether you were acquainted with Mr. John N . Surratt, in this city. A. I had no personal acquain tance with him. CJ. Do you know him when you see him? A. Yessir. CJ. When did you last see him? A. On tbe 14th of April, thenightof the assassination. CJ. In this city? A. Ye3Sir. Q. Wheredid you see bim then ? A. He was stand ing on the street below the National, when he passed ; it was about %% o'clock. CJ. Was be alone? A. Yessir. CJ. Doyou remember how he was dressed? A. Yes sir; in a country cloth suit, varied in texture and ap pearance: it was genteely got up; he had a round crowned hat: I noticed his spurs as he passed me par ticularly; he had on a pair of new brass-plated spurs, with a very large rowel. CJ. He was on foot was he? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you say was the color of his clothes. A, They were drab. CJ. Did you speak to him? A. I bowed to him as he passed. CJ. You stated you knew him quite awhile? A. I knew him when a child: he had grown pretty much out of my recollection; still I knew him when I saw him. CJ. You have no doubt you saw bim on that day? A. I am very positive I saw him. Cross-examination by Mr. Aiken.— CJ. How long have you known Surratt? A. I could not state positively the length of time. CJ. Have you been in the habit of seeing him fre quently during the past year ? A. I cannot say that I have. CJ. When did you see him ? A. I could not say posi tively: I think I saw him some time last fall, I think in October. CJ. Describe bis appearance? A. He was a light-com plected man; his hair was rather singular like; it is not red nor burned, but ratherjsandy; it was cut round so as to lay it low down on his collar. CJ, Did he wear any whiskers when you last saw him? A. I don't recollect seeing any hair on his face at all: if he had any, itwas very light. * CJ. Did you see anything of a goatee or moustache on him? A. No; I did not notice his face so much: I was more attracted by the clothes he had on. CJ. Whatdo you mean by drab or grey clothes? A. I mean regular country cloth. CJ. Do I understand you to say you were standing on tbesteps ofthe National Hotel? A. No, as it was two doors below. ,, . CJ. You had no talk with him? A. No sir. CJ. Can you swear positively it was Surratt? A. I may be mistaken, but I am as certain it was he as that I am standing here. . Q. What is the state of his forehead? A. I could not say. He had his hat on. My attention was attracted to his clothes and spurs. CJ You Observed the clothes and the rowel more than his face? A. I oan't say my attention dwelt upon his face at all. , , TJ L ,.,_.,_...« CJ How large a man is he; I dont mean his height? A, He is not a stout man, but rather delicate; he would 36 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. not weigh over one hundred and forty pounds: he walks a little stooped. CJ. How long did you have your eyes upon bim ? A. I saw him as he passed, and 1 turned and looked. Q, Did you see bim again duringthe day ? A. Nosir. By Judge Hoit.— CJ. Did Surratt recognize you? A. He bowed to me as he passed. Q. You say you gave a particular attention to bis clothing. Are you in the habit of judging of these things? A. Yes. sir: I make them myself. Testimony of .fames W. Pomephrey. CJ. You reside in Washington? A. I do. CJ. What is your business? A. I keep a livery stable. CJ. Are you acquainted with Booth? A. I was sir. Q. Doyou remember to have seen him on Friday, April 14th? A. Yes sir; he came to my stable about twelve o'clock and again at four o'clock; be said be wanted a horse at four o'clock on that day; he wanted a sorrel that he used to ride, but I could not let him have it, and I gave him a bay mare about thirteen or fourteen hands high. CJ. Was it returned to you? A. I have never seen her since. Q. Describe the mare. A. She was a small mare; a little rubbed behind; she was a blood-bay, black tall, with a little star on her forehead. CJ. Was be in the habit of hiring horses from you? A. Yes; he first came in company with Surratt; be asked me if I was tbe proprietor, and I said yes; he wanted a horse; says I, "you will either have to give me reference or security; I don't know you; ^well" says he, "you have read about me;" "well " says I, "who are you, if I have read about you?" He said he was John Wilkes Booth; Isaid I didn't know whether he was John Wilkes Booth, and Surratt spoke up and said, "this is John Wilkes Booth," and I let him nave the horse. CJ. How long was this before the assassination? A. One mouth or six weeks. CJ. Look at that photograph, do you recognize it? A That is th e man, sir. CJ. Did he ask ior anything else? A. Only a tie-rein* I told him not to hitch her by the bridle, but to get a boy to hold her if he should happen to stop; he said he was going to Grover's Theatre to write a letter, and he would put her in a stable back of that; I told him if he •ould'nt get a boy, he could get a bootblack; he said he was going to take a pleasure ride, and asked " How is Chrystal Springs?" I told him it was a good place, but rather airy to go to. Q. That was between four and five o'clock. A. Yes I have never seen Booth since. CJ. Do you know any ofthe other prisoners? A No- I don't know any of them at all. Cross-examined by Mr. Aiken.— Q. Was Surratt with Bouth? A. Yes, sir, the first time I saw him; he never came with anybody else. Q. When was tbat ? A- Six weeks before the assas sination . Q. He was not with him on the Friday? A No* Booth was always alone after that. > CJ. WhatkindofalookingmanwasSurratt? A He was about rive ieet, ten or eleven inches; had sandy hair and a light goatee ; his eyes were sunken ; be was thin in feature. Q. How was he dressed ? A. He bad on a grev shirt I think; I am not certain. ' CJ. All the remarks he made was that one in refer ence to Booth? A. That was all, sir. 9; «Dic} B-S.0lh ?ver r-eler t0 his introduction by Sur ratt? A. Not at all, sir. Testimony off Knfns Stables. Rufus Stables sworn.-CJ, Do you live in Wasbing- toncitv? A. Yessir. to Q. What is your business? A. I keep livery stable CJ. State whether you were acquainted with Booth'' A. i es sir. ' CJ. Also with Surratt ? A. Yes sir CJ. Also with Atzeroth ? A. Yes sir. Q, Did you see them together at your stable? A Yes frequently. ' S;JRurln? w^at month? A. Down to about the 2lst or 29th of April. CJ. March you mean? A. Yes sir, March Cj. Were they unusually intimate? A. Thev would come together three or four times a day sometimes Q. Did they keep horses there? A. Surratt kept two. CJ. Did he allow Atzeroth to use his horses*' A No sir, he rode out occasionally with him. CJ. Did you ever see this note, "Mr. Howard will please let Atzeroth have my horses and also my eloves whenever he wishes to ride?" CJ. Who is Mr. Howard? A. He is the proprietor of tbe stable. CJ. Do you know whether under that order he rode Surratt's horse? A. Several times; but after that date I think the order waa rescinded. Q. Look at that paper, and see if you can identify it in any way? A. I know this note; it came through my hands. & J CJ. How did tbe note reach the bands of Howard? A It was sent by Mr. Surratt, and I put it on file. Q. Did you let the horse go, accordingly? A. Yes sir. Q. Do you remember what Atzeroth said in regard to Surratt's visit to Richmond? Did he speak to you or his having been there, or of any trouble he was in volved in in consequence? A. He told me he had been to Richmond and coming back got into difficulty, and that the detectives were after bim. CJ. Do you remember what time that was in April? A. In the early part. CJ. Did Atzeroth himself hire horses of you? A. No sir. I think not at that stable. CJ. Did he, or did be not take away a horse blind of an eye? A. Yes; under the owner's orders. CJ. Who was the owner? A. Surratt. Q. When did he take that horse away? A. On the 31st ; it was paid for on the 29th. CJ. Describe the animals taken ? A. They were both bay: one was darker than the other; the one that was blind of one eye was the smaller horse. Q. Were you paid for keeping them? A. Yes; Booth paid their keep. CJ. Did you see the horse afterwards? A. Yes; at the stable; he took him there to sell him to Mr. Howard. CJ. Who. Atzeroth? A. Yes; and he took him away. CJ. Who claimed the horses? A. Surratt; Surratt claimed them, Booth paid for their keeping, and Atze roth took them away: there was another gentleman who came and rode with one of them away. Q. Who was he? A. I don't know. CJ. Do you think you would recognize the horse that was blind of one eye, if you were to see him? A. Yes sir. The Assistant Judge Advocate then ordered that the witness be taken in an ambulance to see the horse of Nmteenth and I streets ; the Judge Advocate-General remarking that they wished to examine him further when he returned. Testimony off E»eter Flatterkelt. Peter Flatterkelt, sworn— By Judge Holt— CJ, Please state to the Court whether you knew J. Wilkes Booth. A. Yes. CJ. What is your business? A, I keep a restaurant near Ford's Theatre. CJ. State whether or not you saw Booth in your restaurant on the evening of the 14th of April. A, Yes; he was there just about ten, or a little after, tbat night. CJ. State what occurred, and under what circumstan ces you saw him? A. He just walked into the bar, and called for some whisky; I banded him the bottleof whisky and.a tumbler; I did not give him water at once, as is usual; be called for water, and I gave it to him; he put some money on the counter, and went right out. CJ. Was your restaurant under Ford's Theatre? A. It is on this side of Ford's Theatre, adjoining it. CJ. Did you,observe where be wentfrom there? A. I only observed him to-go out from the bar. CJ. Washealoue? a. Yes, sir. CJ. Was he there in the afternoon ? A. I did not see him. Q. How many minutes was it after he went out be fore you beard the report of a pistol? A. I did not hear the report of a pistol. CJ. How long before you heard the President was as sassinated? A. I think from eight to teu minutes, as near as I can come at it. Q. Are you acquainted with the prisoner Harold? A. Yes sir. CJ. When did you see him? A. I saw him either the night of the murder or the night previous to tbat; he came into my place; I was behind the bar, and he asked meif John Booth bad been there tbat aiternoon; I told him I had not been there myself all that aiter noon; heaskediflhadnot seen him, and I said no; he then went right out. Cross-examined by Mr. Stone.— CJ. You cannot fix distinctly whether this was on Thursday or Friday? A. I cannot. CJ. Were there not two other gentlemen with Har old the evening he came to your place? A. I did not see them. CJ. Did he come alone? A. I think he came alone: there may have been some one outside of the restau rant, but I did not see any one come in CJ. How long have you known Harold? A. Ever since bo was a ooy. «**««*. ^.. ^-*« CJ. What time in the evening did you see him on this occasion? A. I judge it must have been between six and seven o'clock, as near as I can recollect. Testimony of James M. ©ye. Sergeant James M. Dye sworn— By Jud°-e Holt O. State whether or not on the evening ofthP i4fh nf April last, you were standing in front of Ford's Thea tre, and if so, at what time ? A. I was sitting in iv«nt of Ford's Theatre about half-past nin^ on thft nteh? CJ. State whether or not you! observed P£?vl5ff per sons whose appearance excited your susnicionV rnn- tref 'TS sir' °n ** *"«*»** *on?of °the* thea- Q. Describe their appearance and what rhm hm A. The first that attracted my notice wS?» 1,1 LSlt dressed gentleman that came out o? u?e 'S el and commenced conversing with a rough Efnl aaru-i then there was another Joined them and the TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 31 three conversed together; after they had conversed a while and it was drawing near the end ofthe second act, the well dressed one, who appeared to be the leader, said;— "I think he will come out now,*' re ferring, I supposed, to the President. CJ. Was tbe President's carriage standing there?. A. Yes; they waited awhile, and several gentlemen came down and went into the saloon below and bad drinks; tiienaiterthey went up the best dressed gentleman stepped into the saloon and waitedlong enough to take a drink. He came out in a style as though he was be coming intoxicated and stepped up and whispered to th* roughest looking one of the three, and went into the passage that leads irom tbe stage to the street. Then the smallest one stepped up just asthewell- dressedone appeared again and called out the time. He started up the street and remained awhile, and came down again, and ailed the time again. Then I- began to think therec was something wrong. Pre sently he went up and called the time again, louder than before. I think it was ten minutes alter ten. Q. He was announcing it to them all, was he not? A. Yes sir. Then be started at a fast walk up the street; the best dressed one then then went iuside the theatre. I started for a saloon, and had just time to get duwn to it and order oysters, when a man came running in and said the President was shot. CJ. Do you recognize the well dressed person from the photograph I now show you? (Photograph of Booth shown witness.) A. That is the man; his moustache was heavier and his beard longer though. CJ. Do you recognize his features ? A. Yes ; that is the man. CJ. Which restaurant did the well-dressed man go Into? A. Into the restaurant just below the theatre towards the Avenue. CJ. Did he go in therealone? A. Yes. Q. I wish you to give, if you can, a more particular description of this rough looking man; what was his size; what gave him the ruffianly appearance you spoke of; was it his dress? A. He was not as well dressed as therestof them. CJ. Was be shabbily or dirtily dressed? A. His clothes were more worn and shabby. CJ. Was he a stou t man? A. Yes, rather. CJ. Which waydid he go? A. Heremalned at the passage, while the other one started up the street. CJ. The time was announedto these other two men, three times, was it? A. Yessir. CJ. Hid he immediately go into the theatre after an nouncing the time on the last occasion? A. Yessir. CJ. Will you look at the persons, an. 1 see wheheryou recognize any of them as persons you saw on that oocasion? A. If that mau CJ. Were they playing a piece requiring much shift ing of the scenes? A. I think at that point of the play it could not be many minutes before the scene would require to be changed. CJ. Was it a time when tbe passage-way, in tbe ordi nary course of things, would have been obstructed? A. Some of the actors might have been there wait ing to go on the next scene. (Witness here described at length the various localities in connection with the stage.) Q. Did you ever see Spangler wear a moustache? A. No, I have always seen him as he appears now; I do not think I ever saw him with amoustache. Q. How long have you known him? A. Ever since Ford's Theatre has been going, nearly two years. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Is there not a side way by which tbe theatre can be entered without passing in from the front? A. No, not as I know of; there is one little passage where the actors and actresses get in, but that is the front way. CJ. That is used exclusively by the actors? A. Yes sir, it was used when the theatre was first opened by actors when they wanted to go out to take a drink without being observed. By tbe Court— CJ. When you met Booth on tbe stage as be was passing out, could you see tbe door as he went out? A. Yessir. CJ. Was there any doorkeeper standing there that you cou id see? A. I did not see any. CJ. Was the door open? A. No, I think not. Q,. Was there anything to obstruct his passage out? A. No. CJ. Was tbat not an unusual state of things? A. It seemed strange to me; it was unusual. CJ. Was there any check at all at ibe door as he went out? A. No; it seemed to me after be gave me the blow that knocked me down, and in which hecame very near going under, be made one plunge and was out. CJ. Was it your impression tbat the door was opened for him, or that he opened it himseli? A. 1 don't know; I tried it myself; to see if it could be opened so easily; it surprised me. CJ. Was it your impression that some one assisted him ingoing out, by opening the door? A I did not see anybodv; I only saw him go out. Q. Do the scenes stand at this--time j ust as they were left, or have they been changed? A. I really do not know. CJ. Do you say there is no passage out of the theatre except in front? A. No; you have to gb from the alley round and come in front. Re-examination of Stabler. By Judge Holt.— Q. State to the Court whether since your examination you have been to a stable in the cityandfoundthehorse referred to? A. Yes, Ihave. CJ. Do you recognize that as the horse you referred to? A. Yes; tbat is the bay horse that Atzeroth took away on the 29th , of March, and brought back some days afterwards, for sale. By the Court— CJ. That was the horse held at your stable at tbe Surratt House? A. Yes, until Booth paid the livery and took him away. CJ. Where is he kept now? A. On the corner of Se venteenth and I streets. , Q- Whose stable is it? A. A Government stable, by Mr. Doster. Q, Are you the owner of the place where these horses were kept? A. No, sir. Q. What was your business there? A. The reception of livery horses, the hiring to parties, and a general oversight. CJ. Are you certain Surratt owned these horses? A. I supposed he did; he brought them there in his name and paid the livery. Q. Did not you say that somebody else paid tbe liv ery? A. When they were taken away finally Booth paid it. CJ Did you not say Surratt paid the livery? A. Sur ratt paid down to tbe end of the month previous. CJ. When Booth settled the bill, did be claim the horseashis? A. No. Q. Did be state who they belonged to at that time? A. He gave tbe order of Surratt to pay for tbe horses and take them away. CJ. You say this horse you have just described waa sold from your stable? A. No sir; he was not sold; he was brought there on livery, and on the 29th of March Booth paid the livery for the month ending March 31, audsome days afterwards Atzeroth brought them there to sell. CJ. When did you see this horse last before to-day? A. About the4th or 5th of April, when he was brought there to sell. CJ. Have you seen tbat horse in tbe possession of At zeroth since tbat time? A. Not since he brought him. there to sell. Testimony of Joe Simms (Colored.) Examined by the Judge Advocate.— Q. What con nection have youat Ford's Theatre? A. I have worked there two years; I went there when I first came to Washington. CJ. Were you there the night the President was as sassinated? A. I was up at the fly where they hang up tbe curtains. CJ. Did you see Booth there that evening? A. I saw him there between five and,six o'clock. Q. State where j7ou saw him, and what be did? A. When I saw him he came in the back part of the stage; he wentout and went into a restaurant besidethe theatre; I saw him no more that night until after the performance commenced; during the performance I beard a pistol fired, aud looked immediately to see what it was; I saw him jump from the private box on to the stage and make his escape across the stage; I saw no more of him. CJ. Who was with him when be went out in the after noon? A. There was no one; Mr. Spangler was standing out in front, and he invited him in to take a drink. CJ. Is this the man here, pointing to Spangler? A, Yes. that is the man. CJ. Did you hear anything said between them? A. No; they went in to take a drink; that is all I beard. CJ. Did yousee Booth when he came up back ofthe theatre with his horse? A. No; the other colored man who works with me^aw him. CJ. Did you know Spangler very well? A. Yes. CJ. Were he and Booth very intimate? A. Tliey were quite intimate. CJ. You saw them go and drink together? A. Yes; tbat is all. Cross-examined by Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Had Spangler anythingtodo with Booth's horses ? A. Nothing more than tbat he would have them attended to when Booth was away. CJ. He saw to their being fed and watered, didn't he? A. Yes. Q. Was he hired by Booth ? A. No, not Ppangl er; the other young man Booth hired, but I suppose Booth thought he would not do justice by his horse and got Spangler to see to it, when he was not there. CJ. What position did Spangler bold in the theatre? A. Hewasoneor' thestage managers: hesbilted scenery at nigbt and worked on the stage during the day. Q. What was his position on thestageat night? A. On the right hand of the stage as you lace the audience. CJ. That was the side of the President's box, was it not' A No; tbe President's box was on the left hand side of the stage, as you look out opposite Spangler's place. „. „ . _, CJ Where was your position? A. Mypositionwasup in the flyers where they wind the curtain up on the third story. CJ. Did you see Spangler that night after five o'clock? A. Oh. yes: he was there on the stage attending to his business as usual. 40 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Q. What time did you see him? A. It was in the early part of the evening; I never inquired the time; we had no time up where we were. Q. How long did you see bim before the President was shot? A. I did not see him at all before the Presi dent was shot; I was looking at the performance until I heard tbe report of a pistol. Q. Did you see him during the play that night? A, Yes; he was obliged to be there. CJ. Did you see him in the firstact? A. Yes. CJ. Did you see him in the second act? A. I do not remember seeing bim in the second. CJ. Could you have seen him where you were up in the fly? A. Yes, sir: I could see him from my side over on ihe other side of tbe stage. CJ. Was Spangler's place on the opposite side? A. Yes sir, on the opposite side below. CJ. Were you looking for him during the second act? A. No. CJ. Was he a sort of assistant stage manager? A. He was a regular stage manager to shUt tbe scenes at night. CJ. From where you were could you see the Presi dent's box? A. I could, plain, CJ. What time in the first act did you see Spangler? A. In the first act I saw him walking about the stage looking at the performance. CJ. Had he bis hat on ? A. No. CJ. Plow was he dressed? A. I could not tell exactly what kind of clothes he had on. CJ. Did he look just as he does now as to his face? A. Yes, just as natural as he does now. CJ. Did you ever see him wear a moustache? A. No. Q. From where you were on the fly would not the scenes change so that sometimes you could not see him? A. Sometimes I could only see him occasionally. Testimony of John Miles (Colored.) Examined by Judge Advocate Holt.— CJ. State whether you belong to Ford's Theatre. A. I do. CJ. Were you there on the night of the assassination of the President? A. Yes. CJ. Did you see J. Wilkes Booth there? A. Yes; I saw him when he came there. CJ. Tell the Court all about what you saw? A. He came there about nine or ten o'clock; he brought a horse up from tbe stable down there to the back door, and called to Nea, Spongier to come out from the theatre three times; then Spangler came across the stage to him; after that I did not see what became of Booth any more till I heard the pistol gooff; then I went up in sight of the President's box; I heard some man say he believed somebody had shot the President; when I got there the President had gone out, or I could not see him; I went in a moment to the window and heard the horses' feet going out ofthe alley. CJ. Did you see anyone holding the horse? A. Yes, I saw the boy after he- had called for Ned Spangler. CJ. You do not know what was said between them? A. No ; I only heard him call for Ned Spangler. CJ. You say he came up to the door with his horse, between 9 and 10 o'clock. Do you knowwhere he kept his horse? A. Yes, in a little stable close bv there; I saw him come from there about 3 o'clock with, Ned Spangler and Josevh Maddox. CJ. How iar is the little stable where he kept his horse irom the theatre? A I do not think it is more than fifty yards. Cross-examined by Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Was the play going on when Booth rode up and called for Spangler? A. Yes: they were just closing a scene, and getting ready to take off that scene ; Spangler was pushing the scene across the stage when Booth called to him three times. CJ. Where were you? A. I was up on the fly, three stories and a half from the stage. CJ. In what act was that ? A. I think in the third act. CJ. How long before the President was shot? A. The President came in in the first act; I think it was in the third act he was shot; from the time he brought the horse there until he was shot I think was about three- quarters of an hour. CJ. Do you know who held the horse ? A. John Pea nut held the horse from the time Booth held him until be went away; every time I saw bim John was hold ing the horse. CJ. Was John Peanut there when Booth came up9 A. I did not see him there; there was no one there when Booth came up. CJ. Do you know whether Spangler went out of the door when Booth callud him? A. He ran across the stage ; I did not see ihem. go out. CJ. How long did Spangler stay there ? A. I do not know; the next time I looked this boy was holding the horse. CJ. How long was this after be called Spangler ? A Perhaps ton or fifteen minutes. Q. Do you know what Spangler had to do with Booth? A. No; he appeared tone familiar with him. CJ, Did Booth treat him ? A. I never saw him treat him. CJ. Did Spangler have anything to do with Booth's horses? A. I have seen him hold them up at the stables. CJ. Did you know anything about his hitching the horses or holding them iip? A. No, sir: I never saw bim hitch them up to tbe mfcggy; -Tohn Peanut always did that. . . J x, CJ. Do you know what place Slangier occupied on the stage? A. On the right hand °ide, next to E street; on the side the President's box was. CJ. Could you see him from where you were, three stories above? A. Yes; I could see right straight through the scenes on that side of the stage: I always saw bim at work on that side. CJ. Was he on that side when Booth called him? A. Yes. CJ. What was Spangler's business there? A. To shift the scenes at night across the stage. CJ. Was there another man shifting them from the other side? A. Yes, there was a man opposite to him. CJ. Did you see Spangler after Peanut John held Booth's horse? A. I never saw bim any more until I came down after the President was shot; Spangler was then outside of the same door Booth went out at. CJ. Were the others out there? A. Yes. there were some more men out there; I did not notice who they were. CJ. Men of the theatre? A. Yes; men who were at the theatre that night; there were strangers there too. CJ. How many men were out at the back door at that time? A. Not more than three or four when I came down; I came down in a very short time after I un derstood what it was; I asked Spangler who it was that held the horse; be told me not to say anything; I knew it was the same person who brought the horse there tbat rode him away. CJ. Could you see Spangler all the time that he was on the stage? A. When he was working; in tbat time Icouldseehim. CJ. Did you look at him that night? A. I did not no tice himparticularly that night any more than I usual ly did: I would not have noticed him had not Booth called him. CJ. You do not know whether he was on tbat night or not? A. He was when Isaw him. Q, What was it you asked Spangler when you came down? A. I asked him who it was holding the horse at the door: he told me to hush, and not say anything at all to him; and I never said any more to him. CJ. Was be excited? A. He appeared to be. CJ, Was every person excited? A. Everybody ap peared very much excited. CJ. Did you not say he replied to you hush, and not say anything to him? A, I should have said he told me not to say anything about it. CJ. Do you know Spangler well? A. I know him when I see him. CJ. Did you ever see him wear a moustache? A. No sir, I do not think I ever saw him wear a moustache, By Judge Holt— CJ. This remark which be made to you, "hush, do not say anything about ii," was imme diately after the killing of the President, wasn't it? A. Yes, right at the door, as I went out. CJ. Did he make any further remarks as a reason why you should not say anything to him? A. No, not a word to me. Q. Did you see Booth go out of the door? A. No; I heard the horse go out of the alley; which way be went, right or left, I cannot tell; I heard the rattling of his feet on the rocks in tbe alley. CJ. Was the door left open at that time when Booth had gone out? A. It was open when I went down: whether it was open from tbe time he went out I „"o not know; I bad come down three stories before reach ing the door. CJ. Do you know of anybody who probably heard your remark to Spangler, and his reply? A. No sir* I do not know that any person was noticing it at all; there were a good many persons round by the court. < CJ. When Booth called to Spangler, the first time, did you see where be was? A. No, when he called the first time I did not notice where be was; when be called the second and third times I noticed where he was standing. CJ. Where did he go? A. He went towards the door: and got underneath the fly, so that I could not see him any more until I looked out of the window Q. How long was be with Booth? A. I could'nt tell from thllT any m°re UntU I came down stairs thfcJ^h8" Ppangler told you to hush and not say any thing about it, was he near the door? A He was I suppose, a yard and a half from the door ' *&J*&3*£nybody else near the d00r? A. Not as I tfiedoo?! therewas nobody between bim and me and i,,?™?^ hf, ^ave hold of the door at the time? A No. he was walking across in front of the door ' A NoT anyboa> else between him and the door? CJ. Was it light or dark? A. It was ri^ht darfc- itwnt adark night any way, and there watno^ght^M Cross-examined by Mr Ewine-— a wen ™„ „„a Spangler ins.de tae/oor JrmTskfe? Vou&d'e * * a&nUhere'T "standi ,Pe?ple wh° ™* «* were flSleuirth^Pie and the door; they wereln tEllIy en ttle5e pe0" TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 41 By the Court— CJ. Did they appear to be guarding I CJ. You say you were in front of tbe theatre con- that door? A. No. CJ. Did he act as if he was trying to prevent persons Irom getting in and out of the door? A. No; be ap peared to be very much excited; th at was alii noticed; at that time Booth had gone out ofthe alley. Testimony of John Selectman. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Are you connected with Ford's Theatre? A. I am. CJ. Were you present on the night of ihe President's assassination? A. I was. Q. Did you know J. Wilkes Booth? A. Yes. CJ. Did you or did you hot see him on that night; if bo, at what hour, and under what circumstances ? A. I saw him about nine o'clock; he came up on a horse to the back door of the theatre; Spangler was standing there, and Booth said, "Help me all you can, won't you? he replied, " Oh, yes." CJ. Did he say that as he came up to the door on his horse ? A. Yes, when he came up on his horse. Q. Was that tbe* first remark he made? A. The first words I heard him say were : " Ned\ help me all you can, won't you?'1 CJ. How long was tbat beforethe Presidentwas shot? A. About au hour and a half, I should judge. CJ. Did you observe the horse afterwards ? A. No, I did not. Q. You did not see Booth In front ? A. I just caught a glimpse of him as he was going out of tbe first en trance, right band side. CJ. What hour did you see him going out at that en trance ? A. It was halt-past ten, I judge, after he shot the President, CJ. Do you mean that he went out of the back door ? A. Yes, Cross-examined by Mr. Ewing— CJ. Did your hear bim calling Spangler? A. No; the first I heard him say was "Help me all you ean." CJ. Where was that? A. Out of the back door. Q. Did you see Booth ride up? A. No sir; the horse was standing there. CJ. Was anybody holding the horse then? A. I didn't see anybody at all. CJ, Did you see the horse? A. Yes; I could not see whether anybody held him or not, it was so dark. CJ. What is your place in the theatre? A. Assistant property man. CJ. What is your position on the stage? A. We have to set tbe furniture and all such work as tbat, on the stage. Q. What was Spangler's position on the stage? A. Stage carpenter. .„ ^ CJ. Was he the principal carpenter? A. No, Gifford was tbe principal carpenter; Spangler was hired by Gifford. „ „ , CJ. What was his duty during the performance? A. To shift the scenes. CJ. On which side was bis position? A. I do not know. Q. Were you about that night? A. Yes. CJ. Were you on tbe stage during the whole day? A. Except that I went down to the apothecary's store once, and I believe I was before that in a restaurant next door. Q. Did you notice the employees so that you could say whether Spangler was there through tbe play? A. No, I could not; I saw bim after the assassination; he was standing on the stage; he had a white handker chief in his hand, and appeared to be wiping his eyes. CJ. Was he crying-? A. I do not know. CJ. How long was that after the President was shot? A. About ten minutes. , ¦ CJ. Did not Spangler frequently have Booth's horses? A. I didn't see bim at all. n.,, CJ. Was Booth a habitue at the theatre? Did he go back and forth frequently? A. Yes. cj. Was he familiar with the actors and employees? A. I think he was. Q. Knew them all pretty intimately? A. Yes. CJ. Did he not have acce&3 to the theatre at all times? A. Yes. CJ. And went behind the scenes in the green-room? A; Yes, anywhere at all about tbe theatre. - CJ- Is Spangler a drinking man ? A. I think he is. CJ. Did Booth treat him much ? A. I don't know. Q. Were you round in front of the theatre at any time during the performance? A. Yes, I was on the pavement in front. . ^ .„ . CJ. Did you see anything of Spangler in front? A. 3Ko. CJ. At what time were you there? A. I was there from about, or half-past 7 o'clock, until after the assas sination. . ,. „ CJ. Did you know the people who were about there ? A. No. CJ. If Spangler bad been there would you probably have noticed bim? A. I guess I would. Q. Did you notice the President's carriage there! A Yes Q. Did you ever see Spangler wear a moustache? A. No, I don't think I ever did; 1 have seen bim wear side whiskers. A, A. - * -r .-*,*., i^D CJ. How was his face at that time? A. I think he was smooth shaved. stantly?^ A. Oh no; not constantly. Q. But frequently? A. No sir; I got to the theatre about half-past seven or eight o'clock, and was about the theatre until after the assassinatiou; I was in front two or three times, CJ. Were you there during the third act? A. No; I was on tbe stage during the third act. CJ. Were you in front during the second act? A. I think I was in the restaurant next door. CJ. How long before the close of the second act? A. About ten or fifteen minutes. CJ. And you think if Spangler had been there you would have seen him? A. Yes. By the Court.— CJ. How did you get from the rear to the front of the theatre? A, There is aside entrance from tbe alley. CJ. You did not go, then, through the front door? A. No. CJ. Did you see Booth in front of tbe theatre? A, I saw him that afternoon between 4 and 5 o'clock in a restaurant next door; he with several others were there drinking; I saw Ned Spangler, Maddox, Booth, Peanuts, and a young gentleman by the name of Mai den, were there; Maddox asked me if I would not take a drink; I said yes, and went up and took a glass of ale. CJ. You did not see Booth out on tbe pavement when you were out on the pavement that night? A. Not after be rode up that afternoon. Cross-examined by Mr. Ewing.— CJ. How far were you from Booth and Spangler when Bootn made tbe remark you have stated? A. About as far as from here to you; about ten feet. CJ. How far was Spangler from bim? A. About as far as this gentleman here is from you; about two or CJ. Then Booth spoke in a loud voice? A, Yes. CJ. Did Booth see you? A. 1 don't know; be went right behind the scenes. CJ. Could he have seen you from where be was standing? A. Oh yes. CJ. Was there anybody by except you? A. I didn't notice at that time. CJ. Was not Spangler in liquor that night? A. That I cannot say. CJ. Did you often see him drunk or in liquor? A. I could not tell whether he was drunk or not. CJ. Waa not be habitually pretty well soaked? A. I do not know, indeed. By tbe Court.— CJ. Was there anything unusual in the arrangement of the furniture that night on the stage ? A. Yessir. CJ. Was it all in its proper place according to tbe per formance going on? A. Yes. CJ. The scenes and everything? A. Yes. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Doyou know whether the scenes remain now about as they were tbat night? A.I do not know; I have not been in the theatre but once or twice since the assassination. CJ. Do you know what Spangler had to do with the decoration or arrangement of the President's box ? A, No sir, I do not. The Judge Advocate-General remarked that to ena ble tbe Court to understand perfectly the testimony of witnesses relative to the occurrences in the theatre, it would be proper for themto visibthe theatre, and ob serve for themselves the different localities. It was therefore determined tbat the members of the Court meet informally at Ford's theatre, on Tenth street, to day, at hall-past nine o'clock A. M. The Court ad journed formally until ten this morning. SUPPRESSED TESTIMOWT OF FRIDAY Menry Van Steinaefcer, A witness for the prosecution, being sworn, deposed as By Judge Advocate Holt.— a Have you or not for several years been in the military service of the so- called Confederate Slates? A. Yes sir, I have been. CJ. Inwhatcapacity? A. Iwasemployediu theTopo graphical Department, ranking as engineer officer, with the pay of an engineer officer. CJ. On whose staff? A. The staff of General Edi^ard Q, Were you or not in. the State of "Virginia in the summer of 1863, and at what point? A. When we came backiVomPennsvivania.alterthe battleol Gettysburg, Iwasorderedwith-anoiber engineer lieutenant, who was very sick, to convey bim to his home at Staunton, in the Valley of Virginia; and irom there I took my way back to find the army again; and uear Harrison burg twenty-live miles irom Staunton, at bwntEun Gap/lwas overtaken by three citizens, with whom I got better acquainted, aiter having ridden a while with them- and I found them out to belong to Maryland; the name of one was Booth, and the other one's name wu QPDoy6u remember the features of Booth? A. I do not remember the leatures oi all oi them. Q Look at that photograph (handing to the witness a photograph of J. Wilkes Booth). A. There is a re- semblauce.butthefacewasfuller. CJ You think it is the same person, but he bad a fuller face thuu this? A. I believe it is. 42 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. CJ. Did you 1 earn at that time tbat it was John Wilkes Booth, the actor? A. I heard the other gentlemen call him Booth; I thought first it was a nickname, but after wards I found out that it was Booth? CJ. How far did you ride with those persons? A. We stayed at the tavern at the foot of the mountain until the next day; there I got better acquainted withtbem. Q. How long were you together; now many hours do yousuppose? A. Eighteen or twenty hours. CJ. Did you have any free conversations in regard to public affairs while you were with him? A. Yes sir. CJ. Will you state what Booth said to you in regard to any contemplated purpose of attack upon the Pre sident of the United States; state all that be said? A. I was asked by Booth and by those others, too, what I thought of the probable success of the Confederacy, and I told them that after such a chase as we had then got from Gettysburg I believed it looked rather gloomy, and then Booth told me, "that is nonsens e; if we only act our part right the Confederacy will gain their independence; old Abe Lincoln must go up the spout, and the Confederacy will gaiii their independence anyhow" that was the expression at the time. CJ. What did you understand by tbe expression, be "must go up the spout," from all that Booth said? A. It was a common expression, meaning he must be killed; that I understood always. CJ. Did he state under what circumstances that would become necessary? A. He said so soon as the Confederacy was near givine out, so soon as they were nearly whipped, that must be done; that would be the final resource to gain the independence of the Con federacy. CJ. Did the citizens who were with him engage in conversation? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did they seem to assent to his sentiments? A. Certainly. CJ. Did not Booth know that you were a Confederate soldier? A. Yessir; they asked, when they overtook me on the road, where I was going to; I told them I belonged to General Edward Johnson's Staff, and was going to the army, coming from Staunton. CJ. At what point did you arrive together? A. I do not know the name of the place; it is near the foot of the Swift Run Gap. CJ. Did you meet there a number of Confederate offi cers—I speak of the end of your ride— with the Stone wall Brigade? A. Yes sir; that was about three or four days afterwards; they went from me the next day; my horse could not keep up with the other horses; they were splendidly mounted, and my horse was nearly broken down- so they wenfron; three or four days after wards I was called to some of the regimental camps and told that some strangers, friends of mine, wanted to see me; I did not know who it was; when I came to camp I found those three citizens, and was introduced by Captain Randolph personally, formally to Booth and Stephens. Q. Was that the Stonewall Brigade? A. It was at tbe camp of the Second Virginia Regiment. CJ. Do you, or do you not/know, whether there was a secret meeting of Rebci officers on that occasion? A. That evening there was a secret meeting, where I was not admitted. CJ. Did they state to you tbe purpose of that meeting, and what conclusion they reached? A. Some officer afterwards, who was about the meeting, stated to me what was the purpose of it. Q. Was Booth in that meeting? A. I believe so. They were all in together. CJ. What did he state to you was the determination and purpose of tbat meeting? A. Tbe purpose ot the meeting was, as I was informed afterwards, to seud certain officers on detached service to Canada and the borders, and to deliver prisoners, to lay Northern cities in ashea, and finally, to get after the members of the Cabi net, and Hil Vie President: tbat was tbe main pur pose. I heard that more than a thousand times, but never so much as at the time when I was informed it was the purpose of the meeting; I always considered tt common braggadocia before. Q. What was the name of the officer who gave you this account of the proceedings ofthe meeting? A. Lieutenant Cockerill. CJ. To what portion of the service did be belong, do vou know? A. To tbe Second Virginia Regiment, I believe, and the same Company that Captain Beall be longed to ; the captain who was executedat Governor's Island. CJ. Was anything said as to what part Captain Beall, the one afterwards executed, was to play in these movements at the North ? A . Cockerill told me Beall was on detached service, and we would bear of him. Q. Cockerill was a member of that meeting, I under stood you to say ? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did you while there see Booth and Cockerill asso ciated together? A. I did not see them particularly; I saw them all in a crowd together. CJ. Booth was associating with all the officers ? A He was associating with a good many of them. CJ. Did you know of any other secret association or meeting, having similarobjects, at an}* time in the ser vice with which you havebeen connected? A. I heard ofthe existence of secret orders for certain purposes to assist the Confederacy; I heard one name very fre quently called, the name of one order, the "Golden Circle," and several times I heard the name of the "Sons of Liberty." , .. CJ. How many years do you state you were in me Confederate service ? A. Not quite three years. CJ. State whether, during the last year or two, since the reverses of the Confederacy have commenced, ip has not been freely and frequently spoken of m the Rebel service, as an object finally to be accomplished, the assassination ofthe President ofthe United States? A. Yes sir, I heard tbat very often. CJ. Have you not beard it spoken of freely in the streets of Richmond, among those connected with tho Rebel Government ? A. Yessir. CJ. About what time; when is the latest you can now recall having heard declarations of that sort at Rich mond? A, At the time after tbe battle of Chancellors- ville, when I do not know what General it was, but be lieve it was General Kilpatrick. was on a raid near Richmond; at tbat time I heard it; I was in Richmond on a furlough at tbe same time. CJ. Whenever and wherever spoken of, do I unde» stand you to say tbat this sentiment of the necessity of tbe assassination of tbe President of the United States was generally assented to, in the service? A. Yes sir. CJ. Tbe "detached service" of which you speak, on which these parties were to be sent, you say related m Canada, and tbe destruction of the Northern cities alongtbe Canada frontier? A. It was outside of fhe Confederate lines-^either here in the Northern cities or in Canada. CJ. Did you understand that the "detached service** was to be performed in that direction along the Can ada frontier and in our Northern cities? A. This "de tached service" was a nickname in the Confederate army for such purposes. CJ. It meant that sort of warfare? A. Yessir. CJ. Youspokeof laying tbe Northern cities in ashes? did you understand tbat that was the mode in which that warfare was to be conducted, by firing our cities? A. Yes, sir; by firing- the cities down and getting the people dissatisfied with the war, and by that means to bring forward a revolution among the people in the North. That was the purpose. Nocross-examination. The. Judge Advocate offered in evidence, without ob jection, the photograph of J. Wilkes Booth, shown ta the witness Van Steinacker. It is attached to this re cord, and marked Exhibit No. l. Mrs. Mary KTudspetn, A witness called for the prosecution, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By tbe Judge Advocate.— CJ. Where do you reside? A. At Harlem", New York. CJ. Will you state whether or not in the month of November last you were riding in the railroad cars of New York city, tbe Third avenue cars, and whether you observed that there were two men in the cars tbat attracted your attention, one of whom, on leaving the cars, dropped a letter which you picked up ? A. I was going down to the city; there were two gentlemen in the car; whether they were or not when I got in I am not confident; I overheard their conversation; they were talking most earnestly;I> M. Sirmonds, A witness called for the prosecution, being duly sworn, testified as follows :— By the Judge Advocate:— Q. Were you acquainted with J. Wilkes Booth, in his lifetime? A. I was. Q. What relation did you sustain to him— were you his agent? A. I was his business agent, really. Q In what region of country.andin connection with what business? A. I was principally in the oil region; I did some little business for him in tbe city of Boston, but very little, which was entirely closed up belore I Q What was the character of his interest there in the oil region ? A. Ho owned a third undivided inte rest at first in a lease of three-and-a-half acres on the Allegheny river, near Franklin. Q For which he paid how much ? A. It was bought by means of contracting to pay off the old debts ot that lease and carry on the work; afterward the land interest was bought, he furnishmg one-half ofthe pur chase money of the land interest, and owning one un divided third as above stated. Q How much did he pay? A. The land interest cost $4000: hepaid*2000. one half of it. ,-,,,„ Q. Did he make any other investments on which he paid money? A. Yessir. ,„._¦> » tt„ Q. What was the total amount of them ? A. He purchased, for $1000, an in'erest in an association there owning an undivided thirtieth of a tract. Q What other purchases did he make? A. That is all that he everabsolutely purchased; there was money spent in carrying on tbe expenses ot this lease previous to his purchase of the land interest; at tne time ot the purchase ofthe land interest the work was stopped, and there were no more expenses. ... (lot Q. These interests of which you speak were all that he possessed in the oil regions ? A. Yes sir; all that he ever possessed in Venango, to my knowledge. Q. Did he ever realize anything from them? A. Not * a ^hey were a total loss? A. Yes; as far as he was C°cTwhen did this occur? In what year? A. Tb«fi*st interest he acquired in any way was either in Decern ber, 18G3, or January, 1864; I cannotsay as to tbe date; it was only from his report to me that I knew of it; my first knowledge of it was in May, 1864; I accompanied him to the oil regions in June, 1864, ior the purpose of taking charge of bis business therp. CJ. Have you given the total amount of tbe invest ment that Booth made? What do you consider the total amount? A. The whole amount invested in this Alleghany river property, in every way, was about $5000; I cannot give the exact figures in dollars and cents. Q. And the other investment was about $1000? A. Yes, sir. CJ. Makiner$6000lnall? A. Yes, sir. CJ. And that you know to have been a total loss to him? A. Yes, sir, that is, it was transferred; bis busi ness was entirely closed out there in the latter part of September. 18G4; I think on the 27th of September. CJ. Was it placed in your hands as trustee, or to whom was it transferred? A. Theie were tbree owners, as I have told you. He held au undivided third. The three owners all decided to place the property in my hands as trustee to hold for them. It was so mentioned in the deed, and their several names were mentioned in the deed. Immedi ately upon the execution of that deed he asked me to make a deed conveying his Interest away, which I did in accordance with his instructions. These deeds were properly executed, conveying his whole interest away In that way. At the same time, this other interest in a different portion ofthe country, on a different stream, for which he had puld $1,000. he also transfered, which was done by a different process, by assignment on tbe receipt which he held for his interest. CJ. This was all done last fall? A. It was done in September; I think the 27th or 28th of the month. I cannot be exact as to tbe date It was done the day be left Franklin, the last time I ever sawhim. CJ. Were the conveyances without compensation or voluntary gifts? A. One was made to his brother, Junius Brutus Booth; wbich was without compen sation, but a consideration was mentioned in tbe deed. CJ. Butthere was none in fact? A. No sir; none in fact ; the other was to me, and the same consideration was mentioned, but it was done in consideration of my services, for which I have never received any other Ff y. CJ. There was nothing paid him at all on either of tbern? A. No sir; not a dollar; and he paid all the expenses of tbe transfer and tbe conveyances. Samuel P. Jones, (blind,) a witness called for the prosecution, being duly sworn, testified as follows :— , , , By the Judge Advocate.— CJ. Have you resided in Richmond at any time during the war ? A. I have. CJ. State any conversations yon may have neard there, to which officers ofthe Rebel Government were parties in regard lotbe contemplated assassination of the President of the United States. A. The nearest I know anything to that point among,tbe officers there, is their common conversation in camp, as I would go about amongst them, and their conversations wouldbe oi'this nature :— That all suspieioned persons, or those kind of people they were not certain were of their way of thinking, they would hush up as soon as they came near them: but after I found out what I could learn in reference to these things, thev were desperately anxious that any such thing as this should be accom plished. . , . „ . T CJ. Will you state any particular occasion? A. In a general way I have heard sums offered, to be paid with aConfederate sum, for anv person or persons to go North and assassinate the President. CJ. Doyou remember any occasion when any such offers weremade or any amount named, and by what kind of officers? A. At this moment I cannot tell you the particular names of shoulder-straps, &c. CJ Do you remember any occasion— some dinner oc casion1' A. lean tell you this; I heard a ci'izen make theremark once that he would give irom his private purse $10,000 in addition to the Confederate amount to have the President assassinated, to bring him to*tich- moncl. dead or alive, for proof. Q What was meant by that phrase, "in addition to tbe Confederate amount?" A, I know nothing about that, anv more than the way thev would express it; I shouldjudge, from drawing an m.erence, that there was any amount offered by the Government, in that trashy paper, to assassinate any officials that were hin dering their cause, and even I have heard it down as low as a private or citizen; for instance, if it is not di gressing from the purpose, I fcnowot a Kentuckian, but cannot tell you the name now, that was putting up at the Exchange Hotel, or otherwise, Ballard House, (thev belong to tbe same property, and are connected bv a bridge over Franklin street); he was arrested under suspicion of beinc a spy; I can tell you tbe name now, bis name was Webster, if I remember ri-htly; I always supposed, from what'I understood, that he came down to buy goods; but they took him as a spy and hung bim: whether it was in reierence to this as sassination I cannot say. n .. , . Q. I understood you to say that it was a subject nf general conversation among the Rebel officers? A. it 46 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Was; the Rebel officers, as they would be sitting around ibeir tent doors, would be conversing onsuch asub- ject agreat deal; they.would be saying they would like to see his head brought there, dead or alive, and they should think it could be done, and I have heard such things stated as that they bad certain persons under taking it. Samuel Knapp Chester, A witness called for tbe prosecution, being duly sworn testified as follows:— By the Judge Advocate.— CJ. Your profession is thatr of an actor? A. Yes sir. CJ. Have you known J.Wilkes Booth agood many years? A. I have known him about ten or eleven years, since I first met him. CJ. Quite intimately, I suppose? A, For about six or seven years intimately. CJ. Can you recall a conversation which you are sup posed to have had with him in November lust in New York? Yes sir. CJ. What time in tbe month was it? A. I think it was in November that I had aconversation with him, CJ. What time in November? State about the period of time. A. I cannot think of the exact date, but it was in the early portion of November; one day we were in conversation, and I asked him why be was not acting, and he told me that, he did not intend to act in this portion of the country again: that he had taken his wardrobe to Canada, and intended to run the blockade. CJ. Did you meet him after that, and have some con versation with him in regard to oil speculations, or was it at the same time? A. No sir; the next time I met him was about the time we were to play Julius Cassar, wbich we did play on tbe 25th of November; and it was either on the 24th or 25th that be asked me to take a walk with him, or asked if T knew some cos- tumers. where he might get some dresses for bis cha racter in that play; and I asked him where his own wardrobe was. CJ. Was that in the city of New York? A. Yes; I never had any conversation with him relative to this affair out of New York; be said it was still in Canada, in charge of a friend, and I think he said, named Martin: I will not be positive, but I think he said it was in Montreal: he did not say anything to me at all about the oil business then, that I remember. CJ. Bid he not ask you how you would like to go into the oil business with him? A. Not in tbe oil business; be never mentioned that. CJ. He told you be had a big speculation on band? A. Yes, sir. CJ. D.d be ask you to go in with him? A. Yes sir; I metbim, and he was talking with some friends, and thev were joking with him about the affair; I met him on Broadway; after he left them he said he had a bet ter speculation than that on hand, and one they would not laugh at; some time after that I met him again and be again talked ot this speculation, and asked me bow I would like to go in with him; I told him I was without means, that I could not; and he said it did not matter, he always liked me and would furnish the means: the next time I heard from him he was In Washington. CJ. State the whole of the conversation in which he urged you to go into this speculation in New York. A. As well as I can remember, I will tell you from beginning to end. He left me then in New York, and I received several letters from him from Wash ington, telling me he was speculating in farms In lower Maryland and was sure to coin money; that I must go with h'm to Virginia, and still telling me that I mustjoin him; that I paid very little attention to it. Then about the latter part of December or earlv in January, I will not be positive which it was, but 'late in December or early in January, he came to New York; I then lived at No. 45 Grove street; he asked me totake'a walk with him; I did so: we wentoutand went into a saloon known as tbe House of Lords, on Houston street; we remained there a considerable time; I suppose an hour, eating and drinking; he had often mentioned this affair, that i«, his speculation; but would never say what it was; ifl would ask him what it was hewou'd say he would tell me by-and-by. We le't there and went to another saloon under the Re vere House, and ate some oysters. We then started up Broadway; I thought it was time to go home, and my way was down Eleecker street, that is. up Broadway from the corner of Houstor, and I had to turn down Bleecker street to get to Grove street; I bade him good night. He asked me to walk apiece further up the street with him, and I did so; I walked a square, that Is, to Fourth street, or next street: he nsked me to walk up there with him, and I did so; he a^ked me to walk up Fourth street because Broadway was crowded; be said Fourth street was not so full of peo ple as Broadway, and be wanted to tell me about that speculation: I walked up there with bim, and when wegot into an unfrequented portion ofthe street, he stopped and told me then that be wa3 in a large con spiracy to capture the heads of the Government, in cluding thePiesident, and take them toRicbmond;I a'-ked h'm if that was what he wished me to go In; he eaid it was; I told him I could not do it, that it was an impossibility; only to tnink of my iamily; he said he had two or three thousand dollars that he could leave them; I still said I could not do it; be urged it, and talked with me for, I suppose, twenty minutes or half an hour, and I still refused; he then told me that at least I would notbetravhim, and said I dare not, ne said be could implicate" me in the affair, any how; he said that the party were sworn together, and tnatiri attempted to betray them I would be hunted down through life, and talked some more about the affair; I cannot remember it now; but still urging me. saying I had better go in; I told him no, and bade him good night, and I went home. . CJ. Did he indicate to you what part he wished you to play in carrying out this conspiracy? A. Yes sir. CJ. What did he sav? A. That I was to open the back door ofthe Theatre at a signal. CJ. Did he indicateat what Theatre this was to occur? A. Yes; he told me Ford's Theatre; because it must be someone acquainted or connected with tbe Theatre who could take part in it. CJ. Ford's Theatre in Washington ? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did he urge you upon the ground that it was an easy affair, and that you would have very little to do ? A. Yes, be said tbat; that was alii would have to do, he said. Hesaid the thing was sure to succeed. CJ. Wbatprsparationsdid he say, if any, bad been made toward tbe conspiracy? A. He told me that everything was in readiness: that it was sure to suc ceed, for there were parties on the other side ready to co-operate with them. CJ. Did you understand from him that the Rebel Government was sanctioning what he was doing? A. He never told me that. CJ. What do you mean by parties on the other side? A. I imagined that they were on the other side, but be did not say who they were; I mean they were those people; he said on the other side. CJ. Did he mention the probable number of persons engaged in the conspiracy? A. He said there were from fifty to a hundred; he said that when he first' mentioned the affair to me. CJ. Did he write to you? A. He wrote about this speculation, ana then he wrote to me again; thatmust have been in January. CJ. Have you those letters? A. I never kept my let ters; every Sunday I devote to answering my corre spondents, and generally destroy their letters then. CJ. Did he or not make you any remittance with a view of enabling you to come to Washington ? A. Oh yessir; after I had declined going, had refused bim, I got a letter from him stating that I must come; this was the letter in wbich he told me it was sure to suc ceed; I wrote back that it was impossible; I would not come; then, by return mail, I think, Igot another let ter, withJj5u inclosed, saying I must come, andmustbe sure to be there by Saturday night; Ididuotgo; I had not been out oi'New York since last summer. Q. Can you remember the time you received tbe last letter with the 550 in it? A. Tbat was in January, I think. CJ. You say be said be had $1000 to leave to your fa mily? A. That was before, at the first interview. CJ. Did he. at the time he sent you the first $50, men tion any more? A. In the letter he did not. CJ. Did he speak of having plenty of lundsforthe purpose ? A. Not in his letter. CJ. Did he in his conversation ? A. In bis conversa tion after he came to New York a^ain. CJ. What did he say then? A. When he came to New York he called on me again and asked me to take a walk with him, and I did so; be told me that he had been trying to get another party to join him named John Matthews, andwben hetoid himwbathewamed to do that the man was very much frightened, indeed, and would not join him, and he said he would not have cared if heb id sacrificed him; I told bim I did not think it was right to speak in that manner; hesaid no, he was a coward, and was not fit to live; he then asked me again to Join him; he told me I must do so; he said that there wasplenty ofmoney in tbeailair; tbatif Iwoulddoitlwouldneverwantagainaslongasllived; that I would never want for money: he said that tbe Presidentand some of the heads of the Government came tothetheatre very frequently during Mr. Forrest's engagements; I still urgedhim notto mention theaffair to me: to think of my poor family; he said he would provide lor my going with him; I still refused; hesaid he would ruin me in theprofession ifl did not go: I told him I could not help that, and begged of him not to mention the affair tome; when lie found I would not go, he said he honored my mother and respected my wfe.andhe was sorry he had mentioned this affair to me, and told me to make my mind easy he would trouble me about it no more; I then returned him the money he sent me; besaidlie would not allowmeto do so, but that he was very short of funds— so very short that er her 'himself or some of the party must go to Richmond to obtain means to carry out their designs Q. He said, however, that there was plenty* of money in the enterprise? A. Yes sir CJ._ When did this last conversation occur? A. ThSfc. I think, was in February. 1U"1' CJ. -Old he have any conversation with you at a later period, after the inauguration, as to the opportunity which he had lor the assassination of the Pre^dPnt' Did he speak of that? A. Yes Bir" on Friuly? one TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. ii week previous to the assassination, he was In New York. CJ. What did he say then? A. We were in the House of Lords at the time, sitting at a table, and had not been there long before be exclaimed, striking tbe table, "What an excellent chance I had to kill the Presi dent, if 1 had wished, on Inauguration X>ay;" that was all be said relati ve to tbat. CJ. Did he explain what the chance was? A. No; he said be was as near tbe President on that day as be was to me; that is all he said. CJ. Can you tell at what time in February he said it would be necessary to send to Richmond for money? A. No sir; I cannot tell positively. Cross-examined by Mr. Clampitt.— CJ. Did he men tion any names of those who were connected with him in this plan as communicated to you in reference to the assassination of Mr. Lincoln? A. No, sir, not that I am aware of. Q. You never heard him mention any names ? A. I never did. Cross-examined by Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Do I understand you to say tbat bespoke to you of a plan to assassi nate the President and to capture him? A. To cap ture him. CJ. Did he say anything to you as to how he would get him off? A. No. * Q. As to where he would take him ? A. To Rich mond. CJ. By what route? A. He did not say. CJ. He spoke of there being persons on "the other side?" A. Yes, sir. CJ. Did he use just simply that expression, or did he explain what he meant by the "other side." What did you understand bim to mean ? A. He did notexplain id at all, but I supposed it was in tne South. CJ. Across the lines? A. Yes, sir. CJ. Across the river ? A. Across the Potomac. CJ. Did he say nothing to you as to the means he bad provided or proposed to provide for couducting the President after he should be seized ? A. No, sir; on one occasion be told me that he was selling off horses after he had told me that he had given up tbis project. CJ. When did he say to you that be had abandoned the idea of capturing the President? A. lu February, I think.CJ. Did he say why he bad abandoned it? A. Hesaid tbe affair had fallen through owing to some of the parties backing out. CJ. On what day was it tbat he said to you what an excellent chance he had for killing the President? A. That was on a Friday, one week previous to the assas sination. Q. On what day of April was tbat? A. The 7th. CJ. Did besay anything to you as to his then enter taining, or having before that entertained, the purpose to assassinate thePresident? A. No,W3ir. CJ. Did he say anything to you then as to why he did -not assassinate the President? A. No, sir; tbat was the only exclamation he made use of relative to it. CJ. State his exact words if you can? A. Hesaid, "what an excellent chancel had, if Iwisbed.tokill tbe President on inauguration day; I was on the stand as close to him nearly as I am to you." That is as near his language as I can give. CJ. State how far he explained to you his project for Gapturing the Presidentin tbe theatre? A. I believe I have stated as far as I know. • CJ. Did he ever indicate how he expected to get bim from the box to tbe stage without being caught? A. No, sir. CJ. Did he say how many were to help him in seizing the President? A. No sir. CJ. Did he name any other officials who were to be seized besides the President? A. No; the only time he told me, be said "the heads of the Government, including thePresident." By the Judge Advocate.— CJ. I understood you to say that he stated that the particular enterprise of cap turing the President and heads of the Govern ment bad been given up, and that in consequence he was selling off the horses he had bought for tbe purpose? A. Yes sir. Q. He did not state to you what mode of proceeding had been substituted for tbat. out simply that that one had been given up? A. He told me they bad given up the affair. CJ. That it had fallen through? A. Yes sir. The Commission then adjourned until to-morrow, Saturday morning, May 13th, at 10 o'clock. THE PKOCEEDINGS OF TUESDAY. Washington, May 16.— According to the intention 1 declared at the closing of the preceding session, the Court paid an informal visit, at half-past nine o'clock this morning, to the scene of the President's assassina tion. The visit was made at the suggestion of the Judge Advocate-General, with the object of enabling tbe Court to acquire, by visual observation of the now historic locality, such a knowledge of it as would ren der a more peri ect understanding of all tbe evidence dependent upon its intricacies accurate and more easy. The Court arrived at tbe appointed hour. Through the usual courtesy ofthe Judge Advocate-General, and ofthe President ofthe Court, the reporters ofthe Press were admitted. The announcement of the intended visit caused quite a crowd to assemble at the front of the theatre. Nothing is changed there. Having seen all there was to be seen, the several members started for the Courtroom at the Penitentiary, and, on their entering it, the prisoners were brought into the dock, and many eyes instinctively turned towards Spangler, who sat down listlessly and leaned back against the wall, staring vacantly. During tbe reading of the record. Mr. Daniel Stanton, who was present, was permitted to amend tbe record of his own testimony delivered on the previous day. In the amendment, his answer to the question, "Did he ask in regard to General Grant?" now reads, "I meant to say that the man did ask for General Grant," in lieu of "I don't recollect that he did." Mr. Stanton also added, that the man referred to said he was a lawyer, and knew Mr. Stanton very well. The Court took its usual recess, after which the read ing of the lengthy record waa resumed by Mr. D. F. Murthy. Tho reading being concluded, the Court pro ceeded to the reception of testimony for the prosecu tion.Examination of John Burrow, all as " Peanuts." CJ. State whether or not you have been connected with Ford's Theatre, in this city? A. Yes sir. CJ. In what capacity? A. I used to attend to tbe stage door and carry bills in the day time; I attended to Booth's horse, stabling and cleaning him. CJ. Do you know John Wilkes Booth? A. I knew him wnile be kept bis horse in the alley in that stable there. CJ, Immediately back of the theatre? A, Yes sir. CJ. Did you see .him on the afternoon ofthe assassina tion? A. I saw him bring a horse into tbe stablefl,about five or six o'clock. CJ. State what be did? A. He brought him there and halloed out for Spangler. CJ. Did Spangler go down to the stable? A. Yes, sir; he asked him for a baiter, and be went down for one. CJ. How long did he remain there? A. I don't know; I think Madclox was there, too. CJ. Did you see bim again that evening? A. I did, on the stage, that night. CJ. Did you, or not, see him when he came with his horse, between nine and ten o'clock? A. No, sir, I did not. CJ. Did you see the horse at the door? A. I saw him when Spangler called me out to hold him. CJ. State all that happened at that time: did you see Booth when hecame with his horse? A. No, sir. CJ. Did you hear him call for Spangler? A. No sir; ut I heard a man call Ned, and tell him Booth wanted bim. CJ. Who held Booth's horse that evening? A. I held him that nigbt. CJ. Who gave you the horse to hold? A. Spangler. CJ. What hour was that? A. Between uine and ten. CJ, How long before the curtain was up? A. About fifteen minutes. CJ. What did Spangler say to you? A. He told me to hold the horse; I told him I bad to attend to my door; then he said if there was anything wrong, to lay tbe blame of it on bim. Q. Did you bold bim near the door? A. Against the bench near there. CJ. Did you hear the report of the pistol? A. Yes. CJ. Were you still on the bench when Booth came out? A. I got offthe bench then. * CJ. What aid he say when be came out? A. He told me to give him his horse. CJ. Did you go again to the door? A. No, I was still against the bench. CJ. Did he do anything else? A. He knocked me down, CJ. With his hand? A. No, with the butt of his knife. CJ, Did bo strike you again or kick you? Did he say anything else? A. He only halloed "Give me the CJ. And rode off immediately? A. Yes sir. Q. State whether or not you were in tbe President's box that afternoon? A. Yes sir. ,_„,_. 6 Who decorated or fixed the box that afternoon? A. Harry Ford put the flags around it, CJ. wasorwasnottheprisoner.Spaugler.inthebox? A. Yes sir, he was there with me. CJ. What was he doing? A. He came to help me to take tbe partition out ofthe box. CJ. Do you remember SpanglersayinTanything? A He damned the President and Uen. Grant. 48 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Q. Did he say anything in addition to that ? A. No sir; I told him he should uot curse a man that way, that he did him no harm; he said he ought to be cursed for getting so many men killed. CJ. Did he or did he not say what he wished might be done to General Grant and tbe President ? A. No sir; I don't remember that he did. CJ. Was there or was there not anything said in the course of tbat conversation as to what might or might not be done to the President or General Grant? Mr. Ewing objected to the last three questions, and insisted on his objection being entered upon there- cord, which it was. Cross-examination by Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Did you say you did not hear anybody calling out for Spangler? A. I heard Deverneycall him, and telling bim that Mr. Booth wanted bim out in the alley. CJ. Who is Deverney? A. An actor in tbe theatre. CJ. How long was it after that before Spangler called you? A. Not very long; about six or seven or eight minutes. Q. What were you doing when Spangler called you? A. Sitting in front ofthe door entrance on the left. CJ. What business were you doing? A. I was attend ing to the stage door. CJ. What bad you to do at tbe stage door? A. To keep strangers out, and not allow them in unless they belonged there. CJ, And you told him you could not hold the horse, and had to attend the door; and he said if anything went wrong to lay the blame on him? A. Yes sir. CJ. Were you in front ofthe theatre that night? A. I was out there while the curtain was down. CJ. You went out at every act? A. I go out every night every time tbe curtain is down. CJ, Was Booth in front of tbe theatre? A. No sir; I did not see him. CJ. Was Spangler in front of the theatre? A. No sir. CJ. Did you ever see Spangler wear a moustache? A. No sir. CJ. Do you know whether Spangler had on any whis kers tbat night? A. No sir, I did not see any. CJ. Was not Spangler in the habit of hitching up Booth's horse? A. Yes, he wanted to take the bridle off, and Booth wouldn't let him, CJ. When? About six o'clock; he didn't take it off, but he put a halter round his neck, and took the sad dle off. CJ. Was not Spangler in tbe habit of bridling, sad dling and hitching up Booth's horse? A. Yes, when I was not there he would hitch him up. CJ. Was he in the habit of holding him when you were not about? A, Yes, and he used to ieed him when I was not there. CJ. You and Spangler together attended to Booth's horse? A. Yes; Mr.Gifford said he would give men good job if I knew how to attend to horses; I said I knew something about it, and that is how 1" got to attending on Booth's horse. CJ. Doyou know the way Booth went out after he jumped out of the President's box? A. No sir; I was out at tbe time. CJ. Do you know that passage between the green jroom and scenes, which leads to the back door? A. Yes, on the other side ofthe stage. CJ, The one that Booth ran through? A. I don't know which entrance Booth ran through. CJ, Was Booth about the theatre a great deal? A. He was'nt about there much; be came there some times. CJ. Wbich way did be enter generally? A. On Tenth street. CJ. Didn't he sometimes enter tbe back way? A. Sometimes. CJ. How far is the stable where Booth kept his horse from the back entrance of tbe theatre? A. Two hun dred yards. CJ. Do you recollect what act was being played when you first went out to holdBooth's horse? A. I think ft was tbe first scene ofthe third act: the scene at curtains across the door; it was the first scene. CJ. Was that scene being played when you went out? A. Yes, sir; they had just been closing in. CJ. Didyou ever have the name or "Peanuts?" A. That's a name they gave me when I kept astand there. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Did Booth have more than one horse there? A. No sir. CJ. Did I understand you to say there was only one horse In the stable tbat afternoon? A. That is all 1 Baw, and I was there between five and six o'clock. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Do you know what side ofthe theatre Spangler worked on ? A. On this side, on the left; he changed the scenes on the left. Q. Is that the side the President's box was on? A. Yes sir. CJ, Was that tbe side you attended the door on? A. Yes sir, that's the side. CJ. When you were away didn't Spangler attend to tbe door for you ? A. Yes sir. CJ. His position was near where your position was? A. Yes sir. Q. What door was that; was it the door that went into the little alley? Yes sir: the alley from Tenth street. Cj. You attended there to see that nobody came in who was not authorized? A. Yessir; when tbe curtain was down I used to go outside. CJ .When the play was going on who was there on that side who shoved the scenes except Spangler? A. There is another man on that side; two work on that side, and three on the other. CJ. Who was the man tbat worked with Spangler on that side? A. I think his name is Simonds. CJ. Who works on the other side? A. OneisSukay. CJ. When the play is going on do these men always stay there? A, Yes sir. CJ. They had to stay to shove tbescenes? A. Yessir; always so as to be there when tbe whistle blows, but sometimes when the scene would last a whole act they would go on the other side. CJ. Did they not go out? A. Sometimes they would go out; not very often though. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Was there another horse in that stable any day before? A. There were two on one day. CJ. How long before that was it that there were two? A. Booth brought a horse and buggy there on Sunday. CJ. What was the appearance ot the horse? A. It was a little horse; I don't remember the color. CJ. Do you remember whether he was blind of one eye? A. No sir; the fellow who brought the horse there used to go with Booth very often. CJ. Do you see that man among tbe prisoners here— I mean the man that brought the horse? A. No sir, I don't see him here; this fellow, I think, lives in the Navy Yard; I saw him go in a house one day there when I carried the bills down. By tbe Court.— Q. Did you see Booth the instant he left tbe back door after the assassination of tbe Presi dent? A. Yes sir, when he rode off. Q,. Now which door was it, the small or the large one that he came out? A. The small door. Q,. "Was anybody else at that door? A. I didn't see anybody else. Q,. Did Spangler pass through the door into the passage and back again while you were sit ting at the door? A. I didn't take notice. Q,. You didn't see him go out or come in while you were there ? A. No sir. Q,. You say he was in the President's box the day of the murder. What time of day was that? A. . Q,. Did all of you know that the President was to be there that night? A. I heard Harry Ford say so. Q,. Did you hear Spangler speak of it? A. I told hiin the President was to come there. Q,. What time was that? A. About three o'clock, when we went to take the partition out, Q,. Who went into the box with you at that time? A. There was me, Spangler and Jake. Q. Who is Jake? A. They call him Jake, that's all I know. Q,. Is he a black or a white man? A. A white man. Q. How was he employed in the theatre? A. He is a stage carpenter. Q,. Is he employed there regularly? A. He was at work there night and day. Q,. He had been there for some time? A. For three weeks. Q. How long did you stay with them in the box? A. Till we took the partition out, and af ter that we sat down in the box. Q,. Did you observe what else they did in the box? A. No; Spangler said it would be a nice place to sleen in. Q. Did you observe anybody hankering with the lock of the interior door? No, sir. Q,. Do you know anything of the preparation of that bar inside? A. No sir; there were three music stands there and I threw them down on the stage; they were left there the night there was a ball in the theatre. Q,. Doyou know whether it is customary to have tbat bar there ? A. No sir. Q. There never was anything of that kind there before. A. No sir, Q,. You don't know who put the bar there ? A. No sir. Q,. Nor who made the preparation for it? A. No sir; I brought the nags in a box and left them there; alter we got through that I brought the box tbat bad contained the flags and came down. Q.. Who carried the keys of the private box* A. They were always left in the box office. Q. Do you know who besides bad been there that day ? A. No sir. I do not. Q. Did you see any body in the box occupied TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 49 by the President during the day except when Spangler and yourself were there? A. No sir. Q,. who fixed and repaired the locks on the private boxes generally? A. 1 don't know sir. Q,. Were there locks on the private boxes? A. Yes sir. Q. Inside or outside? A. Inside. Q,. When you went downaf ter you left the flags there, did you leave Spangler and the other inan at work then? A. No sir; they went down on the stage. Q. Did you see anybody at work in that box on that day? A. Nobody only Harry Ford, fix ing the flags. Re-cross-examined by Mr. Ewing.— Q,. When you went tor the flags, did Spangler and Jake leave the box at the same time? A. Yes sir, they went down at the same time. Q,. Where did you go then? A. I went home. Q,. How long were you gone?, A. No more than to go down stairs and bring* the flags and leave them in the box. Q. Who next went in ? A. Harry Ford was there fixing the flags, and that's all I saw. Q,. What time was that ? A. About half-past four o'clock he was fixing the flags. Q,. Do you know whether Spangler went there then ? A. No sir. Q,. What furniture was in the box then? A. Those cane-seated chairs. CJ. Were there any red cushioned chairs, high backed? A. I didn't see any. Q. Didn't you see Spangler in the box after that ? A. No ; the last I saw was Harry Ford in \the box. Q,. Do you know where Spangler went to? A. No sir. Q,. Where did you see him next? A. When Booth called him. Q. Where did you go? A. I went to the front of the house, on the steps. Q. How long did you stay there. A. Notvery long. . . , Q. Where didyou go then. A. Icamemside. Q,. Did you see Spangler inside then? A. No BirT that was about the time he went to the house, and I went there too. Q. What time was that? A. Between Ave and six o'clock. CJ. Are you acquainted with Surratt? A. No sir; I may have seen him, but I never heard of his name. Mary Ann Turner (Colored) Sworn. By Judge Holt.— CJ. State to the Court where you reside in this city. A. In the rear of Ford's Theatre, about as far from it as the gentleman who sits there is from me, about ten feet. CJ. Did you know J. Wilkes Booth ? A. I knew him when I saw him. CJ. State what you saw of him on the after noon of the 14th of April last? A. I saw him be tween three and four o'clock, to the best of my recollection, standing in the back door of Ford's Theatre, with alady standing by him; I did not take very particular notice at that time, andsaw no more of him till, I suppose, between seven and eight o'clock that night; he was carrying a horse up to the back door; he opened a door and called for a man by the name of Ned three times, if not more; this Ned came out, and I heard htm in a low voice tell Maddox to step here; Maddox came, and I seen him reach out his hand and take tne horse away; Ned then went on into the CJ. Did you see him or hear him when ha came out after the assassination? A. I only heard a horse going out of the alley; I did not see him at all. CJ. Did you see the man Ned? A. Yes, I rushed out to the door, a crowd had come out at this time, aud Ned came out of the door. CJ. Do you recognize "Ned" among the prisoners at the bar? A. Yes, I recognize him there (pointing to Spangler who, by direction ol the Court, stood up), said I, " Ned, you know that man who called to you?" said he, No, I know nothing about it," and went off down the & CJ. Was that all that occurred between you and him? A. That was all. Cross-examined by Mr. Ewing.— CJ. How far is your house from the back door ofthe theatre? A. My front door opens on the back of the thea tre; there is another house adjoining mine be tween it and the theatre, so that the distance from my door to the back door of the theatre Is about twenty feet. S. Did you see where Spangler went when he ed Maddox? A. I did not see where he went. CJ. Did he go off? A. I disremember, I didn't see him any more. CJ. Did you see him go in and call Maddox? A. Yes, he went to the door and called Maddox. CJ. Did you hear him call Maddox? A.iNo. CJ. Did you see Spangler come out again? A. I disremember whether he came out again; I do not think he did. Mary Jane Anderson (colored) Sworn. By Judge Holt— CJ. Where do you live in this city? A. I live between E and F, and Ninth. and Tenth streets, right back of the theatre. Q,. Is your room adjoining that of the woman who has just testified? A. Yes; my house and hers join. Q. Did you know John Wilkes Booth? A. Yes, by sight. Q,. Did you see him In the afternoon or night of the 14th of April? A. Sir, I saw him in the morning, down there by the stable; he wont out of the alley and I never saw him airy more tiil between two and three o'clock in the afternoon; he was standing then in the theatre door in the alley that leads out back, him and a lady stand ing together, talking; I stood in my gate and looked right over at them a considerable while; they turned into the theatre then and 1 never seen him any more till night; I went up stairs pretty early that night. night; there was a carriage drove up the alley after I went up, and after that I heard a horse stepping down the alley, and looked, out of the window, and it seemed as though the gentleman was leading a horse down the alley; he did not get further than the end of the alley, when he turned back aeain; I still looked to see who it was, and he came up to the theatre door, and pushed the door open; he said something in a low tone, and then halloed In a loud voice, call ing "Ned" four times; there was a colored man who sat at a window, and he said, "Mr. Ned, Booth calls you;" that's how I came to know it was Booth; it was pretty dark, and I could not see what kind of face he had; Mr. Ned came, and Booth said to him In low tone, "Tell Maddox to come here;" Mr. Ned went back, and Mr. Maddox came out; they said something to each other, but I could not understand from my window what the words were; after that Mr. Maddox took hold of the horse, and he and Mr. Ned between them had the horse and carried him round the corner, where I could not see him; Booth returned back into the theatre, and this man who had carried the horse went in at the door, too; the horse stayed out there a considerable while and kept a consider able stamping on the stones; 1 said, "I wonder what is the matter with this horse:" after a while I saw here persons who had the horse walking backwards and forwards; I supposed the horse was there an hour and a half altogether; in about ten minutes I saw this man come out of the door, with someihing in his hand glit tering, but I do notknowwhatit was; he jumped on the horse as quick as he came out of the theatre door, and was gone as quick as a flasmof lightning; I thought the horse had certainly run off with the man; then I saw them running out of the door, and asking which way he had gone; still I did not know what was the matter; one man said the President was shot: I said, by that man who went off?" he said, " yes; did you see him?" I said, "yes, I saw him when he went off;" this was the last time I saw him. Q. Did you see the prisoner, Spangler, at that time? A. Yes, I saw him after that; after awhile I came down stairs and they were out side talking ; I went up to the theatre door, and Spangler was standing there ; I said to Spangler, "that gentleman called yon;" he said "no he didn't;" said I, "yes he did;" said he, "no he didn't;" I said he did and kept on saying so, and with that he walked away, and I did not see him any more till Sunday, and then l didn't speak to him at all. 50 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Cross-examined by Mr. Ewing.— Q. Do you know Maddox ? A. Yes sir. CJ. What kind of a looking man is he ? A. Well, he has a kind of reddish skin, and a kind of pale and light hair. CJ. How old a man is he? A. I suppose 25 or to years. CJ. Have you seen him often? A. Yes, I have seen him very often; I live close there, and I used to work for him. CJ. Did he hold the horse all the time after he was brought there? A. No, not all the time; he took hold of the horse and it seemed as though he held him a little while; he moved him out of my sight; then he returned and went into the theatre; he had on a light coat. CJ. Then who held the horse when he went in? A. I did not see; as it was carried out of my sight I heard a commotion, and it seemed as though a man had it, but I could not tell who it was; the horse made a great noise stamingp about. CJ. I understand you that Spangler just came to the door, that Booth asked him to tell Mad dox to come out, and then It seems as if he came out again? A. Whether he did or not I am not certain; Maddox came out, and Booth then had some conversation; I could not tell What it was. CJ. How long from the time Booth first rode up till the people said he had shot the. Presi dent? A. I suppose a little less than an hour. CJ. Did you see the man who held the horse at the time Booth ran out and rode away? A. Yes: I saw him holding the horse when Booth came out; I could not tell who it was; he was walking the horse up and down; Booth came out, mounted, and it seemed as if, as soon as he touched the horse, he was gone; I was looking down the alley to see which way he went. CJ. Did that man look like Maddox? A. Very much so to me. I know Maddox wears a light coat, and this man seemed as though he had a light coat on; it was pretty dark that night and I could not see distinctly from my window. CJ. How far was he from you when you saw him? A. About as far as from here to that win dow, about fifteen feet, or a little further. CJ. It was not Spangler holding the horse? A. I do not know; it seems as though it was be tween three— I am not certain; there were three men altogether who held him. Wm. A. Browning, sworn. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Will you state if you are the Private Secretary of the President? A. Yes. CJ. Were you with him on the night of the 14th of April? A. I was. CJ. What knowledge have you of the card hav ing been sent by J. Wilkes Booth? A. Between the hours of four and five o'clock I left Vice- President Johnson's room in the Capitol; I went into the Kirkwood House, where I was boarding with him; went up to. the office, as I was accus tomed to do, and saw a card in my box; Vice President Johnson's box and mine were adjoin ing; mine was No. 67 and his 68; the clerk of the hotel, Jones, handed me the card. CJ. What was on it? A. (Reading from the card). "Don't wish to disturb you; are you at home? J. Wilkes Booth." CJ. You don't know the handwriting of Booth, do you? A. No sir. CJ. And had no acquaintance with him what ever? A. Yes, I had known him when he was playing in Nashville, Tenn.; I met him several times there; that is the only acquaintance I had with him. CJ. Did you understand the card as sent to the Vice-President or yourself? A. At the time I attached no importance to it; I thought per haps Booth was playing here, and had some idea of going to see him; I thought he might have called on me as an acquaintance, but when his name was connected with this affair, I looked upon it differently; it was a very com mon mistake in the office to put the Vice-Presi dent's cards In my box, and my cards in his box. Cross-examined by Mr. Doster— CJ. State if you know, W:iat time the Vice President was in hi<5 room that day? A. I do not know really at what hour; he was at the Capitol the greater part of the forenoon every day; he was at dinner at five o'clock; I do not think he was out afterwards; I was out myself, and did not return until after the occurrence at the theatre. . Q. Do you know at what time he left his room in the morning? A. I do not. CJ. But he returned at five o'clock. A. I do not know when he returned; he was there at five o'clock, and remained in his room the ba lance ofthe evening. CJ. W ere you in his room in the course of the afternoon ? A. I was there I think about seven or eight o'clock ; I was not there afterwards till about eleven o'clock after the assassination. Major Kilbnrn Knox, sworn. By Judge Holt.— CJ. State whether or not oil the evening of the 13th of April you were at the house of the Secretary of War in this city ? A. I was. CJ. Do you see among the prisoners at the bar any person you saw there on that occasion ? A. Yes ; I recollect that one, (pointing to O'Laugh lin, who, by order of the Court, stood up.) CJ. State under what circumstances you saw him; at what hour, and what occurred? A. I was at the house of the Secretary of War about half-past ten o'clock: I had been at the War De partment, and left there about ten that evening, and walked up to the Secretary's house; General Grant and Mrs. Grant, the Secretary, General Burres and his wife, Mr. Knapp and his wife. Miss Lucy Stanton, Mr. David Stanton, and two or three small children were there; there was a hand playing in front of the house; I was talking to Mrs. Grant; the others were stand ing on the upper steps; they set off some fire works in the square opposite, and I stepped in to let the children see them; I stood on the next to the lower step, and was leaning against the rail ing, when this man came up; hesaid to me, " Is Stanton in?" I said, "I suppose you mean the Secretary of War?" hesaid "Yes;" and I think* he said " I am a lawyer in town and I know him very well;" I had the impression that he was under the influence of liquor, and told bim I did not think he could see him then; he went on the other side of the steps and stood there per haps five minutes ; I still stayed in the same po sition, aud he came overand said again, "Is Stan ton in?" and then said "excuse me, I thought you were the officer ofthe day;" I said then "there is no officer of the day here;" he then walked up the steps into the hall, and stood there some minutes; I went over to David- Stanton and said, "do you know that man;" he said he did not; I remarked that the man said he knew the Secretary very well, but that I thought he was drunk, and said to Mr. D. Stanton he had better take him out; Mr. Stanton walked in and talked with him a few minutes and took him out, and . he went off. CJ. Did he say anything about General Grant in the course of the conversation? A. He did not; I think General Grant had gone into the parlor. CJ. Was he looking in to seethe Secretary from his position ? A. I think the Secretary stood on the steps outside, and that this man stood be hind him where he could see in the parlor and in the inside of the house; there is a library on one side of the hall and a parlor on the other side; he stood on the side next to the library, from which position he could look into the par* lor and see who was in there. CJ. Do you feel perfectly certain that the pri soner here is the man you saw on that occasion? A. Yes; I feel perfectly certain that he is. Cross-examined by Mr. Cox.— CJ. Was it moon light or dark? A. I do not recollect; there waa quite a large crowd there. CJ. Was the crowd close up to the steps? A. Yes. CJ. Did the person you saw mingle with the crowd? A. I did not notice him at all until he walked up the steps and spoke to me. CJ. You did not go inside the hall while he was there? A. No. CJ. Did I understand you to say the Secretary was standing on the stops? A. Yes, he was standing aa the left-hand side, talking with TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 51 Mrs. Grant, and the man passed right by him on the right-hand side. CJ. How was he dressed? A. He had on a Mack slouch hat, a black frock coat and black pants; I cannot say as to his vest. CJ. Had you ever seen him before? A. I had not. CJ. Have you ever seen him before? A. I had not. CJ. Have you since? A. I have; I saw him a week ago last Sunday, here in the prison. CJ. Did you come for the purpose of identifying him? A. I did. CJ. Did you come in company with Mr. Stan ton? A. No; I came in company with other persons. CJ. Can you fix the hour at 10}4 o'clock cer tainly? A. It must have been about that; I left the War Department at 10, walked up and had been there about ten minutes. Testimony of John C. Hatter. Examined by Judge Holt. — CJ. State whether you knew the prisoner O'Laughlin? A. I know a man by that name. CJ. Do you recognize him here? A. Yes (pointing to the prisoner). Q,. Will you state whether or not you saw him on the 13th of April last, and if so, where, and underwhat circumstances? A. I seen him the night of the illumination, I suppose the night General Grant came from the front, at Secretary Stanton's house. CJ. State what occurred there. A. Iwasstand- ing on the steps looking at the illumination; this man approached me, and asked if General Grant was in; I told him he was; he said he wished to see him; said I, this is not an occasion for you to see him; if you wish to see him, step out on the pavement, or carriage stone, and you can see him. CJ. What time of the night was it ? A. I should judge it was about 9 o'clock, or a little after. Q. Was that all that occurred between you? A. Yes. CJ. He did not go in the house or attempt to go in ? A. No. CJ. Were you on the steps at Secretary Stan ton's house? A. I was near the top. CJ. Was he on the steps ? A. He was; I should judge, about two or three steps below me, about the th ird step from the pavement. CJ. Did he leave the step while you were there? A. He left the step after I spoke to him; he was talking; I did not quiteunderstand what he was saying; he walked away towards the tree-box, ank seemed to reflect on something; I then turned my eyes off and didn't see him any more. CJ. Are you certain you did not see anything more than that? A. Nothing more. CJ. The house was illuminated, was it? A. Yes; it was very light; it was lighted from the inside, and pretty light outside too. Cross-examined by Mr. Cox.— CJ. What is your business? A. I am employed at the War De partment, in the Secretary's room. ' CJ. Had you ever seen the man you mention before that evening. A. I do not think I have to my knowledge. CJ. Have you ever seen him since? A. Yes, in prison; in this prison, or the one adjoining, on last Sunday week. CJ. Did you come down to see if he was the same man? A. When I first started to come down I did not know it was for that purpose; I was with Major Eckert and Major Knox; I in quired when we arrived at the prison ifl was to come in; the Major told me to come in; when I was inside the building I did not know thepur- pose until Major Eckert called in the priso ners the moment I saw that man I thought I knew the object of my coming down. CJ. And this is the only occasion you recollect of having seen him? A. That is the only time except to-day. CJ. What made you think it was the same man? A. Tbe first time I saw him it was very light- he had on a dark suit of clothes and a heavy moustache; while I was speaking with him I was looking right sharp in his face; he had on a dark slouch hat, not very high, and a dark dress coat; his pantaloons were dark; I could not say whether they were black or brown. CJ. What was his size? A. I should judge ho was about my size; though, as he was standing on the steps below me, he might seen lower;! should judge he was about 5 feet i or 5 Inches high. CJ. Had a crowd come there to serenade the Secretary at that time? A. Yes; there were three or four bands there. CJ. Was the Secretary on the steps at the time? A. No; he was inside the house; General Grant also; there was nobody on the steps but myself. CJ. Were the crowd close up to the.steps? A. Yes; up to the lower steps. CJ. Was the door open at the time? A. Yes; the front door and the inner door, and the gas was fully lighted all around. Testimony of Dr. Robert King Stone. Examined by Judge Holt.— CJ. State to the Court if you are a practising physician in this city? A. I am. CJ. State whether or not you were the physi cian of the late President of the United States? A. I was his family physician. CJ. State whether or not you called to see him on tho evening of the assassination. If so, state the examination and the result. A. I was sent for by Mrs. Lincoln immediately after the-assas- sinationand was there within a few minutes; the President had been carried from the theatre to the house of a gentleman who lived directly opposite, and placed upon a bed in the back pnrt of the house; I found several citizens there, and among others two assistant surgeons of the army, who had brought him over; they imme diately gave over the case to my care in conse quence of my professional relation to the family. i proceeded to examine him, and instantly found that the President had received a gunshot wound in the back part and left sideof his head, into which I carried readily my finger, and at once informed those around that the case waa hopeless; that the President would die; that there was no positive limit to his life, as his vital tenacity was very strong; that he would resist as long as any one, but tbat death would certainly follow; I remained with him as long as it wasof any use to do anything for him, but of-course nothing could be done; he died the next morning about half-past seveD; it waa about half-past ten when I first saw him that night. Cj. Did he die from that wound? A. Yes R. Did you extract the ball? A. I did the next day when the body was ready to be embalmed, in the presence of Dr. Barnes, tbe Surgeon- General, and others; when the examination was made I traced the wound through the brain: the ball was found in the interiorpart of the left side ofthe brain; it was a large ball, resembling those shot from the pistol known as the Der ringer; an unusually large ball, that is a larger ball than those used in ordinary pocket re volvers. CJ. Was it a leaden ball? A. Yes, a hand made ball, from, which the tag had been cut from the-side; the ball was flattened or com pressed somewhat in its passage through the skull, or a little portion had been cut in its pas sage through the bone; I marked the ball with the initials of the President, in the presence of the Secretary of War; sealed it up with my private seal, and indorsed my name on the en velope; the Secretary inclosed it in another en velope, which he also indorsed and sealed with his private seal; it is still in his custody, having been ordered to be placed among the archives of his Department. CJ. Did you see the pistol from which the ball was fired? A. I did not. Testimony of Sergeant Silas D. CoflT. Examination by Judge Holt.— Q. State whether or not on the night of the assassination of the President you were on duty at the Navy Yard Bridge? A. I was. Q. Do you remember to have seem one or two men passing rapidly on horseback, and if so at what time? A. I saw three men approach me ramdly, on horse back, between 10}£ and 11 o'clock, I should think. Q. Did you challenge them? A. Yes; I challenged them and advanced to recognize them. tj. Did you recogaize them? A. I satisfied myself 52 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. that they were proper persons to pass, and passed them. Q. Do you recognize either of these persons as among the prisoners here? Look the entire distance of the box, irom one end to the other. The witness scrutinized each of the prisoners closely, and replied, No sir. Q. Could vou describe either of these men, or both of them? A. I could. Q. Do you think you would recognize either of them •by a photograph? A. I think I would: (a photograph of Booth was shown to the witness;) yes, that man passed first. Q. Alone? A. Yes. Q. Didyou notsay tbat three came together? A. No; three passed, but they were not together. Q. Did you have any conversation with this first man as he passed? A. Yes, ior three or four minutes. Q. What name did he give? A. He gave his name as Booth. Q. What d id he say? A. I asked him what his name was: he answered Booth; I asked him "where from?" he answered, "from the city;" I asked him, "Where are you going?" "Going home:" I asked him where his home was; he said in Charles, which I under stood to mean Charles county; I asked him what town? he said he did'nt live in any town; I said you must live in some town; he said, "I live close to Bry- antown.but I do not live in town;" laskedhimwhy he was out so late; If be did not know that persons were not permitted to pass a) ter that time ot night; he said it was news to him: he said he had some ways to go, that it was dark, and that he thought hp would have a moon. C. How long before the other two men came? A. The next one came up in five orseven minutes, or pos sibly ten minutes. Q. Did they seem to be riding rapidly or leisurely? A. The second one who came up did not seem to be riding so rapidly. Q. What did he say? A. I asked who he was; he said his name was Smith; that he was going to White Plains: I asked him how he came to be out so late: he made use of a rather indelicate reply, from which I should judge hehad been in bad company. Q,. Was he a large or small sized man? A. A small sized man. Q. Did you have a good view of his face? A. I did; I brought him up before the guard-house door so that theligutcouid fall on his lace. Q. How would he compare in size with the last man among the prisoners (Harold)? A. He is very nearly the size, but I should notthinkhe was the man; he had a lighter cumplexion than that man. Q. Did you allow him to pass alter that explanation? A. Yes. Q. What became of the other man? A. The other man I turned back; he did nut seem to have sufficient business to warrant me in passing him. Q. Was he on horseback also? A. Yes. „Q. Did he seem to be a companion of the prisoner who had gone before? A. I do not know. Q. Did they come up together? A. No; they were some distance apart. Q. Did this man makeany inquiry for Booth? A. He made an inquiry whether a man had passed on a roan horse? Q. Did the second one who had come up make any Inquiry in regard to another horseman? A. No sir, none whatever. Q. What was the color of the second horse? A. It was a roan horse. Testimony of Poll* Graham. Examined by Judge Holt.— Q. State whether you Were on the road between Washington and Brvan- tpwn on tbe night ot the Hth of April last ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You were going to Washington? A. Yes. Q. State if you met one or more horsemen, and if so, at what hour and under what circumstances. A. I met two about 11 o'clock, riding very fast. Q. In what direction? A. Going to Marlboro: Imet the first one on Good Hope Hill, and the last ODe about half a mile beyond. Q. Did they say anything to you? A. They first stopped me and asked me the road to Marlboro; he first asked meifthe road did not fork a little ahead, and it' he did not turn to the right; I told him no, to keep straight ahead. Q. Was it light enough for you to see his horse? A. He rode a dark horse; I think it was a bay. Q. What did the other one say? A. Hesaid nothing to me; I heard him ask a question, whether it was of me or of the teamsters on the road, £ do not know; I djd not answer him. Q. How far was he behind the first one? A. About half a mile. I reckon. Q. What was the appearance of the horse? did you notice? A. It was a roan or iron-grey. Q. Was the man large or small? A. I never noticed the man. Cross-examined by Mr. Stone.— Q. How far was this from the city? A. I suppose two and a -half or three miies irom the city. Q. Was he the one who inquired the road to Marl boro'? A. Yes. Q. How long after the first man passed was it before the 'other came along? A. I do not suppose it was more than five or ten minutes; I do not know exactly. Q. What did you say the second asked you? A. I donotkuow whether it was asked of me; he asked whether a horseman had passed ahead; I did not answer him. Q,. The road forks at Good Hope Hill, does it not, one turning to the right and the other to the left? Were they beyond the forks? A. I think so, but I am not acquainted with the road. Q. Was the lastman riding at a rapid gait? A. Yes; both were riding very fast. Q. Was it at the top of the hill? A. No; about the middle ofthe way up; I suppose I had got off that hill entirely belore I met the second man. Re- Examination of I>r. Stone. The ball extracted from tbe wound of President Lin coln having been received from the War Department, Dr. Stone was again called on the stand, and on ex amining it identified it fully as the ball extracted by him. Testimony of Wm. F. Kent. By Judge Holt.— Q. State whether or not the pistol you now have before you was picked up by you in the box ofthe President on the night of the assassin atiou? A. Yes, sir; this is tbe pistol. Q. What is it called? A. A Derringer, I believe, and I see that name marked on it. Q. How long after the President was shot did you pick it up? A. I donotknowexactly how long: I sup- pose about three minutes alter the President was shot; when I went into the box, there were two persons in there then; the burgeon asked me for a knife tocut open the President's clothes; I handed him mine, and with ithecutthe,President'sclothes open; IJeJtthe theatre afterwards; I missed my night key and thought I had dropped it there: I turned back to go to the theatre; and wheu I went into the box my foot knocked against a pistol lying on the floor, I picked it up and cried out "I have found the pistol;" some persons told me to give it to the police; but there was a gentleman who said he represented the Associated Press, and I handed it to him; the next morning I went around to the police station and recognized it as the pistol I had picked up. Testimony of Lieat. Alex. JLovett. Examined by Judge Holt.— Q. Will you state whe ther or not, aiterthe assassination of the President, you and others were engaged in the pursuit ofthe mur derer? A. Yes. Q. What route did you take? A. The route by Sur rattsville. Q. State whether or not in pursuing that route you came to the house of Dr. Samuel Mudd? A. I do, and recognize him as one of the prisoners at the bar. Q. Did you stop there and make any inquiries? A, I stopped there and made inquiries of his wile first. He was out. Q. State what questions were addressed by him to you and other members of your party, and what was said. A. We first asked him whether there had been any strangers at the house; he said there had; at first he did not seem to care about giving us any satisfac tion; then he went on and stated that on Saturday morning, at daybreak, two strangers came to his place, one came to tbe door and the other sat on his horse; that he went down and opened the door when the other man got off his horse and came into the bouse; tbat one of them had a broken leg, and that be had set the leg; I asked him who the man was; he said he did not know, he was a stranger to him; he stated that they were both strangers; I asked him what kihd of a looking man the other was; he said he was a young man about 17 or 18 years old. Q. How long did he say they remained there? A. Hesaid they remained a short time; this was the first conveisation I had with him. Q. You stated that Dr. Mudd said they were there a short time; do you mean they went away in the course ot ^the morning ? A. That is what I understood them. Q. On what day was this ? A. On Tuesday, the ISth. Q. Did he state to you whether at that time or belore he had heard anything in regard to the assassination of the President? A. He said he had heaid it on Sun day at church. Q- What distance is the house from Washington? A. Byway of Bryantown it is about thirty miies, I sup pose. _ Q. Isitononeofthehighwaysofthecountry? A. It is off the public road, running from Georgetown about a quarter of a mile. Q. Did you have a considerable conversation with himln regard to the assassinatien of the President? A. We did not talk much about that. I was making inquiries more about these men than anything else G. How long were you at his house? A. Probably an Q. Did he continue until the last to make the same representations that these men were entire strangers to him? A. Yes, sir ; that be knew nothing of them. He said one of them called for a razor, soap and water to shave his moustache off. I asked him if he had any TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 53 other beard; he replied, " Yes, a long pair of whis- Q. Did he state that Booth had left there that morn ing on horseback? A. Hesaidoneof them went away cd crutches, and that he showed them a way cross the swamp. Q. Did he state what the wounded man had done with his horse? A. He said the other one led his horse and that he had a pair of crutches made ior him; I was entirely satisfied that these parties were Booth and Harold. Q. Did you arrive at the conclusion from the descrip tion given of the men? A. Yes. Q. Did he state to you the reason these men had gone into the swamp? A. He said they were going to Al lan's Fresh, Q. Did hestateforwhatpurposethismanhadshaved off his moustache? A. No; some ofthe other men along with me made tho remark that it looked suspicious, and Mr. Mudd then also said it looked suspicious. Q. Will you state whether you had a subsequent in terview with Mr. Mudd? A. Yes sir. Q.. How long after the firstone? A. Atthefirstin- terview I had my mind made up to arrest him when the proper time came; the second interview occurred on Friday, the 21st: I went there for the purpose of ar resting him. Q, S;ate what he then said in regard to these men ? A. When he found that we were going to search tbe house he said something to his wiie and then brought down a boot and handed it to me; he said he had to cut it oif in order lo set the man's leg; I turned the boot down and saw some writing on the inside, l'J. Wilkes;" I called his attention to it; he said he hadnottakwn notice of that before. [A larga country boot si it down the leggings brought in and passed round and exam ined by the members of the Court; on the inside near the top of the leg, under the name of the maker, were the words "J. Wilkes," written plainly in ink.] Q. Did he at that time still insist that they were Btrangers to him ? A. Yes. Q. Did he acknowledge at any subsequent period that he kn^w Booth ? A. Yes; he said subsequently that he was satisfied it was Booth. Q. When was that? A. That was on Friday, the same day; he made the remark that his wile had told himshesaw the whiskers at the time become discon nected from the man's face. Q. But he had stated to you distinctly before that he had not known this man ? A. Yes sir. Q. Did he or not at any subsequent conversation state that he had knowu this man Booth? A. Alter I had arrested him and we had got on our horses and were going out, some of the men gave him Booth's photo graph; they held it up to him and asked if it did not look like Booth; hesaid that it was not like Booth; that it looted a little like him across the eyes; shortly alter that hesaid he had an introduction to Booth last fall; he said a man by the name of Johnson gave him an introduction to him. Q. Did he state where he met Booth? A. No; on being questioned by one of the other men he said he had rede with him in the country, looking up some land, and when he bought a horse. Q. Did he state the time? A. It was last fall I believe he said. Q. Did he give you any description of the horse he bought? A. He said he wanted a good road horse. Cross-examination by Mr. Ewing. Q. You say that Dr. Mudd gave you a description ot these two persons? A. Yes sir; he gave niea partial description of them; hesaid thatcne was quite a young man, and the other had large thin whiskers. Q. What did ha say to you as to the resemblance be tween the photograph and its orieinal? A. In the first place he said that it did not look like Booth; then he Baid it looked like him across the eyes. Q. Did you tell him aboutyour tracking Booth from Washington? A. I do not think up to that time I bad mentioned Booth's name at all. Q. Wnere was Dr. Mudd when you called at his house the second time? A. He was out some place and his wife sent for him; I walked out and greeted him. Q. Did you not say to him that you wanted the razor with which the man who stopped at his house shaved himself? A. Yes sir; I demanded that after we went into the house. Q. Did not Dr. Mudd then tell you that since you were there before the boots had been found in the room? A. Not until alter we were in the house some time. Ci. He then volunteered the statement ? A. Yes, he said something to his wile, and she went up stairs and brought it down. Q. But did he not make the statement voluntarily? A. Hedid after one ofthe men told him that we would have to search the house. " Q. Are you sure he did not make the statement until alter that was said? A. lam. Q. He said that he had shown those men the way across the swamp? A. So I understood him. Q. To what swamp did he allude? A. The swamp in the rear of his house, I believe. Q. Is there a swamp immediately in the rear of his house? A. There is one about a thousand yards below his house. Q. What else did he say in describing these men? A. I asked him if the whisker of one of the men spoken of by him might not have been false, and he said he did not know; it appeared afterwards that Booth had gone up stairs, but the doctor did not tell me of that. Q. He did not say where Booth had been? A. He told me tbat he had been on thesofa. Q. When you asked the Doctor how long those two men had stayed, he said they did not stay long ? A. At our first interview he told me they stayed but a short time, and afterwaras his wile told me that they stayed until three or lour o'clock, on Saturday alternoon. Q, You need not state to the Court what his wil'esald. A. Well, 1 think he told me that himself, aiterwards. Q. Did you ask Dr. Mudd whether he charged any thing for settiug the leg? A, Yessir. Q. What did he say? A. I did not ask him whether he charged anything; my question was whether the men had much money? he said they had considerable of greenbacks; 1 then asked him if they had arms about them; to which he replied the wounded man had a brace of revolvers. Q. Did he say anything about having been paid for setting the leg? A. I did not ask him about that; he went on to say that it was customary for men to make a charge to strangers. Q. He spoke ot that in connection with the fact of their having money? A. Yessir. Q. Did he notsay to you that those men arrivedat his house before daylight? A. He said about day break. Q. Who went with you to his house, on the occasion of your second visit? A. There were three special offi cers, besides some cavalry. Q. Who were the officers? A. Simon Galligar, Joshua Loyd, and William Williams. Q. What civilian went with you the first time? A. Dr. George Mudd. Q. When you were at Dr. Mudd's the second time do you not recollect that he told you the two men started Irom his house to go to Rev. Mr. Winner's? A. Yes sir, but I paid no attention to that; I thought it was a blind for the purpose of throwing us off the track. Q. But he said that? A. Yes sir, he stated that they inquired lor Parson Wilmer's, and that they said they were on thei r way to Allen's Fresh. Q,. Did he mention that both times you were there? A. I think only the first time. Q. Areyousure it was not out of doors that you first asked Dr. Mudd for the razor? A. 1 might have spoken to him about it out of doors, but I remember having made the demand in the house. Q. Areyousure that it was not before he got to the house he told you the boot had been lound since you were there beiore? A. He told me that in the house, not outside. Q. Was there not a citizen named Hardy with you at that time? A. Nut that I know of. Q. Was there nut a citizen with Dr. Mudd? A. There was a citizen, who stood outside thedoor after we wem into the house; I do not know his name. Q. Was Dr. Mudd alone when you. met him coming to the house? A. There was a citizen walking with him I think. Q. Was it this man you speak of as having subse- quentlystoodouisulethedoor? A. It was. Cross-examined by Mr. Stone.— Q. When you went to Dr. Mudd the first t.me did you have any conversa*- tion with him belore you went into the house? A. I thinknot: I had a conversation with his wi.e. Q. As soon as you asked him whether two strangers had been there, he told you at once they had? A. Yes sir; he was made aware ot the nature of our errand, I suppose, by airiend; he seemed very much excited, and turned verypale when he was Hrst asked about the two strangers, though he admitted they had been there. Q_ You asked him to describe them, and he gave yon the description? A. Yessir. Q. By whom did he say he was introduced to Booth last fail? A. A man by the name of Johnson. Q. He told you he was introduced to Booth by John son at church? A. Hedid not tell me that iu the first place; he told me he did not know Booth at all. Q. When, on the occasion of your second interview, you mentioned the name of Booth , he then told you he had been introduced? A. I did not mention it until we were on horseback. though Iliad previously mentioned Booth's name to the other doctor. Q. You say that Dr. Mudd seemed to be very much alarmed? A. Yes; he turned very pale in the face and blue about the lips, like a man who was irightened at the recollection of something he had done. Q. Did he mention, in connection with his intro duction to Booth, the name of Thompson? A. I un derstood him to say Johnson, but Thompson might have been the name. By Judge Advocate Holt.— Q. You state that Dr. Mudd appeared very much Irightened; did you ad dress any threat to him? A. No sir; I was in citizen's clothes at the time. Q His alarm then was not in consequence of any thing that you said or done? A. No sir; he seemed very much concerned when I turned the boot inside out- some of the men present said that the name of 54 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Booth had been scratched out, when I suggested that it had not been written. Q,. You have stated that when you asked Dr. Mudd whether the two strangers had any arms, he replied that the one with the broken leg had a brace oi revolvers: did he say anything about the other having a carbine or a kniie? A. No sir. Q. Did you understand him to say that this brace of revolvers was all thearms the stranger had? The question was objected to by Mr. Ewing as being a leading question. The following was then put:— Q. Will you state what was his manner? Was it frank or evasive? A. Very evastve; he seemed to be very reserved. Q. Did he speak of these men as having any other weapons than the brace of pistols of which you have spoken? A. To my knowledge one ofthe offieersspoke to him on that point. Q. Which one? A. I think it was Williams. Q. I understand you to say that Dr. Mudd stated that he did not he*vr the news of the assassination ot the President until Sunday morning, at church. At the time of this statement to you did he mention the name ot the assassin? A. No sir. By Mr. Ewing.— Q. Did not Dr. Mudd, at your first interview, state that he heard the details of the assassi nation while at church, on Sunday morning? A. I do not recollect that he did. I made a remark to one of the officers, at the time, that he must have been aware of the assassination, because the cavalry were all along the road, and everybody in the neighborhood knew it on Saturday. Q. Did Dr. Mudd state to you that the strangers were going in the direction of Allen's Fresh, in connection with his statement that they had gone to the Rev. Dr. Wilmer's ? A. He said that they inquired ior Mr. Wil- mer; that he took them across the Bwanip, and that they were going in the direction of Allen's Fresh. I went to Mr. Wilmer's, and searched his house, but I was satisfied we would find nothing there, as I looked upon itas a blind to draw us off that way. Q. In going from Dr. Mudd's to Mr. Wilmer's, would you cross the swamp? A. Yessir; you cango thatway. Ci. Did you follow the track of this man Booth and his companion? A. Yes sir; as far as I could. By the Court.— Q,. When you reached Mudd's house on Tuesday morning after the assassination was it gene rally understood there that Booth was themanwho killed the President? A. Everyperson around Bryan- town and along the way understood so. Q. Is there a telegraph line in that section? A. The only telegraph of which I have any knowledge is the one that runs to Point Lookout; I do not know the exact distance to that place; there was a telegraph connection with Port Tobacco, but if any person who saw these men wanted to give information concerning them they need not have gone far; by merely going out on the public road they could have given it, as the cavalry were all along there. 'Q. What is the distance from Washington to Sur rattsville? A. About ten miles, I should judge. Q. What is the distance from Surrattsville to Dr. Mudd's? A. By the way we first went.it was about sixteen miles to Bryantown, and about four and a half miles Irom there to Dr. Mudd's. Q. Ingoing to Mudd's, do you go through Surratts ville? A. Yes. There is a road running irom Port To bacco, by wbich you can go there. Dr. Mudd's is about twenty miles beyond Surrattsville by way of Bryan- town. Mr. Eakin.— Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Floyd, who keeps the hotel at Surrattsville? A. I arrested him on Friday, the 18th of April Q. Did he make any statement to you? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did he say concerning his connection with the affair? Judge Advocate Bingham objected to the question on the ground that it was an attempt to discredit tbe testimony of Floyd, by showing that he had made statements in conflict with representations made be fore the Court. The question was understood to be withdrawn by Mr. Ewing. Q. From wuom did you first hear that two men had stayed at Dr. Mudd's house? A. I heard itfrom a sol dier. & Do you know his name? A. Yes sir; his name was Lieutenant Dana. Q. Did Dr. Mudd say anything to you about it? A. He did; I sent for him, took him up into a room ofthe hotel and asked him to make his statement, which he did. Joshua Uoycl, Sworn. Q. State whether or not some day after the assassi nation ofthe President you were engaged with others In pursuing the assasins? A. I was. Q. Did you, in thecourse of your pursuit, go to the house ofthe prisoner, Dr. Samuel Mudd? A, Yessir. Q,. On what day did you go there? A. On Monday, April isth. Q. State what reply he made te your inquiry in re gard to the object of your pursuit. A. I askea him if he knew that the President had been assassinated; he replied that hedid; I then asked him if he had seen any parties looking like the assassins pass that way, and he stJid he had not. Q. That was at the first interview ? A. Yes.sir. Q. What did he state at the second interview ? A. He then acknowledged that two men had stopped there, and that he had set the broken limb of oneot them; wo showed him the likenesses, and he said he had seen them before; I then asked him had ne been introduced to Booth last fall, and he said he had. .,«.*.. Q. How long did he say these men remained at his house? A. I think he said they remamd there irom lour o'clock in the morning until 4 P.M. Q. Did lie say they were on horseback pronfoot? A. He said that one was on horseback and the other was walking and leading a horse. A photograph of Booth was shown to witness, and recognized bv him as the one which he had in his pos session, and which he exhibited to Dr. Mudd. Q, What was the Doctor's manner? A. Heappeared to be very much excited, when we went there the se cond time he was not iu, and his lady sent lor him; she appeared to be greatly worried. Q. What did you say to him at the second visit? A, Very little conversation took place on my part, as I did not feel very well. Q. Did he make any reference to his previous denia! of having seen these men? A. I do not know that he did; alter we found the boot he owned up. and saio that he had formerly been introduced to Booth by a man named Thompson; he did not say anything about beingincompany with him in Washington city. During the cross-examination the witness stated that Mudd at first denied having seen the supposed as sassins, or even any strangers. The prisoner stated when arrested that at the time of his introduction tc Booth by the man Thompson he was informed that Booth came there to buy some property; at the time ofthe witness' first visit to Mudd, the latter stated that he had heard ofthe President's assassination at church on Sunday Dr. George Mudd was then pre sent. On Friday, the day of the second visit, the boot found in the house was produced upon tbe arrival of the prisoner at his home and while the party were waiting Jur him. Colonel il. II. Wells, sworn.— Q. Are you Provost Marshal of the defenses south of Washington? A. Yessir. Q. State to the Court whether, in the week subsequent to the murder ofthe President, you had an interview with tho prisoner, Dr. Mudd? A. Yes sir; I had an in terview with him on Friday, April 2ist. Q. State all that he said to you iu regard to the men who called at his place on Saturday morning after the murder. A. I had three definite conversations with him; the first occurred, I think, about noon on Friday; I had the doctor brought to my head-quarters, and took his statement; ho commenced by remarking tbat on Saturday morning, about 4 o'clock, he was aroused by a loud knock at his door; he was surprised at the loudness of the knock, and inquired who was there; receiving some reply, as I understand he looked irom the window or went to the door, and saw two horses and a second person sitting on one of the horses: he described the appearance oi the persons, and said that the youngest of the two was very fluent in his speech, and that the person on horseback had broken his leg, and desired medical attendance; he assisted in bring ing the person who was on horseback into his house and laying him upon the soiain the parlor, and after some time he was carried up stairs and laid on a bed. in what was called the front room; he then proceeded to examine the leg and discovered that the outward bone was broken nearly at rght angles across the hmb, about two inches above ihe instep; he said it was not a compound lracture,and that the patient complained of pain in his back, but he lound noappurentc;:.usefor the pain, except as proceeding from the effect of alall from ahorse, as the p.:tient .stated he had fallen; he said that he dressed the limb as well as he was able to do with the limited lacililies :it his command, and called a white hired servant to make a crutch for the patient; the crutch was made and breakfast was then prepared, and the younger of the two persons, the one who was uninjured, was invited to breakfast with them: the pri soner! nrther stated that oiLer breakfast he noticed hi3 patient to bo much debilitated and pale; the young man made some remarks iu relation to procuring some conveyance iur taking his friend away, and that some time alter dinner he started with him to seeifacar- riage could be procured; alter traveling ibr some dis tance and lailing to procure a carriage, the young man remarked that lie would not go any further, but would rutum to the house aud see if hecould notgothis iriend away; tbe doctor stated also that alter going to the town, which was the larthest point of his journey he returntdto his house about 4 P.M.; in speaking of the wounded man I asked him if he Icupw who the person was, to which he replied that he did not recognize him; I then exhibited to him what was said to be a miniature of Booth, and hesaid that from the miniature he could not recognize him; ho stated, however, in answer to another question, that he met Booth sometime in November; I think he said that he was introduced by a, Mr. Thompson to Booth; I think the introduction to Booth took place at church, on a Sunday morning, and after the introducfon had been given. Thompson said that Booth wanted to pur chase farming lands; they had some conversation on the subject ot lands, and then Booth asked the ques- TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 55 tion whether there were any desirable horses that could be bought cheap in that section, and he men tioned the names of several dealers in desiiable stock In the neighborhood; I asked him if he could recog nize again the person whom he then met under the name of Booth; hesaid he could, and I asked him if he had seen Booth at any time after the in troduction in November and prior to his arrival there on Saturday morning; he said he had not; I asked him if be had any suspicions of the character ot Booth, or either of these persons; he said he had not, but that after breakfast ne thought there was something strange about their actions in view of the fact that the young^man came down stairs and asked for a razor, and said his friend wanted to shave himself, and that shortly afterwards he noticed that the person answering to the name of Booth had shaved off his moustache; I asked him ifthe man bad a beard, when hesaid that he had, and that it was larger than my own. but he could not determine whether it was natural or artificial; that he kept a shawl about his neck and seemed to desire to conceal the lower part of his lace; I asked him. at this time if he had heard of the murder of the President; he replied thathehad not; I think, however, he remarked to me in one of bis in terviews, that he heard of the assassination for the first time on Sunday morning, or late in the evening of Saturday; nay impression is that he did not hear of it until after these persons had left his house. The witnessstatedfurther, that when leaving, Harold . inquired for the most direct route to Mr. Wilmer's house, and that the prisoner gave him the desired in formation. The prisoner also communicated to the witness all the particulars concerning the discovery of the boot found in the house occupied oy him. Cross-examination by Mr. Ewing.— Q. At the time that Mudd gave you this iniormation did you see any thing that was extraordinary? A. He did not seem willing to answer a direct question, and I saw that un less I did ask direct questions all important facts were omitted by him. CJ. Was be alarmed? A. He was much excited. CJ. And alarmed? A. Not at the first or second in terview, but at the third he was. CJ. What time of Friday did you have your first in terview with him? A. Not far from midday; it might have been before or in the afternoon. CJ. How long after was it that Lovett was gone for Dr. Mudd? A. I am not certain; I don't think I sent Lovett for Mudd. CJ. It was on the Friday after the assassination? A. I think it was. sir; on the 2lst. CJ. At the first interview did you have any written statement made? A. No sir; I kept on talking with bim, and, after I thoughtIhadthefacts,Ihadittaken down in writing; we had a dozen interviews at least. CJ. When was the last interview? ¦ A. On Sunday, I think. - CJ. Did you have any more than one on Friday? A. Yes; be wsw in my presence for almost live hours; we were talking there from time to time. CJ. You said that at the last interviewhe was much alarmed from some statement you made? A. I said to him that he was concealing the facts, and that I did not know whether heunderstood that was thestrongest evidence tbat could be produced of his guilt at that .time, and might endanger nis safety. Q. When was it you went off" with Dr. Mudd, and he took you along the route which these two men took? A* On Sunday morning, I am quite confident. , Q. He spoke of their taking the direct road to Piney Chapel? A. Yessir, to Dr. "Wilbur's, of Piuey Chapel. CJ. You spoke of tracks on the direct road to Pincy Chapel till they turned off? A. No; they took the direct road, coming out by the doctor's house, tiil they came to the wall, with this exception; tbe marsh was full of holes and bad places, and 1 remember thinking they had got lost, as they went from right to left, and .kept changing on that way till they lost the general direction. _ . , ^ _ CJ. Did you say that the Doctor said to you that he had heard of the assassination of the President on Saturday evening or on Sunday? A. My impression is that be said not till Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning. . „ . „ CJ. You think he said Saturday evening? A. Yes. CJ. Did he mention how and whence he heard it? A. No sir; I can't say that he did, but I ha.ve an indistinct idea that be heard it at the town, but am notsure; over in Bryautown. CJ. Did he say when It was that Johnson introduced him to Booth? A. He said it was about November. CJ. Did he say whether it was before daybreak when they came to his house? A. He said it was before day break: about four o'clock. , Q. Did you ask whether they paid him anything for Betting the broken leg? A. I think he said they paid bim twenty-five dollars. I think tbat statement was made to one of the men that was with me, but not to me directly. Q. Didn't Samuel Muddsavto you that there bad been two suspicious men at his house? A. Yes, sir. CJ. Did be not say to you that be told that on Satur day evening? A. I can't remember; but I think not. , CJ. Was it on Sunday evening? A, I think It was later than that. CJ. Did he not say to you in some one of your inter views that he told you that on Sunday? A. My im pression is that he told Dr. Mudd on Monday. CJ. You recollect bis having said that he told Dr. Mudd ? A. Yes; in this connection I said, "one of the strongest circumstances against you is that you have failed to give the fullest information of this matter." Then it was ho said he told Dr. George Mudd. Q. Did he examine the likeness of Booth in your possession ? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did he recognize it as the man who he had been introduced to? A. My impression is that he said that he could not from the photograph recognize the man. Q. Did he not say that he could not recognize it as the man whose leg was broken? A. He said, *lI should not have known Mr. Booth from the photograph;" he said also he did not recognize the man when he first saw him, but that on recollecting he knew it was Mr. Booth, the person to whom he bad been introduced. CJ. Did he not say that that was like a likeness that he had already,seen of Booth, with his name marked upon It? A. I don't remember that. Q. Was there not intense excitement in the town amongthesoldiersandthepeople? A. Notamongthe soldiers, they were calm enough; but among the peo- . pie there was; they were going and coming all the time. CJ. In a state of angry aud excited feeling? A. There was no angry feeling exhibited, but there was an ex cited state of feeling evident. By the Judge Advocate.— CJ. Can you state at what time Dr. Mudd professed to have recognized Booth as the man he had been introduced to? A. During their stay at his house. Q. So you understood him to admit that he recog nized him before he left? A. Yes; his expression was, that he,did not know him at first, but that on reflection he recoJ lected.him. By Mr. Ewing.— Q. Please state as nearly as you can Mudd's exact words when he spoke on reflection of re collecting "that it was Booth who was at his house on showing him the picture; that he should not have re collected the man from the photograph, and that he did not remember him when he first saw him, but that on reflection he remembered he was the man he waa introduced to in November last, or in the fall." A. I won't say these are the exact words, but that is the substance of his words, as nearly as I cau recollect them. CJ. There was nothing but that in his conversation upon that point ? A. That was the substance of it, and it was said over and over again. CJ. Didn't he say whethertbis reflection on which he could recognize the man with the broken leg, as the man to whom he had been introduced, was a reflection which arose after the man had left his. house ? A. He leit the impression clearly upon my mind that it was before the man left the house; he gave it as a reason why he didn't remember him at the first, that the man was much worn and debilitated; that he seemed to make an effort to keep the lower part of his face dis guised; but when he came to reflect he remembered it was the man he had been introduced to. CJ. Did he speak of this disguise as having been thrown off or discontinued at any time during the man s stay at his house? A. No; but the light ofthe day, the shaving ot the face, thefact that he sometimes slept and at others was awake, gave him opportunities to recognize the man; but I do not recollect that be said the disguise was enlirely thrown off. CJ. Did he admit to you having denied any person having been at his bouse? A. He certainly did not deny it tome. The Court then adjourned to 10 o'clock to-morrow. Washington, May 17.— General Harris said that on Saturday, for what he deemed justifiable reasons, he had objected to Hon. Reverdy Johnson appearing here as counsel. He now asked to have read a letter from Keverdy Johnson, dated Baltimore, October 7, 1864, ad dressed to William D. Bowie, C. C. Magruder, John«D. Bowling, Prince George's county, in which he takes the ground that the oath prescribed by the Constitu tional Convention was illegal, and concludes as fol lows :— " It is indeed the only way in which the people can protect themselves, and no moral injunction will be violated by such a course, because the exaction of the oath was beyond the authority of the Convention, and as a law therefore void." Tcstimouy of William Williams. William Williams was called as a witness, and testi fied as follows :— CJ Will you state to the Court whether, after the as sassination, you were ever engaged in the pursuit of the assassins? A. Yes sir: 1 started on April 17th with Major O'Beirne, and pursued to Surrattsville. CJ State whether, in the course of that pursuit, you went to the residence ofthe prisoner, Dr. Mudd? A. Yes sir- we went there on Tuesday, the 18th ; when we arrived there Dr. Mudd was not at home, but we saw 56 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. his wife, and she told us she would send for him, that be was in the neighborhood; when he came I asked him whether any strangers had been that way; he said not ; we questioned him about two men having been at his house, one with a broken leg, and he denied that they had ; he spoke to some other officers. Q. Did you mention the time when you supposed these men had been there? A. Not on our first visit: I did not. CJ. Did you have any farther consultation with him npon that? A. No sir, not on our first visit. CJ. He denied altogether that there had been any strangers there, you say. A. Yes. CJ. Who made the remark about the man with the broken leg having been there? A. One of the other officers. Q. Did you hear his reply? A. I am not positive what it was. but he.made a reply. Q. Did he on that occasion state to you when he beard for the first time ofthe assassination ofthe Presi dent? A. Yes sir; he said it was in church Sunday morning. CJ. Did he converse freely with you; was his manner frank or evasive? A. He seemed to be a little uneasy, and not willing to give us the information without being asked for everything, Q. When did you see him. the second time? A. On Friday, the 2ist. Q. What occurred then? A. We went there for the Surpose of arresting him; he was not at home, but Irs. Mudd sent for him; when he arrived at thehouse Lieutenant Lovett asked him) a question or two, and then I asked him about the two men being at his house, and whether he bad seen them, and then he said that he had: I asked bim, also, it they were Booth and Harold; be said they were not; that he was intro duced to*Booth last fall, and knew him; he had been Introduced to Booth by Mr. Thompson; after we ar rested him we showed him this picture, and after look ing at it a little while he said at first he d;d not recol lect the features, but tbat it looked like Booth across the eyes; Unformed Mrs. Mudd that we would have to search thehouse, and then she said that one of the men had left a boot upstairs in ben", and she went for and brought the boot: it was a long riding boot, with the New York maker's name and the name of J. Wilkes written inside; the boot was cut about two Inches up from the instep. CJ. Didrshe say that the doctor had set the leg of the man? A. Yessir. CJ. How long did he say they remained at the house? A. He stated tome they left between three and lour in tbe alterr.oon on Saturday. CJ. Did be state to you at what hour they came? A. About daybreak. CJ. Did they leave on horseback or on foot? A. He said they leit on horseback; Mrs. Mudd said they leit on foot. CJ. Did you understand her to be speaking of one or both of them when she said they went on foot? A. I understood her tosay Booth, and I believe it was Dr. Mud A who said the injured man went away on crutches, which he said had been made for him by one of his men. Cross-examination ,by Mr, Stone— CJ. Was Lieut Lovett present? A. Yessir.' CJ. On both Tuesday and Friday? A. Yes sir. CJ. Was Mrs. Mudd in the parlor when she made this declaration about the boot? A. She was standing at the door. Q. Where was Dr. Mudd? A. He was in the parlor. ^Q. Could he hear what Mrs. Mudd said? A. I judge be could; he was no further than where you are sitting there. Q. She was the first one who mentioned aboutBooth to you? A. Yes; I told her we should be compelled to search the house, and then she saw! that the men had left the bootthere, and went up and brought it down Q. Was it on Tuesday or Friday that he told you the first knowledge he had of tbe death or the President was derived at church the Sunday before? A. On Fri day, I think. CJ. Do you remember that any one asked him in your presence, A. I do not. CJ. You were all together in one room? A. Yes sir CJ. Did you or Lieutenant Lovett ask him about two strangers who had been at his house any time pre vious? A. We both asked him. CJ. Which asked him first? A. I don't remember. CJ. Did he give the same reply to both? A. I think be did, sir. Q. Do you feel confident of that? A. His reply to me, on Tuesday, was that they had not been there; I think it was the same he said to Lieutenant Lovett. CJ. Do you remember on the Friday ofthe examina tion who asked him first? A. I think it was Lovett. Q. Doyou remember whether he asked about two strangers, or about Booth and Harold? A. About strangers, I think. Q. what auswer did he make on Friday? A. The question was whether two strangers had been there; one with a broken leg; and thenhesaidhehadsetthe man's leg; tbat one of them was, apparently, i>bout seventeen or eighteen years of age; that they had knocked at the door, and he had looked out at the window and asked who they were; they replied that they were friends, and wanted to get in: and Dr. Mudd came down stairs, and with the assistance of the young man, helped the injured man from his horse and took him to his parlorand placed him on the sofa. CJ. Did he describe the strangers? A. He said one was about seventeen or eighteen; that the other had a moustache and long thin whiskers; I asked him if they were natural whiskers? be said he could not tell. CJ. Did he tell you the color of the other man's hair? A. No; not that I remember. Q. Did he tell you his height? A. I am not positive. CJ. Did he give any description of his dress? A. I th ink he said the injured man bad a shawl; I am not certain. Q. Did he describe the dress ofthe younger man? A, I don't remember his saying anything about it. CJ. Did he describe his height and general appear ance? A. Hesaid he was a smooth-faced young man, about seventeen or e.ghteen. CJ. Did he tell you the direction they took, and did you search for tracks in the direction indicated, and if so, didyou find any? A. Yes, we found tracks, but other teams were constantly passing, and the road is not much traveled. CJ. Did you go on Tuesday across the swamp? A. Ye-;; we went ;:11 through the swamp on Tuesday and Friday, after we came back. CJ. Were you one of the party who went to see Mr. Wilmer's house? A. Yessir. CJ. Whattimedidyougetthere? A. Thursday orTues- day night; I think it was late in the evening when we got there. CJ. What time did you say you got to Wilmer's? A. I think it was Wednesday evening. CJ. Did you hear anything of them on the road? A. I did not. CJ. This was before the doctor was carried to Bryan- town? A. Yessir. Q. Were you and Mr. Lloyd under Lieutenant Lo.- vett's orders? A. I was acting under Major O'Beirne'a orders, but in his absence was under Lieutenant Lo vett, who had charge of the squad, I suppose. CJ. Was Mr. Lloyd with you? A. Yes sir. CJ. Wtreyouinthe Court when his testimony was read? A. I was not. The Court here took a recess. On the Court reassembling the testimony was con tinued. Testimony of Simon Gavasan. Q. Will you state whether you are acquainted with Dr. Mudd? A. Yes sir. CJ. Were ycu not at bis bouse the Tuesday following the assassination? A. Yessir, I was. CJ. State what«inquiries you made of him there to aid you in the pursuit of the murderers, and whatre- plieshemade? A. We went thereon the forenoon of that Tuesday, the 18th; we went to his house, and we made inquiries whether any two men had passed tbiireontheinorniugofSaturday, alter the assassina tion: he said '"no," and then, when we asked more garticularly whether two meu came, one of them avmg his leg fractured, he said "yes;" we asked him- what time, and he said, "at four or half-past four in the morning they rapped at his door, and he being alarmed at the noise came down and let them in; he said another man assisted the injured man into the house; heisaid he attended to the fracture as well as he could, but that he bad not much fracture; the person with the fractured leg stayed in the parlor at first, but after that was taken up to one or' theruoms up stairs, and remained there till between three and five o'clock in the afternoon on Saturday: he said they then leit there, and he went paitor the way with them, but that previous to that he went to look lor a bui'gy, with the other man, to have the wounded man tanen away, but that he could notimd one: hesaid he went pare of the way on the road with them, but they* first inquired the way to Alien slresh, and that they also inquired thewayto Dr. Warner's, and he bail he showed them the roads. Cj. Did you ask him whether he knew these persons? A. He said at first "No. not at all." CJ. On the subsequent daysdid you have any inter- 2is? aad U'S0 when? A- °n Friday, the CJ. State what occurred then? A. We went there to arrest him and search his house. He was not in, but his wife sent fur him: when he came we informed him that we wouid have tosearcli his house; his wife then went up stairs and brought a boot down; wo examined th? Kn ^hJ0?ndK J* Wilkes" marked on the leg of the boot, tone also brought a razor down, which one oi the party took in charge. ' w",u" a0^1?^-0^.1'?156110-?^1, inquiry as to who they were? ttoight not WU" DOt Bootil? be said he CJ. Did youcet any reason for his so thinking? A He said he had whiskers on, and also had his mouT anU tSST?" °fl; .P™^1? ne shaved it off up stSra Q Did he speak of having known him before? A. Yes; when _ we made inquiries he said hewasintrflC duced last fail by a man named Thompson Cross-examination by Mr. Ewing.-Q who was the chief.0 lhe PUrty WiL° Were wim youTA w°e bid no TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. COL. LAFAYETTE C. BAKER. (4) TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 57 CJ. Who was in charge of the party? A. Lieutenant Lovett came in charge of a cavalry detachment, but we went under the orders of Major O'Beirne. Q. In the absonce of Major O'Beirne, were vou not under the order of Lieutenant Lovett?. A. Yes sir partly. Q. Who commenced tho conversation with Mudd on Tuesday? A. That I am not able to say. Q. How long did the conversation last? A. Probably one hour. CJ. In your presence? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did uot Lieutenant Lovett conduct the inquiries chiefiy? A. No sir; the doctor was asked questions by all of us. Q. Did not Dr. Mudd himself bring the boot down to you? A. No sir: his wile brought it down. CJ. Who was it given to? A. The one nearest the door. CJ. Didyou. in point of fact, make a search ofthe house? A. We did not go up stair.:; when we found tr.e boot and razor we considered it satislactory evi dence that Booth and Harold had been in the house. Q. Didyou go to meet Mudd on Friday as he was go ing to the house? A. Nos,r. Q. Did Lieutenant Lovett? A. There might have been one or two other officers; I am not sure. CJ. Did you ask him on Tuesday for a description of the party? A. No sir; I bt'lieve the photograph of Bootti was shown to him and that hedid not recognize it aa one or' the parties that was at his house, but tbat there was something about the forehead and eyes that resembled one of them. CJ. Did he point out to you the road they went across the swamp? A. No sir, he eaid he bad made inquiries how they would get to Hie Bev. Dr. Wilmer's. CJ. He mentioned that on Tuesday? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did he tell you how to get to Dr. Wilmer's? A. Yes sir. Testimony of M>s. Emma Offatt. CJ. State whether or not you are the sister-in-law of John Floyd? A. Yea sir. Q. State whether or not, on the Tuesday, the lith of April, you were at his house? A. Yes sir. (J. You saw Mr. Floyd on that day? A. Yes sir, I was in the carriage with Mr. Floyd. CJ. On that occasion did you happen to meet Mrs. Surratt? A. Yessir. CJ. State to the Court where the meeting took place? A. Somewhere near Uniontown. Q. State whether or not a conversation took place between Mr. Floyd and Mrs. Surratt on that day? A. Yes, they talked together. CJ, Did you hear any of the conversation? A. Yes sir, someot it. CJ. Under what circumstances did the conversation take place? A. Our carriages passed each other belore we recognized who it was. aud Mr. Floyd went out to her carriage, and they had a conversation which took place at her carriage, and not at ours. Q. Were you at Mr. Floyd's again on Friday, the 14th of April? A. Yes sir. CJ. State whether you saw the prisoner, Mrs. Surratt, there? A. Ye3 sir. CJ. Didyou observe anv conversation between her and Mr. Floyd on that day? A. Yes; I saw them talk ing together, but I did not hear them at all; I had oc casion to go to the back part of the house. CJ. Did tne conversation take place in tbe back part of tbe house or in the yard? A. In the yard, sir. Q. Had Mr. Floyd been to town tbat day? A. No sir, he had been to Marlborough, attending court. CJ. What did he bring with liim when he came back? A. Some oyster3 and fish, and that is how he came to drive into tbe back part or the yard. (J. Was any one else in the yard at the time of this convers .tion? A. No sir. Cross-examination by Mr, Aiken.— CJ. How far apart were the two carriages when you went past each other? A. Two cr three jards; I think they talked but a very tew minutes together. CJ. Did Mr. Floyd state what the conversation was? A. No sir. cj. Nor what the conversation on the 14th was about? A. No; hedid not. CJ. Have you been acquainted with Mrs. Surratt for some time? A. Eversinco last summer, I believe. CJ. Whattime did she arrive at Mr. Floyd's on the 14th? A. At about 4 o'clock, I think CJ. Didyou hear anv conversation with her previous to Mr. Floyd's coming home? A. Yes sir; in the parlor. CJ. Did you learn what the conversation was on that day? Question obiected to and waived. CJ. Did Floya make any statement in reference to his business with Mrs. Surratt? A. No sir. CJ. Did Mrs. Sur/att have any business with you on that day? A. No'sir. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt place in your hands any pack age? A. No sir. CJ. During your visit to Mr. Floyd's did you hear any thing about shooting irons? . ,_-*.» ^ Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham objected, and the objection waa sustained by the Court. Testimony of William IP. JeM>- Q. Look at the prisoners and see if you recognize any or all of them? A. Only one of them, sir. Cj Which one? A. Harold. CJ. Statewhenyou firstsawhim? A. Since the25th of last October I have been in Caroline county, Mary land, as commissary agent in the Confederate service: I was in tbe cavalry service, but was wounded on the ath of January, and a ter that was appointed commis sary agent; when I was on my way, in April, to Fau quier county I got down to Port Conway and saw a wag.m on the wharf. Q. When was that? A. On tbe 18th of April. Q. The Monday after the assassination? A. No sir. the Monday week after the murder; there were three of us together; we saw the wagon and rode clown on the wharf, and before we readied the wagon we saw a man get out of it and itseenied to us as if be put bis hand into bis bosom; I don't remember whether we hailed the ferry or not; this one man got out of the wagon and came where we were and sail:— ' What command do you belong to?" Buggies said Moseby's cunimand; then he said, "Where are you going?" I said. "It is a secret; where are you going?'' Q. Did you ask him what command he belonged to? A. He said he belonged to A. P. Hill's Corps. He said his brother was wounded below Petersburg, and asliedit we would take him down to the lines. Harold asked us then to take a drink, but none of us drank, and we declined. I got down and carried out three horses and tied them up, and Harold came and touched me, and said'he wanted to speak to me, and said, 'il suppose you are raising a command to go South:" and then said he would like to go with us. I said that I could go with no man that I didn't know anything about, and then he made this remark:— " We are the assassinators of (he President." I was so shocked that I did not know what to say, and I made no reply. Lieutenant Bujrgles was near by, waterin ; his horse, aud I called to him; he came there, and then Booth cameiip and Harold introduced him; after introducing himself Booth bad a mark upon hi8 hand, I remember, J. W. B.; we went across theriver. Booth riding on Buggies' horse, and be said he wanted to pass under the name of Boyd; we went to a lady's bouse, and I asked her if she could take in a wounded soldier; she at first consented, and then said she could not; we then went up to Mr. G.irrett's, where we left Booth; Harold and the rest of us went on within a lew miles of Bowling Green; the next day Harold re turned towards Garrett's, and that was tbe last I saw ot him till alter he was captured. CJ. D,d I understand you that Booth went alone to Garrett's? A. No sir; Kuggles, Booth, Bainbridge and I rode up to Garrett's and we left Booth there and Ha rold came on with us to Bowling Green and had dinner. Q. Do you know where Harold went to from Bow ling Green ? A. No sir; he left us the next day at two or three o'clock. CJ. Now when you saw him on Wednesday morning he was in custody then? A. Yessir. CJ. Belore hesaid to you "we are the assassinators of the President," had you told him you were in the Con federate service? A. Why ne could see that, because we were in Confederate uniform. Cross-examined by Mr. Stone.— Harold wanted you to aidhimingoingfurther South? A. Yes; butwehadno laciliti< s to aid him. CJ. Did beseem disappointed? A. Yessir. CJ. Was Booth present when you were talking with Harold about their being the assassinators of the Presi dent? A. Not whenheiTSt told me; he and Bainbridge came u p after. Q. Did he seem to be much agitated? A. Yessir. CJ. What did Booth say? A. He said "I didn't in tend telling that." Q. But Harold did tell ? A. Yes, he had told before Booth came up. CJ. Can you recollect whether he said that he had killed the President? A. No; he said, "We are the assassinators ofthe President;'' then a few moments afterwards he said, "Yes, he is the man, J. Wilkes Booth, who killed the President." By Mr. Aiken.— CJ. Have you ever taken the oath of allegiance? A. No, sir; but I am perfectly willing to do so. Testimony Ineut.-Colonel C. J. Congers, By Judge Holt-Q. State to the Court whether you an t o:hers were engaged in the pursuit of the mur derers ot the President. If so, please take up the narrative at the point where you met the Confede rate soldier Jebb, who has given his evidence, and state what occurred afterwards. A. I found him in a room in the hotel in Bowling Green, in bed; I expected to find somebody else; as I went in he began to get out of Ded;Isaid, " Is that you, Jebb?" hesaid, ""ies;" I said, " Get up, I want you;" he got up, and I told him to put on his clothes, and come into the part of the room where I was: I said to him. "Where are the two men who came with you across the river at Port Royal?" there were two men in the room with me; Jebb said tome, "can I see you alone;" I sa.d yes, and Lieuts. Baker and Doherty went out ofthe room. He reached out his band to me and said, "I know who you want, and I can tell you where they are now; they. 58 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. are on the road to Port Boyal, about three miles from here, at the house of Mr. Garrett, and if I show you where they are now you can get them; I said "have you a hor.-e?" he replied he had; I told him I had just come from there, and beseemed lor a moment to be considerably embarrassed; he said bethought we came from Richmond, but if we had passed by Garrett's he could not tell me whether the men were there or not; I told him it did not make auy difference, we could go back and see; he got out his horse and we started; just before we got to the house Jebb, who was riding with me, said "we are near where we go through a gate, let us stop here and look round;" I rode, in the first place, alone, to find the gate, about as far as I under- tood him to say it was, but did not see any opening; there wa i a hedge, or rather a bushy fence that side of the road; I turned round and went back, and told him I did notseemy gate in that direction; we then rode on some three hundred yards further and stopped again; Jebb went with Lieutenant Baker and myself to find the gate; I sent Lieutenant Baker on to the gate while I went back myself lor the cavalry; we returned rapidly, and a guard was stationed round the building: when I went to the house Lieutenant Baker was telling some one to strike alight and come out; I think the door was open when I got there; the first individual I saw whenl got there, wiiose name was said to have been Garrett; I said to him, "Where are the men who stopped at your house?" "Thev have gone." "Gone where?" "Gone to the woods." "Wber- abouts in the woods have they gone?" he then com menced to tell me that they came there without his consent, and that be did not want them to stay: I said, "I don't want any long stories from you, I just want to know where those men have gone?" he com menced to tell me overagain the same thing, and 1 turned to one ofthe men and told him to bring me a lariat, and threatened to hang the man to a locust tree because he did not tell me what he knew; one of his sons then came in and said don't hurt the ola man, he is scared; I will tell you where these men are; I said that is what I want; he said they are in tbe barn, and assoon as I got there I beard somebody walking about on the hav; I stationed men around the b irn, aud Lieutenant Baker said to one of the young Garrctts (there had two ol them ajj- peared by this time) "you must go in the barn and get the armsfrom that man;" I think he made some ob jection to going in, and Baker said, "They know you, and yon must go in;" Baker then said to the men in side that one of the men with whom they had been stopping was coming in to get their arms and tliey must deliver them up: Garrett went in, but came out very soon and said. "This man says, ' you, you have betrayed me,' and threatened to shoot me;" I asked him how he knew the man was going to shoot him; hesaid, " He reached down in the hay and got the re volvers;" I directed Ba.lied,"wedid notcome here to fight, we BimDly come to make you prisoner:" once after that he said, "if you will take your men to yards from the door I will come out and fight; give me a chance for my life;" there was tbe same repiy, and with a singularly theatrical voice, Booth called out, "well, my brave boys, you may prepare a stretcher forme;" I requested one of theGarretts to pile some pine boughs against the barn; he soon came tomeantlRaid."thismansaysil I put any more brush up therehe will put aba 1 through me; "said I. "very well, you need not go there anymore:" After a while Booth said;— "'There is a man here who wants to come out;" Lieutenant Baker said "Very well: let him take his arms and come out;" some talk passed between tiiem in the barn; one of the expres sions I heard Booth use to Harold was, "You coward, will you leave me now? butr/o, go I would not have you stay with me:" further words ensued between them, which I supposed had re:erence to bringing out the arms, wbich was one of the conditions on which Harold was directed to come out; what the words were was not beard; he came to the door and said, "Get me out;" Lieutenant Baker says to bim, "Handout your arms;" the reply was, "I have none;" Baker said, "You carried the carbine; you must hand it out;" Booth replied. "The arms are mine, I have get them;" Baker said, "This man carried the carbine, and must bring it out;" Booth said, "Upon the word and honor of a gentleman the arms are mine: I have got them;" I told Baker to nevermind the arms, but let this man out; Harold put out his hands, and Lieut. Baker took bold of him and brought him out, and passed him to the rear; I then went around the barn, pulled some straw out and twisted a little rope, as big as your finger, and fired it and stuck it back; it seemed to be loose, broken hay, that bad been taken up from the barn floor; it blazed very rapidly, and lit up tbe barn at once: I looked through one ofthe cracks, and just then heard something drop on the floor, which I su pposed to be Booth's crutch. When I first noticed him his back was towards me; he was looking towards the front door; he then came back wit.imlive ieet of the corner of the barn; theonly thing I noticed he had in his hand when he came wsfa a carbine; ho raised the carbine to his breast and looked along the cracks rapidly; he then looked at the fire and from the expression ot his face I am satisfied he looked to see ir he could put it out, but he could not, it was barn;ng too rapidly; I started to go round to the front of the barn again, and when I was about half around I heard the report or' a pistol; I went on around to the door, went in and found Lieutenant Baker look ing at him, and rather holdiDg or raising him up; I said he had shot himself; Baker said he had not; I asked where he was shot: we raised him up and the blood ran out of his wound; I then said " Yes, he has shot himself." Lieutenant Baker replied very earnestly he had not. I said that we must carry him out or this will soon be burning us: we took him up and carried him out on the grass, a little way irom the door beneath a locust tree; I went back into tbe barn to see if the fire could be put out and returned to where he was lying; before this I supposed him to be dead; be had all the appear ances of a dead man, but when I came back his eyes and mouth were moving; I called immediately for water, and put some on his face; he seemed to revive and attempted to speak; I put my ear down to his mouth and heard him say, "Tell my mother I oied for mv country;" I repeated the words to him and said, "Is that what you would say?" he said "Yes;" they carried him to the porch of Garrett's house and laid him on a straw bed or tick; at that time he had re vived considerably, and could talk in a whisper so as to be intelligibly understoud. He could not speak above a whisper; he wanted water; l gave it to him: he wanted to turn on his face; Isaidhe could not lie on his face: he wanted to be turned on his side; we turned him on his side three times, but he could not he with any comfort and asked immediately to be turned back: he asked me to put my hand on his throat and pre^s down, which I did; he said "harder:"' I pressed as hard us I thought neces sary: be made a very strong exertion to cough, but was unable to do so; I supposed he thought there was blood in his throat; I linked him to put out bis tongue, which hedid; Isaid. there is no blood in your throat; he repeated several times, two or three limes at least, "Kill rne, kill me;" I replied, "I do not want to kill you; I want you to get well;" I then took what things he had in his pocket and tied them up in a paper; I had previously sent for a physician, who came there to see him; he was not then quile>dead; he would once, perhaps, in five minute i gasp; his pulse would almost die out, and then there wou'd he a flight motion again; I leit him, with the prisoner Harold, in charge of Lieutenant Baker, saying that if Booth revived again to wait an hour, and if likely to recover to send over to Belle Plain ior a surgeon from one of the gun ships; if not, to get the best conveyance he could and bring him over, dead or alive. CJ. You left bnforo bed ed. A. No; I stayed theresome ten minutes; after that the doctor wuo was there said he was dead. Q. You have seen the dead body since? A. Yes. At this point the knife, belt, cartridge-box. pistols, pocket compass, and carbine, in possession of Booth when he was killed, were produced in Court, aud iden tified by tho witness. Q. Is that what is called a Spencer rifle? A. Yes. It Is a Spencer rifie or carbine. It is a cavalrv weapon. It has tbat mark on the breech of it. Q. Wore these arms loaded? A. Yes, the pistols were loaded when brought into Secretrrv Stanton's office; I unloaded this carbine mysolf: I did not count the num ber ot balls in it: there v.-as one in the barrel and the chamber was full; the chamber was bent; some one had tried to unload it previously, and I was called' to get it out. A spur and file was also exhibited to the witness, and he was ;*sked if he could identity them? Witness.— That file was taken out of Booth's pocket; the spur is like the one he had on, but I could not Identity it as the same spur. Witness then examined and identified the bill of ex change ionnd on the person of Booth. Q. In what State and county did this occur' A I think it is in Caroline county, State of Virginia three TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 59 miles south of Port Royal, on the road to Bowling Green. CJ. Do you recognize the prisoner Harold as the one you took cut of the barn? A. I do. CJ. Whatarticley did you take from Harold, if any.' A. I took a little piece ol a map of the State of Vir ginia, including a part of ChmapjakeBay. CJ. Do you remember whether the map embraced the part of Yir;.rmia where in ey were? A. It did; it covered that portion of Virginia known as the North ern Neck. CJ. Was it a map prepared In pencil? A. No; it was part of an (Id school map that had been originally sixteen inches square (portion ofainpp shown to wit nessj; yes, that is it; that is tae only property found on him. Cross-examined by Mr. Stone.— CJ. Did you find any arms on Haroid? A. Is'o. 1 CJ. You stated that Booth had some conversation in the barn be.ore he came out; did you observe whether in that conversation Harold seemed willing to surren der himself? A. I do not know anything about it, except from the remark I hive stated that Booth made; I did not Lear any part oi tbe conversation. CJ. In that remark Bootn speke harshly to Harold, and called him a coward, did he not? A. Yes. CJ. How long were you at the barn? A. I think I looked as soon as I conveniently could after we got to the barn, and it was about two o clock 1:1 the morning; Booth was shot and carried on the grass about tilteen minutes past three, so that we must have remained there aboutan hour and a quarter. CJ. Was be carried almost immediately on to the grass after he was shot? A. Yes. CJ. Did you hear Booth say anything else In relation to Haroid tuan you have stated? A. No. CJ. Doyou remember hearing him say that Harold was not to blame? A. I have au indistinct recollec tion of something of tbat kind; Iwultellyou as near as lean what it was; he .sa d, "Here is a man who wants to come out," and I think he added, "wuo had nothing to do with it." that is a'inear as lean remem- oer what lie said: after that Harold came out. By Judge Holt.— Q. Had you seen Booth previously, so that you could recognize cue 111 n who waa killed as the same person? A. I thougnt Icould recognize him from his resemolanco to his u:1 jther; I hud oi'usa seen his brother, Kdwin Booth, and was satisfied this was theman, Irom his resemb.ance to him. Testimony ©ff'Ser&'eaht .Boston Corbett. Examined by Judge Holt.— <3T You may state what part you took in tne puisuit, capture and killing of Booth, beginning the narration at tue point wnen you arrived at the house. A. Wneu 1 arrived at the house my superior officer, Lieuienant Dougherty, tola me that Booth was there and directed me to deploy men to the right and left around the building, and see that noone escaped; by this time inquiries had been made at the house and it was ascertained that Booth was not in the house, but in tne bam; tne greater part ot tne guard were then withdrawn irom the house and placed around the barn andordersweregiventoallow noone to escape; we hail been previously cautioned tu see that Our arms were in readiness ior use; a. ter being ordered to surrender and told that tbe barn would bo ined if they did not, we remained there lor some minuter; Booth inquired who we took him ior; he said his k'g was broken, aud what did we want with him; he was told that it made no difference who we were: that we knew who they were, and that they must surrender themselves as prisoners; he wanted to know wnere they would be taken to if they gave ihemseives up; no reply was given; the parley lasted much longer than the time first stated, probably, lshould think, fully half an hour, more or less' in the course 01' that time many words passed, and Bjoi-u p. isitively de-jlared he would not surrender; at one time he said, "Well, my bovs.youmay get u stretcher for mt;" at another time he'said, " Wed, Captain, make quick work; shoot me through the heart," or words to that effect, so tbat I knew haiion between Booth and Harold in the ba.n tbat Buoth was anxious to surren der? A. I rather thought so. CJ. But thatai ter Booth refused to surrender, Harold seemed to speak us if he desired to stay with him? A. Yes. CJ. And it was after that that Booth made his decla ration ? A. Yes: he declared before his Maker that the man with him was innocent of any crime: I also wish to stale, with permission of tbe Court, as improper motives have bet-n attributed to me, that I ofiered twice to Lieutenant-Colonel Conger and Lieutenant Baker to go into tbe barn and take these men, 1 el ing them that I had rather go in tl.an stand there before the crack exposed to his fire; I tuought it was le&s dangerous^, for while I cjuld not see them they could see us; Idia not fire the ball jroui tear, but because I was under the impression at the time thai he had started to the door to fight his way through and that 1 thought he would do harm to our men if 1 did not. 'Testimony of John Fletcher. Examined by Judge Holt.— CJ. State your business? A. 1 am the ioreman of the Naylor's livery stable. Q. Do you know the prisoner Atzeroth? A. Yes. Q. State whether or not you seen him abouttbe third of April last? A. Yes; he came to tbe stable at that time, between six and seven o'clock, with another gentleman and two horses; they said they wanted to pat up their horses there; 1 ordered their ho»ses down into the stablp; the other gentle man who was with Atzeroth, told me he was going to Philadelphia, and that he would leave these horses in Alzeroth's care to sell; I have never seen that man since we kept the horses at the stable, and sold one of them to a Mr. Thompson, a stage con tract or. We kept the brown horse at the stable until the 12th ofthe month, when Atzeroth look him away I didn't see him a^ain until one o'clock on the 14th o* April; he came in then with a dark bay mare; If asked him what he had done with the roan horse; he said he sold him m Montgomery county, and that he had bought thismare, saddle and bridle; he wished me to pet the mure, which I did. CJ. Slate the character of the horse he said he had snld; was one eye b inrl? A Yes; he was a very heavy common work hor^e, blind in owe eye; a dark brown horse; heavy tail and mane; very heavy feet; I went to supper at 63 o'clock on the nth, and when I came back, the colored boys had the mare saddled and bri dled; he paid the colored boy fifty cents for the keeping: and said "Was tuat right?" I said "Yes;" he asked how much I would charge it he stayed till morn ing; I said fifty cents more; hewentoutand stayed three-quarters of an hour, and returned with tbesame mare; he told me not to take the saddle and bridle off the mare, and asked if Icould keep the stable open Jor him till ten o'clock; I told him yes, I should be there myself; at ten o'clock hecameatter the mare; he asked me ifl would have a drink with him; I told him I had no objection: we went down to the Union Hotel, corner of Thirteen -an d-a-h all' street and E street, and took a drink; we returned to the stable, and hesaid tome, "If this thing happens to-night you will hear of a present." It seemed to me he was about half tight, and I paid no attention to him; he mounted the mare; I remarked that I would not like to ride that mare, that she looked too skittish like; he said she is good upon a retreat; I spoKe to him ofthe other man, meaning Ha rold staying out very late with the other horse; ob! be says'he will be back after awhile; I watched him until he went down E st., past Thirteen-and-a-half St., and I fol lowed him down until I saw him go into tbe Kirkwood House- I watched him until he came out, mounted the mare again, went along D street, and turned up Tenth. when I returned to the stable again; I did not go to the 60 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. office; I was rhinlcng about his living so far off. and of the horse Harold had; I had suspicions that he was nit going to bring the horse back; 1 went across E,street a^ain. and went up Fourteenth street and came on Pennsylvania avenue again, towards Willard's; I saw Harold r. din? the horse; I hailed him: the horse wastroing towaid; the stable; I started towards him to taketho horse irom him; Isuspectthat he saw me by the gaslight and knew m3. for he began t > move the horse away a little; I said "You get off that horse now, you have had tbat horse lon^ enough;" he put spurs into the horse and went up Fourteenrh s"reef; I kept sight of him unt.l he had gone up Fourteenth street as far as F street; I ihen returned to the stab.e and sad'Hed a horse for myself; I went along the avenue, pnssed down E street, and turned down Ninth to Pennsylvania avenue again; I went along the avenue, and past the south side ofthe Capitol; I met a gentleman coming down, and asked him did hesee anyman riding on horseback; he told meyes, he saw two: tbat they were going very last; I followed on till I came to the Navy Yard Bridee: tbe guard there halted me and called for the Sergeant of the guard: I asked him if th s man had passed, giving a description ofthe man, horse, saddle, and brid p; be said yes, he had gone across the bridge, that he waited a little for an acquaintance, but after a while went on; that another one came up riding a bay horse: I asked him if tbe first one gave his name, he said yes. Smith; I asked the Sergeant if I cou.d cross the bridge; he said yes, but I could not pet back; I said I would not go over so, and I turned round and came back to the city again ; I looked at my watch when I had got back to Third street, and it was ten minutes past 12; J rode rapidly down lo the bridge, but slowly back; when I got to the stable the ioreman told me the President was shot; I put up the horse and sat duwn outside the office; it was then l o'clock; I heard people passing on the sidewalk saytliat it was a man who rode off on horseback that shot President Lincoln ; I went across E street to Fourteenth, and asked a ser geant if they picked up any horse; he told me he had picked up some horse, and that I could go do.vn to tae police station on.Tenth street: I went there and saw a detective by the name of Charley S-one, who told me thatsome horse had been taken up and taken to General Augur's Head-quarters; wewentalong together up to General Augur's office; I gave General Augur Harold's description and age as far as I could; I told him I had pursued Harold to the Navy Yard bridge: a saddle and bridle were lying quite close to his desk, which I re cognized as the saddle and brirt'e Atzeroth had on the horse he said he had sold; he esked me what kind of a horse he had; I described him as a big brown horse, bliud in one eye; I did not remember the man's name then; Iliad his name in the office; he. sent the detective, Charley Stone, down to tbe office, who brought up the name and gave it to the General. A saddle and bridle were here brought into Court, which were identified by tbe witness as those he recog nized at General Augur's office. CJ. Did he call at 10 o'clock precisely? A. Yes. CJ. Did he speak about anytliing wonderful that night? A. He said if this thing happened I wouldbear of a pre"ont. CJ. llad he been talking to you of anything before? A. No; but he seemed to be very much excited. CJ. When you leit the city was he going up Tenth street towards Ford's Theatre? A. Yes. CJ. You spoke of Harold's having a horse from your stables? A. Yes; he hired him on the 14th, about a quarter to ten o'clock, and said he would be alter him at four o'clock; he came alter the hor.>e;'.t a quarter past four o'clock; be askpd me how much I would charge for the hire of the horse; I told him £5; he wanted him for §4: 1 told him he could not have it lor that; he kn?w this horoe and inquired fur this particu lar one; I told him he might take a mare in the stable, but hesaid he would not take her; he wanted to see the saddle and bridle; I showed him thesaddle: hesaid it was too small; I gave him another saddle; that did not suit him; they were not the kind of stirrups he wanted; they were covered with leather; he wanted Enghsb steel stirrups; he wanted to see ( he bridles, and I took him into the office and he picked out a djuble-remed br.dle: be. orehe mounted the horse he.askel me how late he could stay out; I told him he could notstay later than 8 or 9 o'clock at the furthest. CJ. A t what hour did you see Harold riding that n:ght? A. About half past ten o'clock: he was crossing down from towards the Treasury on the Avenue; I met him aloug by Willard's, as he was passing Fourteenth street: when I spoke to him he rode oil" rapidly. CJ. Did he have a fast horse? A. Not very fast; he was a ladies' horse; any one could ride him; he was gentle and sure. CJ. Did be trot or pace? A. He had a single rack. CJ. Did he make any reply when you called him? A. Not tbe slightest. CJ, You had not then heard of the President's assassi nation? A. Not a word. CJ. Have you seen the horse Harold rode since that time? A, I have not, CJ. Did you see a saddle and bridle at General Augur's on the night of the 14th? A. Yes, at two o'clock that night I did. CJ. Have vou s^en ti\i* one-eyed horse since? A. No. Cross-examined by Mr. Stone.-CJ. At the time Harold i ii. d io jew you down in price wa« it when ne called at one or four o'clock? A. When he engaged the horse at one o'clock. .„.,, ,, ,-^ *-u cj. Vvben you saw him again at Willard s did the horse seem to be tired? A. Not very; he seemed to kind to want to come to the stable. (J. How near were you to him when you first saw him? A. Net filteen yards; he was letting the horse go slow, then, as If to bring him upstanding. CJ. Did you call him by name? A. I did not; it was then about iwenty-nve minutes past ten o'clock. CJ. Are you satisfied it was the same man now m the box? (pointing to Harold.) A. Yes, very well satis- Q.' Were you acquainted with bim before? A. The way I got acquainted with Harold was his coming to the stable, about the 5th orti.hof April, and inquiring lor Atzeroth; hedidnotgive his name, but inquired or the gentleman who kept his horse in a particular stable; 1 saw him nearly every day until the J2th, coming there for Atzeroth, and sometimes riding with him. , CJ. Did you notice the horse or man particularly, or both? A. I noticed the horse and man both. CJ. What time in the evening of the 14th of April was it that Atzeroth came io your si able? A. He le.t there at 7 o'clock and came back at quarter to 8 o'clock ; the last time he came there was at 10 o'clock: we went to the hotel, as I said, and took a drink, and it must have been ten minutes be/ore he le.t: the Union House is about lOu yards distant frum the stable, as far as 1 could judge. Q. You took a drink with Atzeroth; did he seem as though he had taken a goed many more? A. Yes. - CJ. What didyou understand by the remark he made, you would hear of a present? A. I did not pay much attention to that remark. CJ. What made you follow Atzeroth that night? A. On account of his acquaintance with Harold, who had rode away one of my horses. Q. Did you suppose Atzeroth was going where Harold was? A. I supposed he livpd so far away that he was not going home; I knew that he lived down at T. B.. in Maryland; I followed him for the purpose of finding Harold. Q. Were you called on to identify a horse at General Augur's stable? A. No. CJ. What did Harold tell you when he engaged the horse on the 14th? A. He told me he wanted to go riding with a lady; I did not ask him with whom.; and be did not tell me. Q. How long was Atzeroth in the Kirkwood House on the niifhtof the Hth before you saw him come out? A. Hedid not stop there more than five minutes; I was watching tuo horse outside. CJ. If you Jollowed him on foot, how did you manage to keep up with him ? A. He started away from the stable rapidly, but t^oon after rode slowlyand I could keep up with him; I reached the Kirkwood House just alter he dismounted irom the mare: the Kirkwood House is distant irom the stab, e about two souares. CJ. Did you keep up with Atzeroth alterwards? A. No, I kept in sight o( him; he rode away in a walk. CJ. How iar did you ioiIow him ? A. I just kept In sight until lie turned into Tenth street, and I never saw him again until to-day. The witness, by direction ofthe court, was sent to the stable for the pu-pose ot identifying the blind horse relerred to in his testimony. Testimony of .Foil a i GreenawaU. Q. State whether or not you are the keeper ofthe Penney, vania House in this city? A. I am. CJ. Are you acquainted with the prisoner, Atzeroth? A. I am. CJ. Were you not acquainted with J. Wilkes Booth? A. I was not well acquainted with him; he came to the house. (A photograph was exhibited to thewit- ness which he recognized as that ot Booth.) CJ. [State whether or not the man Booth had frequent interviews with Atzeroth at the Pennsylvania House? A. He had; Atzeroth would generally sit in the sitting room, and Boo;h would walk into the hall and then out again, Jollowed by Atzeroth; Booth seldom entered the room; they had interviews in front ot my house, and they would o ten walk off as far as the livery sta ble, where their conversation would take place. Q. Did you at any time hear the prisoner A*zeroth speak of expecting to have plenty ol gold soon? If so, state what you beard. A He and some other young men whom be me; came into my house. He bad b.^en drinking, and said, "Greonawalt, I am prettv near broke, though I have lriends enough to give' me an much money as will keep me all my life. I am going away one of these days, but X will return with as much go d as will keep me all my lifetime." ,J^\v{hen was u btt made tnat declaration? A. I think it was about fbc fir;t ef April. He came to lily heuse, 1 think, on the istu ol" March last. Cj. State how Ion-? before tho assassination he left your house. A. I think it was on the previous Wed- n -sdav morning. CJ. Had he any baggage with him? A. No sir. CJ. State when you next saw him? A. I next saw TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Gl him on Saturday morning, the 15th of April, between two and three o'clock. CJ. Did he come into your house, and ask for a room at that hour? A. I had just come into thehouse, and gone to my room, when a servant came to get change for a five dollar bill, and told me there was a man by the name of Atzeroth downstairs who wanted lodging; I went down , and found Atzeroth and another man there. CJ. Did the two men take a room together? A. Yes sir; Atzeroth asked for bis old room: I told him it was occupied, and that he would have to room with the other gentleman, whom I requested to go to his room with the servant: Atzeroth was going to follow bim, and I said "Atzeroth, you have not registered;" hesaid, "Do you want my name?" and appeared to hesitate; be finally went back and registered his name. CJ. Will you describe the appearance ofthe man who was with him? A. He was a man about five feet seven and a half or eight inches in height, and about one hundred and ninety pounds weight; of a dark, weather-beaten complexion, and dressed poorly, his pants being worn through. CJ. Had he the appearance of a laboring man? A. Yes sir. CJ. Could you express an opinion as to whether the clothing worn by him were such as he probably ordi narily wore, or were assumed by him as a disguise? A. I guess they were more of a disguise; he had on a broadcloth coat which had been much worn; his whole appearance was shabby. CJ. What name did he give? A. I believe it was Sam Thomas. CJ. What became of him? A. He got up, I believe, about five o'clock the next morning, and left the house; a lady stopping at the house desired to leave in the C15 train, and 1 gave orders to a servant to that effect; she leit before I got up, and as she was going out ofthe door this man Thomas went out and asked the way to the railroad; he had no baggage. CJ. Did Atzeroth remain? A. He left shortly after wards, making towards Sixth street westwardly. CJ. How long alterwards? A. When the servant was returning be met Atzeroth ana saidto him, " atzeroth, what brings you out so early In the morning?" "Well," said he, "I have business." CJ. Had he paid his bill? A. No sir; I did not see him again. CJ. Do you recognize him among these prisoners? A. I do. CJ. Did you observe any thing unusual in the conduct of these men when they first came? A. Nosir;theman Thomas stared at me somewhat; he kept a close eye upon me. CJ. Did they have any conversation in your presence? A. No sir. . m, CJ. Which of them asked for a room? A. Thomas asked for a room for himself; as I came in Atzeroth was lying on a settee and Thomas standing at the counter. . . ,-r • CJ. Do you know the prisoner O'Laughlin? A. No sir. CJ. Did Thomas make any remark to you? A. All he said to me was that be was a poor writer. Q. Were either of the parties armed? A. I did not notice; I heard It said that Atzeroth had a knile. CJ. Had Atzeroth on any previous occasion hesitated to enter his name on the register ? A. No, sir. CJ. Did you ever see him armed? A. In March, l think, it must have been, I saw him have a revolver, which lie had just bought; he came in there and made the remark that he bad just bought it; I told him I wished I had known that he was going to buy such an article, as I had a small oue which I would have sold to him. . ^ CJ. Do you think you would recognize the revolver which was iu his possession? A. I think I would. A revol ver was then exhibited to the witness which he described as being somewhat similar to the one shown him by Atzeroth, though be could not say that it was the same one. _, L , , Cross-examined by Mr. Dosler:— CJ. State on what day belore tbe 14th of April Atzeroth left your house? A. It was on the 12th I think. CJ. How long did he stay at your house on that occa sion? A. From the 18th of March until the 12th of April; during that time he was away but once, when be stayed out one night; he told me he had goue to the country with a man by the name of Bailey. CJ. What were the arms wbich you have stated that you saw in the possession of Atzeroth? A. A large re volver, something similar to that one; other persons say that he had a knife, but I never saw him with one. in reply to several other questions the witness stated that he did not remember having made or hav ing heard any remark preliminary to that ot Atzeroth with respect to his expectation of having gold or silver enough to keep him all his life; the man Thomas, who came to the hotel on the morning of the lSthwitn Atzeroth.did not seem to be intimate with the prisoner, though he judged them to be acquaintances; Atzeroth did not refuse to tut his name on the register, nor did he say that be would not like to do it; he did not seem 8 The^wftneaaTavin? been asked if he could identify tbe man Thomas irom among the prisoners at the bar, pointed out the prisoner Spangler, as having some resemblance to that person. Thomas, however, had a moustache which the prisoner had not, and his hair was longer and his complexion darker. The witness stated that he did not seo Atzeroth and his companion enter the house, and therefore could not tell whether they entered together. Cross-examined by Mr. Ewing.— CJ. What Induced you to suppose that they came in together? A. My servant told me so. Q. What kind of a moustache had the man whom you say the prisoner resembles? A. It was black; he bad whiskers in front, and wore a dark, slouch bat. By Judge Advocate.— CJ. I understand you to say you are certain that you did not see tbe prisoner, O'Laughlin. at your house? A. I did not; I do not know the man. CJ. Did the hair or moustache of the man Thomas appear io be dyed? A. No sir. Cj. Did not Atzeroth object to this stranger coming into his room? A. No sir. Q. Hesimply assented to it when you told him there was no other room? A. Yes sir; I told him he would have to go with the man Thomas By the Court.— CJ. Do you know whether they got up at the same time in the morning? A. I do not. Q. Did they occupy the same bed? A. No sir. CJ. What day did. Atzeroth leave your house before themurdei? A. On Wednesday, I think it was; he said to me then, "Greenawalt, I owe you a couple ot days' board; would it make any difference to you whether I pay you now or when I come back;" he added that it would be more convenient for him to pay when he came back; he allowed he was going to Mont gomery county. CJ. Do you know the prisoner with the black mou stache (O'Laughlin)? A, Idonot. CJ. Doyou recognize the lace of the man Thomas among those of the prisoners at the bar? A. I cannot positively. Testimony of John F. Coyle. Q. Are you one ofthe proprietors of the National In telligencer? A. Yessir. CJ. State to the Court whether you were acquainted with J. Wilkes Booth during his life time? A. I knew him. CJ. Did you know him intimately? A. Not at all. CJ. J. Wilkes Booth, before he died, made this state ment; that on tne night beiore the assassination ol the President, he wrote a long article and left it with one of the editors of the National Intelligencer, in which he tully set forth his reasons for his crime; will you state whether such a paper wasreceived? A. I never heard of anv such paper. CJ. Are you quite certain that no such paper was ever received at the othce? A. Not that I ever heard of. Testimony of llezeKaan Metts. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Where do you reside? A. In Montgomery county, Maryland. CJ. btate whether you ever met the prisoner, Atze roth. and if so, where and under what circumstances? A. I recognize the prisoner at the bar; on the Sunday alter the death ot Mr. Lincoln he was at my house and ate his dinner there; he was just from Washington and was inquiring about the news; some conversation took place about General Grant having been shot aud we understood that he had been shot in the cars; he then said that "if the man that was to have followed him, had followed him, it would have been done;" I so understood him. . Q. Did bespeak of theassassination ofthe President? A. Not tiiat I recollect; I have no recollection of any thing further, r ^ ,, . . A (j. How lar is your residence from Washington? A. About twenty-two miles. Q. Did he represent himself as having come from Washington? A. Yessir. , y. Did he speak at all of the assassination which had iust occurred here? A. I don't recollect; the con versation turned on General Grant. Q Did you make any inquiry after he made that statement? A. No, not at the time; we talked about the matter after he leit. „*„„„ CJ. Did his manner seem excited? A. I could notsay thatitwas. , , „ . __ .., „„+ CJ. Where did he say he was going? A. He did not 8acj! By what name did he call himself? A. He passed in the neighborhood under the name of Andrew At- WCross-examined by Mr. Doster.-Q. What is your bQinHoSw mn-hadTou known Atzeroth before the vS't you have spoken oi? A. I think it is between two and three years since I first got acquainted with him in that neighborhood; I merely knew him by sight; I do not recollect that I ever saw him but once belore the Sunday he came there. O You say he went by the name of Andrew Atwood around that vicinity? A. Yessir, that is the name I kQe\twbat time ofthe day did Atzeroth arrive, and how Ions did he stay? A. He came, I suppose, between 62 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 10 and 11 o'clock ; I suppose he stayed some two or three hours. CJ. Did he recognize you as an old acquaintance? A. He knew me. CJ. Did you speak about the murder? A. I do not re collect saying anything about the assassination. Q. Was anybody else present and talking with you when be made the remark about somebody following General Grant? A. Yes, sir, there were a couple of young men; we were all in the room together; I was about three yardsfrom Atzeroth when he made the re mark. CJ. Was not this the answer— "that a man must have followed General Grant to kill him?" A. No, sir. it was not spoken in that way; it was, that if the man who was to have iollowed him had done so. General Grant would have been k ill ed. In reply to a Question by the Court the witness stated that the youngmen present at the time of the prison er's remark, given above, were brothers by the name of Lemmon, who resided in the neighborhood. Testimony of Sergeant GK W. Gemniell. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Do you recognize the prisoner Atzeroth as a man whom you ever saw before ? A. Yes sir. The witness then detailed the circumstances attend ing the prisoner's arrest, which occurred on tbe 19th; at the time of his arrest he denied that bis name was Atwood, and gave another. CJ. Did the prisoner ask why you arrested hjm ? A. No sir. CJ. He made no inquiry? A. No sir; I asked him just before he leit Germantown, whether he hadlett Washington recently; he told me he had not: then I asked him whether he had not something to do with the murder and he said he had not. CJ. Did he persist in denying his name? A. Hesaid that he had not given a fictitious name. Q. At what time did you ask tbe question as to whether he was connected with the assassination? A. It was between seven and eight o'clock, as I was going to leave Germantown. CJ. You arrested him about four o'clock, and up to seven or eight o'clock he made no inquiry as to the cause of his arrest? A. No sir. During the cross-examination the witness statedtbat he proceeded in guest of Atzeroth, iu pursuance of orders from Captain Townsend. to find a man by the name of Atwood; witness could not -state positively that the name just given by the prisoner was not Atze- rolh; was certain that the prisoner stated that he had not come from Washington. Re-examination of John Fletcher. By the Judge Advocate— CJ. Since leaving here have you visited tbe stable at the corner ot seventeenth and I streets, and examined the horse in regard .. to which you testified? A. Yessir. CJ. Where did you find the animal? A, I found him in the middle of the; Head-quarters stable, Seven teenth and I streets, in the first stall. CJ. Didyou examine him and recognize him as the horse spoken of in your testimony as having been taken from your stable by Atzeroth? A. Yessir; he was blind in tbe right eye. Testimony of Thomas Ii. Gardiner. By the Judge-Advocate.— CJ, Have you or not any knowledge ot a dark bay, one-eyed horse, now in Ge neral Augur's stables, at Seventeenth and I streets, Washington? A. Yessir. Q. When did you last see the animal? A. I saw him on the 8th of this month. CJ. Have you any knowledge of the horse having been sold by your father, and if so, to whom? A. He was sold by my uncle, George Gardner, to a man by the name of Booth. CJ. When? A. Sometime in the latter part of Novem ber last, I think. Q. Do you mean J. Wilkes Booth? A. I do not know tbe first name. CJ. How near is your uncle's residence to that of Dr. Mudd? A. Not over a quarter of a mile away. CJ. Do you know whether Booth purchased the ani mal on the recommendation of the prisoner, Dr Mudd? A, I do not. Q Did he come here alone or with others? A. He came there with the prisoner, Dr. Samuel Mudd. CJ. Describe the horse. A. He is a dark bay horse. and is blind in the right eye. By the Court.— Q. Were you at your uncle's when Booth and Mudd came to buy the horse? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did they come in a carriage or on horseback? A. I think they were on horseback. CJ. Did they both leave together? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did Dr. Mudd take any part in the purchase or evince any interest in the matter? A. Not that I am aware of. Cross-examined by Mr. Stone.— CJ. Where did Booth take the horse? A. At his request I took the horse, next morning, to Montgomery's stable in Bryantown. Q. Did Booth say what kind of a horse he wanted? A. He said something about wanting a horse for a buggy, with which to travel over the lower part of Maryland to look at the land. My uncle told him he would sell bim a young mare, and Booth euid that a mare would not suit him. He then showed bim a horse, and Booth said finally that that horse would suit him. Hcsaidheonlvwantedahorse ior one year. CJ. On whatday ofthe week was this? A. I think it was on Monday. CJ. Did you see Booth at church on the previous day* A. No sir. By the Court.— CJ. Was Booth in the habit of staying at Dr. Mudd's when hewa^in the neighborhood? A. I do not know that he was ever in the neighborhood be fore; it was the first and the last time that I ever saw Booth. By Mr. Stone.— Q. Did vou ever hear of his being m the neighborhood? A.I think I did- bear of his being in the neighborhood of Bryantown before that, but never since. Testimony of I-ientennnf John J. Toffey. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Have you any knowledge of a dark baj* horse, blind of one eye, now at C-J-eneral Au- , gur's stables in this city, corner of Seventeentli and I streets? In reply, witness stated that on the night of the 14th of April, about hall-pa t \i o'clock he was going to the hospital where be was stationed, when he saw a horse standing near Camp Barry, about three quarters of amileeastof the Capitol. He took charge ofthe animal, and in compliance with orders finally delivered it to other hands, at General Augur's head-quarters, having taken his saddle off the horse. The horse was a large brown animal, blind of one eye. A. saddle was exhibited to the witness which be identified as the one taken off the horse by himself. He further testified that when he first saw the horse it was a little lame. The Court then adjourned to meet to-morrow morn ing at 10 o'clock. Washington, May 18.— The Court, after the evi dence taken on Wednesday had been read, proceeded to the examination of witnesses. Testimony of A. R. Reeve. By the Judge Advocate.— CJ. State where you reside, A. At Brooklyn, New York. CJ. In what business were you engaged in March last? A. In the telegraph business. CJ. Look at this despatch, and state what you know in regard to it. A. It was handed to me at the St. Ni cholas Hotel by J. Wilkes Booth, to be sent to Wash ington. Q. Will you read it? The witness read as follows:— " New York, March 23, 1865.— To Weischmau, Esq.. No. 541 H street, Washington, D. C— Tell John to telegraph the number and street at once. J. Booth." CJ. That was J. Wilkes Booth? A. It was. CJ. Was it sent on the day of its date? A. It wassen ou the 23d or March to this city. Cross-examined by Mr. Aiken.— CJ. How do vou iden tify that telegram? A. I remember that he signed the name of "J. Booth," instead of J. Wilkes Booth, which was his full name. CJ. Were any remarks made to you by the man who gave you that despatch at the time of his giving It to you? A. No sir; I was busy at the time, but in send ing it I noticed that the middle name was left out. Q. Are you in the habit of keeping all despatches sent? A. Yessir. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Is this the original despatch? A. Yes sir. By Mr. Aiken.— a What sort of a looking person gave you that despatch? A. If I saw his likeness I could tell. Re-Examination of JLewis Weiscliman. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Look at that telegram and state whether you received it on the day of its date. A. I cannot say that I received it on tbe 23d of March, but I received a telegram ofthe exact nature of this one. CJ. Who is the person referred to there as John? A* John Surratt was frequently called John. CJ. Did you not deliver the message to him? A. I de livered the message to him tbe same day. CJ. What did he say? A. I questioned him as to what was meant by the number and street; he replied to ma Don't be so inquisitive. Q. See whether this is the telegram you delivered ? A. It is. The witness, by request ofthe Judge Advocate, then read the telegram, which was a copy of the one given above. ° CJ. Did you know the handwriting of Booth ? A. I TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 63 have seen his handwriting, and could recognize his autograph. The witness was here shown the original telegram, purporting to have been written by Booth, and said, tbat Is his handwriting. Q. Stale whether, on or about the 4th of March last, you had an interview in your room with John Wilkes Booth, John Surratt and Payne, the prisoner at the bar? A. I will state that as near as I can recollect It was alter the 4th of March, and the second time that Pnyne ^visited the house; when I returned from my office one day at half-past four o'clock and went to my room, I rangthebeilfor Dan, the negro servant, and in reply to an inquiry which I addressed to him he toldmetuat John had ridden out at about ball-past two o'clock in the afternoon, with six others, on horseback; ongoing down stairs I found Mrs. Surratt weeping bitterly and asked her what was the mat'er: she said to me. "go down and make the best of your dinner, John has gonet away;" about half-past six o'clock John surratt camehomeand was very much intoxicated; in fact he rushed frantically into the room; he had one of Sharp's small six-barrel revolvers in his hand; I said "John, why are you so muchexcitea?" hereplied, "I will shoot any man who comes into this room; my hopes are gone and my prospects blighted; I wantsomeining to do; can you get me a clerkship?" The prisoner, Payne, came into the room, and about fifteen minutes after wards Booth came into the.room, and was so much ex cited that he walked frantically around the roum se veral times without noticing me; he had a whip in bis band; the three then went up stairs into the second story.and they must haveremained there together about twenty minutes; subsequently I asked Surratt where he had left Payne; he said Payne had gone to Balti more; I asked iiim where Booth had gone; he said to New York; some two weeks afterwards Surralt, when passing the post office, inquired for a letter under the name of James Sturdy, and I asked him why a letter was-sent to him under aialsename; he said he had particular reasons for it; this must have been two weeks alter this affair, befnre the 20t'j ot'March; the letter was signed Wood, and the writer stated that he was at the Be vere House in New York; that be was looking for something to do, but would probably go to some boarding-bouse in Grand street; I think: West Grand street; this was the whole substance of the CJ. Are you familiar with Booth's handwriting or simply with his auto-.Taph? A. Ihavese'en his auto graph at the hotel and have also seen his autograph at the house. Q. Here is a note signed R. E. Watson— will ynu look at it and see whether that is Booth's handwrit ing? A. No sir, I would not recognize that as Booth's handwriting. Q. Was there any remark made in their excited conversation on tbe occasion of which you have spoken as to where they had all been riding? A. No sir, they were very guarded; Payne made no remark at all; the only remarks made were those excited re marks by Surratt. CJ. Surratt had been riding, you say. and Booth had a whip in his hand? A. Yessir. CJ. He appeared to have been with them also? A. Yessir, be was much excited. Cross-examined bv Mr. Aiken.— Q. What time in the davdidyou meet Mr. Floyd on his way to Washing ton? A. It must have been about ten o'clock in the morning. CJ. Did you hear any of the conversation that passed between him and Mrs. Surratt at that time? A. No sir; I leaned back in my buggy, and Mrs. Surratt leaned sideways and whispered some words in Mr. Floyd s ear. CJ. Did she afterwards say anything to you as to what the conversation was about? A. No sir; the only conversation that I heard at that time was be tween her and Mrs. Ott; she was talking about Mr. Howell. t. ^ , By Mr. Johnson.— O. Was tbat at the same time? A. No'sir; it was after the conversation between Floyd and herself. CJ. Was it on the same spot? A. No sir. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Do you recollect when it was that Booth played "Pescara," in the Apostate? A. Yes sir; he played it that night; that must have been about the 24th of March. „ . 4. . Q. Was it not the day before or the day after their return from the ride that he played in the "Apostate? A. ThatI cannotsay; it must have been at.erthe4th of March; this man Payne was stopping at the house at the time, and when he came to the house he. made some excuse to Mrs. Surratt, saying he would like to have been there before the4th of March, but could not get there; by that circumstance I recollect that it was after the 4th of March; whether it was befoie or after the day that Booth played "Pescara" I can't say. CJ. Did you go to see that play7 A. Yes sir; Booth sent complimentary tickets, at least gave a pass to Surratt for two, and be asked Surra'.t whether he thought I would go; Surratt said he thought not; when Surratt asked me I did go: the pass was a written one, and the doorkeeper at first refused us admission. Q. State whether the affair of the ride was before or after Booth played in the Apostate? A. To the best of ray recollection it was before. CJ. How long before? A. Well, as near as I can re collect, about two weeks before. CJ. You cannot stale positively whether it was before or a'ter the play In the Apostate? A. I would not like to state positively. By Mr. Eakln— CJ. How did you learn anything with re 'erence to the antecedents of Mrs. Slater? A. Through Mrs. Surratt herself. Q. What did Mrs. Surratt tell you? A. Mrs. Surratt stated io me that she came to the house In company with this man Howe ; thatshewasaNortb Carolinian, I believe; that she spoke French, and that she was a blockade runner or bearer of despatches. CJ. Wuere were you at the time Mrs. Surratt told you this? A, I was in the house, in the kitchen, or at least in the dining-roorn. Q. Are you certain beyond all doubt that Mrs. Sur ratt ever told you that Mrs. Slater was a blockade run ner? A. Yes sir. CJ. Had you before that time ever seen Mrs. Slater at the house of Mrs. Surratt? A. I myself saw heronly once: I learned she had been to the house twice. CJ. Never mind what you learned; you saw her only once? A. Only once. Q. How long was she there ? A. Only one night. Q. Did you have any conversation with her your self? A. She drove us to the door in a buggy, the bell rang, and Mrs. Surratt told me to go out and take her trunk; there was a young man in the buggy with her; that was all the conversation I had with her; she had her mask down, one of those short masks that lad ies' wear. On being interrogated by the Court as to the meaning ot the word mask, the witness said that ne in tended to signify a veil of the ordinary description. Q. Was anv one besides yourself present on the oc casion of this conversation? A. Not tbat I remember. CJ. On what day was that? A. It was sometime in February; I do not remember the precise day. CJ. Didyou hear anything said about Mrs. Slater afterwards? A. No sir. CJ. What was Mrs. Surratt's exact language in giving you this information? A. She said that- this woman was from North Carolina, and that if she got North, there would be no dan Ter tor her, because, being French, she could immediately apply to the French Consul: that was about thd only language I can re member. Bv Mr. Doster.— CJ. When John Surratt returned to thehouse in a state of excitement did lie tell you the occasion of his excitement? A. Nosir; heshowedme his pistol and said that he w ould shoot any man who came into the room; I said, "John, why are you so excited, why don't you settle down like a sensible young man?" He said, "my hopes are gone, my prospects blighted, can you get me a clerkship?1' Those were his precise words: I looked at him and thought he was foolish. CJ. You remarked that Mrs. Surratt was weeping bit terly; did she slate the cause of her grief? A. She merely said go down and make the best you can of your dinner; that John had gone away: John, when he returned, said to me that he had on three pairs of drawers; 1 thought from that he was going to take a long ride. By Mr. Eakin.— CJ. By whom were you called upon first to give your testimony in this case? A. I was called by the War Department. CJ. By what member of the War Department? A. I was called on by Judge Burnett. CJ. Were vou arrested? A. I surrendered myself up on Saturday morning, at eight o'clock, to Superinten dent Richards, of the Metropolitan Police force; I stated to him wnat I knew of these men, Payne, Har old and Booth, visiting Mrs. Surratt's; I stated also what I knew of John Surratt. CJ. What was your object in doing this? A. My ob ject w;'S to assist tbe Government. CJ. Were anv threats ever made to you by any officer of the Government, if you did not give this iniorma- ion? <*.. Not at all. CJ. Were any inducements held out to you by any officer of the Government? A. Not at all; I read ia the papers that morning a description of the assassin of Secretary Seward; he was described as a man who wore a lomr grey coat; I had seen Atzeroth wearing a long grey coa'; I went clown to Tenth street, and met a gentleman, to whom I communicated my suspicions, and then went and delivered myself up to Superintendent Bichards, of the Metropolitan Police force, and told him where this man Payne had been stopping, and also Atzeroth and Harold; I was then sent to General Augur's office ; after leaving that place, I met a man who kept a stable at Thirteenth and B streets, who stated tbat a man had been to his place to hire a horse; he described the man as being of small stature, having black eyebrows and a kind of a smileon his face; he said the name was Harold; I then went with officer McDevitt to Harold's house, and procured photographs of him self ani Booth; officer McDevitt procured a photo graph of Surratt; I related what I knew of Harolds habit of riding through Maryland, and that he had 64 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. many acquaintances there, and that the assassins would probably take their course through Maryland. Q. Did you ever say previous to yoursurrendering yourself and going to the office of Colonel Burnett, that you were fearful of an arrest? A. I myself bad a great deal of fear; being in this house where these peo ple were. I knew that I would be brought into pnblic notice. CJ. I am not asking what you had to fear; but what you said? Judge Bingham— You hadbetterallowhimto answer In his own way. A. As far as concerned my cogni zance of anything wrong, I had no fears at all; when I surrendered myself to theGovernment I surrendered myself because I thought it to be my duty; it was hard for me to do so, situated as I was with respect to Mr3. Surratt and family; but it was my duty, and as such I have since regarded it. CJ. Did you at any time during the year 1863 board at a hotel called the Reynolds House? A. I did sir. Q. Didyou become acquainted there with a gentle man who went bv the name of St. Marienn? A. I will state that in I8f3 I met this St. 'Marienn in Maryland at a village called EPangowan; he was introduced to me by a clergyman and was at that time teach ing school: he spoke French, English and Italian fluently and his manners were very fasci nating; be said then he had come from Mon treal, and that he had been unfortunate in this country.having lost some five or six thousand dollars, the proceeds or a farm lormerly owned by him in Ca nada; he stated also that hecarae to New York, em barked in a vessel to go to South America, and that tbe vessel was captured and he was thrown into Fort McHenry, from wh'ch place he was released through the agency of the French Consul; the witness added that the person to whom he referred, becoming desti tute of means, took a situation on a farm; that he (the witness) subsequently met him, and finally promised to do all he couid for him; two weeks after returning to Washington he was called upon by St. Marienn. Judge Bingham then stated that there was no neces sity lor any further explanation. Q. Did yon pay his board at the Reynolds House, or become responsible fOr it? Judge Bingham— I object to the question as being a matter of no consequence whether the witness did or did not. Q. Did he state to you at any time that there was no aristocracy at theNnrth, and be wished to go South? Judge Bingham— I object to that also, as it is no mat ter whether be did or did not. CJ. Did be state to you that if he could not get to the South in any other way he would join a Federal regi ment and desert? Judge Bingham— I object to that, too, he Is not a witness hrre. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Reynolds reported any of h s"St. Marienn's" treasonable talk or language at that time to the War Department? Judge Bingham— I object to that, too; I would like to know what that is introduced ior. Mr. Eak!n— It is introduced forthepurpose of show ing that the witness on the stand was a sympathizer with the Confederates and Rebels, and that be assisted this man to get away to tbe South. I will have some thing else to prove afterwards. Tne President of the Court— The time for our usual recess has arrived; the Court will now take a recess until two o'clock. A recess was accordingly taken. Upon tbe reassembling of the Court, the question propounded by Mr. Eakin was again put, and Judge Bingham said that be objected to the question on the ground that it was on immaterial matters that were not in evidence, and should not be admitted in this manner. Of what concern was ft what Reynolds re ported. If the gentleman proposed to ask the witness whether he himself wa-j guilty of anv treasonable practices, nobody would object to it. The objection was then sustained, Mr. Eakin— In as much as the Judge Advocate has informed us that he will not object to any questions that may be asked the witness with respect to his own conduct, I will address a few interrogatories to that CJ. Did you give notice to St. Marienn that he would probably be arrested by the Government' A No sir; I had no time to give such notice; St. Marienn rnseone morning early and left; he afterwards enlstedin a Delaware regiment, and was taken pri soner and lodged in Castle Thunder. CJ. Are you a Clerk in the War Department' A I have been. Q. Didyou, while a Clerk In the War Department, agree to communicate to any of the prisoners at the bar any information you might obtain irom that De partment? A. No sir. CJ. Are you acquainted with Mr. Howell ? A. I have met bim at Mrs. Surratt's house. CJ. What was Howell's first name? A. When he was at the house he gave the name of Spencer; he refused to give me his right name at thehouse; I afterwards learned irom John Surratt that his name was Augustus Howell. Q. Were you Intimate with bim? A. I was intro duced to him; I never had any conversation with him; on tbe contrary, I said to Captain Gleason, of the War Department, "Captain, there is a blockade-runner at our house, shall I give him up?" I agitated the ques tion for three days, but I thought it might be the only time that the man might be there, and I let him go. Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Howell inrelution to going South yourself? A. I told him that I would like to go South; that I had been a student of divinity, and would like to be in Richmond forthepur pose ot continuing my studies. Q. Did he offer to make any arrangements in Rich mond with a view to getting you a place there? A. No sir. By Mr. Clampitt— Q. Was it your desire to go to Richmond for the purpose of continuing your theolo gical studies? A. Yes sir. CJ. For what reason? (Objected to.) By Mr. Eakin.— CJ. While you were in the War De partment did this man, Howell, teach you a cipher? A. Yessir; he showed mean alphabet. CJ. What was the purpose ot his teaching you the cipher? A. He stated no particular purpose. Q. Was it not for the purpose ot corresponding with you from Richmond? A. No sir; hemacfe no arrange ment ior corresponding: the cipher alphabet was in my box, and no doubt was found there; I once wrote a poem of Longfellow's in t his cipher, and that is the only use I made of it; I showed the poem wr.tten in ihat cipher to Mr. Cruikshank, of the War Depart ment. CJ. Is that all tbe use you ever made of the cipher? A. Yessir: I never had a word of correspondence with Howell, and never saw him the second time until I saw him in prison. CJ. Was any objections ever made by any of these prisoners at the bar to your being present at'tbeir con versations? A. Not any that I heard, but they always withdrew themselves; when Surratt was in tbe parlor he would converse with me for about five minutes on general topics, and he would then give Booth a nudge, or Booth would give him a nudge, and they would go and sit up stairs for two or three hours; I never had a word of private conversation with them which I would not like fbe world to hear. CJ. Did Howell give you thekev to that cipher? A. He showed me the cipher or alphabet and how to use it. CJ. He taught you it, did he not? A. Imadenouseof it whatever, except on that particular occasion, when I showed it to Mr. Cruikshank. CJ. That was not an answerto my question; he taught you the cipher, did he not? A. Well, yes, sir. Q. Now, according to the best of your recollection, how soon was tbat after his return from Richmond? A. He had returned from. New York, and he did not tell me when he had returned from Richmond, because it was the first and only time I ever saw the man in my life; he was well acquainted with Mrs. Surratt, and his nickname around the house was Spencer; he had been at the house a day or day and a half before I met him. Q. Did he tell you that that was the cipher used in Richmond? A. No sir. CJ. You stated that the pusoners were free and un-- reserved in their conversation while in your presence? A. They spoke in my presence on general topics, and* soon; they neverspoke to meof their private business. CJ. Do we understand you as stating to tbe Court tnat in all your conversat:ons with them you never learned of any intended treasonable act or conspiracy of theirs? A. I never did ; I would have been tbe last man in the world to havesuspected John Surratt. mv schoolmate and companion, of the murder of the President of the United Slates. CJ. You state tbat your suspicions were aroused at one time by something yon saw at Mrs. Surratt's ? A. My suspicions were aroused by John Surratt. and by this man Payne and Booth coming to the house; my suspicions were again aroused by their frequent private conversations, by seeing Payne and Surratt with bowie-knives, and by finding a moustache in my room. Q. Yoursuspicions were not aroused, then, by the, fact ot Surratt having on three pair of drawers ? A. I thought he was going to take a long ride in the coun try, and perhaps be wan going South. CJ. Then, as your suspicions were aroused on all these diuerent occasions, and you had reason lo believe that there was something in the wind tu&t was improper, did you communicate your suspicions to theWarDe- partment? A. My suspicious were notof n fixed or de finite character; I did not know wha'tthey intendoato'; do: I made a confidante of Captain Gleason, of tbe War- Department, and told him that Booth was a secret? . sympathizer; I mentioned snatches of conversation X had heard, and said to him, "Captain, what do you think of this all?'' we even talked over what they, might possibly beat; whether they could be bearers of1 despatches or blockade-runners: at onetime I saw in the papers the capture of President Lincoln freely dis- ' cussed, ana I said to him, 'Captain, do you think any party would attempt to capture the President?" He laughed and hooted at the idea. a QV J&" d!d^ tben,' r e-r oi" a Proposition of that kind? A. I did not hear, but it was freely discussed in the papers; ii you will refer to the Tribune of March 19th TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 65 you will see it mentioned; it was merely a casual re mark that I made; there suspicions arose in my mind after this horseback ride : I remarked to Captain Glea son that Surratt had eomeback.aDd told him that what they had been after had failed. CJ. How came you to connect the matter ofthe cap ture of the President, of which you read In the news paper, with any of theso parties? The question wasobjec edto by Judge Bingham as being wholly immaterial or irrelevant. The objection waa sustained. CJ.- Were you on intimate personal relations with the prisoners at tho bar? A. Not Intimate ro atlons; I met them merely because they boarded at Mrs. Surratt's house; I met Atzeroth and went to tho theatre with him; I looked u ion him, as did everyone in the house, as a good-hearted countryman. Q. But you were a schoolmate with John Surratt? A. John had been my companion for seven years. CJ. Did ycu still profess to be a friend of his when you gave the in'ormat on that you did to the War Depart ment? A. I was his friend, but when my suspicions as to the danger of the Government were aroused. I pre ferred the Government to John Surratt: I did not know what he was contemplating; he said he was go ing to engage in cotton speculations and in the oil business. CJ. You did not know what he was contemplating; why then did you forleit your friendship to him? A. I never iorf'eited my friendship; he forfeited his friend ship to me. CJ. How so: by engaging in cotton speculations? A. No sir; by placing me in the position in which I am now; I think ofthe two I was more airiend to him than he was to me. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. You spoke of reading a publica tion in tho Tribune, of March 19tb, referring to a plot to capture the President? A. Ye3 sir. CJ. Can you not, bv connecting that circumstance with the ride which these parties had in the country, fix more definhe'v the time of that ride— whether bo- fore or after the date of'that publication? A. Ithink it was after it; I would also state thatlsaw in the Wash ington Republican a statement concerning a contem plated assassination of President Lincoln, and Surratt ence made a remark to me that if he succeeded in bis cotton speculation his country would lose him forever, and his name would go down to posterity forever green. CJ. You think, then, that this occasion, when they appeared to have come in from a ride in the country, was after March 19th? A. Yes sir. CJ. Was your remark to Captain Gleason, respecting the probable capture of the President.mnde aitrrthe ride? A. Yes sir; I said to Capt. Gleason that Surrott's mysterious, incomprehensible business had failed, and I added, ''Let us think over what it could have been;" we mentioned a variety of things, even the breaking open ofthe Old Capitol Prison: I would men tion that after that ride, my suspicions were not so much aroused as before it, because neither Payne nor Atzeroth had been at the bouse since; the only one of them who visited was the man Booth. CJ. Have you ever seen tbe prisoner, Arnold? A. No sir. CJ. Did you first meet the prisoner. Dr. Samuel Mudd, on Seventh street, opposite the Odd Fellows' Hall? A. I did. The witness further testified that Mrs. Surratt lived in the house on H street, nrxt to lhe corner of Sixth, and that the point on Seventh street at which he met Dr. Mudd, was not on a direct route from the Pennsyl vania House or the National Hotel to Mrs. Surratt's. Re-Exams nation ot John Grfienawalt. By the Judge Advocate.— CJ- In describing the poorly dressed manVlio called at your house with Atzeroth on the morning or the 15th of April, you said that his hair was black, but omitted to state the color of bis beard and moustache; state it now? A. Their color was dark. Testimony of James Walteer (Colored.) Bv the Judge Advocate.— Q. State whether or not on the 14th of April last vou were livine; at the Penn sylvania House in this city and your business there. A- I was living there; I was twelve months there on the 4th of April last; my business was to make hres, carrv water, warded to Chicago: this was one ofthe papers found, , Thepaperreferred to was read by the Judge Advo cate, as Jol'cws:— "Bichmonj>, Febrnarv 11.1 865.— His Excellency Jef ferson Davis, President C. S. A:— When Senator John son, ot Missouri, and myself waited upon you, some davs since, in relation to the project of annoving and Part-as sing the enemy by means oh' burning their ship ping, towns, etc., etc.. there were several remarks made by you upon the subject that. I was not fully prepared to answer, but which, uponsubsequentconforence with parties proposing the enterprise, I find cannot apply as objections to fhe scheme. First, the combustible ma terial consists of several preparations, and not one alone, and can be used without exposing the party u^ingthem to the least dangerof detection whatever. The preparations are not in the hands ot Mr. Daniel, but are in tbe hands of Pro essor McCulloirh, and are known bnttohim andoneotberp^rty.a^Iunderstand. ¦'Second. There is no n°eessity for sen'iinrrpersons in tbemilit ryservice into the enemy's country, but the work may be done by agents, and in most cases by per sons ignorant of the facts, and. therefore, innocent agents. I have seem enough of the effects that can be produced to satis "y me that in mof teases without any dnnuer fo the parties e v-'ayed. and in olhers hut very slight. thaf:— First. We can hrst burn every vessel that loaves a foreign port for the United States. Second. We ran burn evorv transport that leaves the harbor of New York, or other Northern ports, with s pplies for the armies of the enemy in the South. Third". Burn every transport and L'un-boatont'io Mississippi Biver, as well as devas'afe thee?untryof the enemy and fill his people withterror and consternation. "I am not a one ofth is opinion, but many other gen tlemen are as fully and thoroughly impressed with the conviction as lam. I believe we have the means at our command, if promptly appropriated and energeti- ca^y applied to demoralize tho Northern people in a very short time. For the purpose of satisfying your mind upon the subject I respectfully but earnestly re quest that you will have an interview with General Harris, formerly a member of Congress from Missouri, who, I think, is able, by conclusive proof's, to conv'nee you that what I have suggested is perfectly feasible and practicable. "Tne deep interest I feel for the success of our cause in this struggle, and the conviction of the importance of availing ourselves of every element of del. nse, must bemy excuse for writing you p.nd requesting you to invite General Harris to see you. If you should see proper to do so, please signify to me the time when it will be convenient for you to see him. "I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, "W. S. O'LAHM." On tbe back of the letter are two indorsements, the first being '"Hon. W. s.O'Lahm, Richmond, February 12, 1865 In relation to plans and means of burningthe enemy's shipping, &c. Preparations are in the hands of Professor McCnllogh, and are known to only one party. He asks the President to have an interview with Gennral Harris, formerly M. C. from Missouri, on tbestib.iect." The other is "The Secretarv of State, a this convenience, will please see General Harris, and lenrnwhatplan he has for overcoming the difficulty heretofore experienced. J. D. 20th February, 1865. Re ceived February 17, 1865." Testimony of John Potts. Examined by Judge Holt— CJ. State your occupation. A. I am Chief Clerk of the War Department, and have been so for twenty years. CJ Are you perfectly familiar with the hand-writing of Jefferson Davis? A. lam. CJ. Look on the indorsements signed J. D., and see if it is in his hand-writing. A. In my belie! it is. Testimony of Nathan Rice. Examined by Judge Holt.— Q. State ifyou are ac quainted with the handwriting of Jefferson Davis. A. I am; while he was Secretary of War I had to sign requisitions, and of course his handwriting came be fore me every day. Q. Look at tbe letter just read, and see if the indorse ment is, in the handwriting of Jefferson Davis. A. I should think it was. Q. You bad ample opportunity of becoming ao TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 67 quainted with his handwriting? A. Yes; I would generally have from ten to twenty-five signatures be fore me every day, sometimes signed in my presence. Testimony of General Joshua T. Owen. Examined by Judge Holt.— CJ. Doyou know Profes- eor McCullogli? A. I havo known a gentleman who has been designated as Professor McCullogh.Tsuppose, for twenty years; he was Professor of Chemistry at Princeton College and Professor of Mathematics at Jefferson College, in Pennsylvania, where I graduated, about 1839 or 1840: if my recollection serves me right be was an Assayer at the Mint in Philadelphia. Q. Do 3'ou know wbero hehas been duringthe Rebel lion? A. Hehas been in Ricbmondin tbe serviceof the Confederates; I may say his father was one of the Comptrollers in Washington; his name was Hugh: the same name as the present Secretary ofthe Treasury. CJ. Did he have some distinction ns a chemist? ' A. Yes, he was perhaps more distinguisheu as a chemist than any other way. Q.1 Was it in that capacity that he was employed in the Confederate service, as you understand? A. I do not know. General Hunter here remarked, during his expedi tion up the valley he received a letter written by Mc- Cullogh.in which he stated that he had been only a Captain during the whole war, and that he was anxious for promotion. Tbe Judge Advocate-General remarked the letter It self would be desirable to go on record as a part of the history ofthe transaction. General Hnntor said he had given the letter to a brother-in-law, at Princeton, and that he would send for it. TestSraony of JTudgre Abram B. Olsn. Examined by Judge Holt.— CJ. State whether or not on the morning of the 15th of April you visited Ford's Theatre and inspected what is known as thePresi- sident's box? A. I was engaged on the 15th in taking the depositions of several witnesses; on Sunday, the 16th, I visited the theatre. Q. State theexamination which you made and the condition in which yon found the President's box. doors, etc.? A. Tho first incident to which my attention was called was the inc'sion in the wall prepared to receive a brace, the other end ot which was to rest on the j hand of the door; the brace itself was not therp; I refer to the door across the passage leading to tbe box; I it crosses it at an|anglewUh the wall, and a brace fitting ' against the wall and pressing aeainst the door would fasten the door verv securely; I looked for the remains ofthe plastering that bad been cut from thewaHin making the incision, but as far as I could discern, they had all been removed; it was sa'd to me tbat the pistol was discharged through the panel of thedoor; theen- trancc to this passage is somewhat dirk; 1 procured a light and oxamined very carefullvthe hole through thedoor: I discovered at once that that hole had bepn made by some small instruments first, and cut oal by some sharp instrument like a penknife; I thought I 'remarked the evidence of" a sharp knife used in clearing out every obstacle to looking through the door; I then discovered that the clasp which tastened the first door for the box was made with a. movable partition, to be used as one or two boxes, and therefore with two doors; I saw that (he upper screw holding the clasp had been loosened in such a way that when the door was locked, by putting my forefinger against it, I could open the door: I desired to ascer tain the exact position of the President's chair and ior that purpose procured Miss Harris to accompany me, having understood she was in the box on that oc casion; she located tbe chair as nearly as she recol lected it*vhere it was placed on the evening, and in seating myself in the chair, and closing that door, a person could place his eye near the hole, a ndrh orange would he about midway" from the base of the crown. I directed my inquiries to ascertain thepioclsetime of the occurrence, as there was some uncertainty as to whether the attack on Mr. Seward and the assassina tion of the Prtsident was by one or more persons. CJ. Didyou see the bar that had been placed against the door, or had it been removed? A. It bad boon re moved by someone; you could see tho indentation in the panel of thedoor where the brace had been pot in very well; it was quile perceptible where tbe brace had been; a brace fixed in tbe wall and placed against the panel ofthe door would have been very difii cult to remove from the outside: I don't think itconld have been removed without breaking the door, and, in fact. the more pressure that was made on the door the more secure it would be. CJ. Did tbe hole bear evidence of havingbeen recently made? A. Yes; it was a freshly cut hole, as fresh ap parently as if it had been made that instant. Q. Can you describe the chair in which the President sat? A. It was a large, high-back chair, an armchair, standing on castor-: I thought I could discern where his bead rested, and although the covering itself was red, the marks of several drops of blood cofild be seen. * Cross-examined by Mr. Doster.-O. Will you state whether the civil courts of this District are supposed to sit by consent of and to carry out the will ot Lieut.- General Grant? A. I really do not know of anv one who r upposps that: at least he has given me no infor mation on tho sub.iRct. A pause of a minute or two here occurred, during which the members ofthe Court conversed with each other in a low tone. Mr. Doster said. 'As there seems to be considerable objection to the question, I desire to state why it was asked:''— The President of the Court said no objection was made to the question, and it has been answered, and no explanation is therefore necessary. Re-Examination of Major Etathbone. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Did you go totheontside door after the shot had been fired in the President's box and examine how it was closed? A. I did, for the purpose of culling medical aid. CJ. In what condition did yon find it? A. I found the door barred, so tbat people who were knocking on the outside could not get in. Q. Did you make an attempt to remove the bar? A. I did remove it with difficulty. Q. Was that aft r*r you had received a stab from the asas=in? A. It was. CJ. Is that (bar exhibited to witness) blood on the bar from your arm ? A. I am not able to say, but my wound was bleeding freelv at the time. Q., in what condition did you find the bar? A. It ap peared to be resting against the moulding of thedoor, and I think it could not have been loosened out by any one pushing from the outside. Q. Did you* notice thecbair in which the President sat in particular? A. I did not, except that it was a large ea^v chair, covered with damask cloth. Q. Doyou nofcknow whether it had rockers or not? A. My impression is that it tiad. CJ. Is that the bar thedoor was closed with ? A. I am not able to say whether it is or not; my impression is tbat it was a different piece of wood. Testimony of Isaac Jaqnettf. By Judge nolt.— CJ. Didyou find that bar in Ford's Theatre, and if so, under what circumstances and when? A. After we had carried the President out I went to the box with several others; this bar was lying on the floor inside the first door going to the box; I took it up and stood about therefor sometime, and took it home witli me. Q. There has been apiece sawed off, do you know anything in re'er^nc* to that? A. Yes; therewasau officer stopping at the house where I was boarding who wanted apiece of thebarto take away with him, and it was sawed off, but he did nut finally take it away Q. Are there spots of blood upon it? A. Yes, they were f rash at that time. Re-JExasniination of .Toe T^eninaons (Colored.) By Judge Holt.— CJ. Did you see persons engaged in decorating the President's box mi the a tornoon ofthe day of the murder? A. Yes; Mr. Harry Ford and an other gent;eman, I do n^t know h;s name exactly, were up there fix'nrr it: Mr. Ford told me to go over to his room and pet a rocking-chair, bring it down and put it in the Presidents box; I done so; I carried fhe chair into the President's box, set it down and went away; that is all I know. CJ. Had it been therebefore? A. Not this season. CJ. Was the back of this chair j'ou brought down, high or low? A. A high-backed, cushioned chair. Q. Did you see the prisoner Edward Spangler on the occasion ? A. There was no one in there but Harrv Ford and this other gentleman, who had been fixing it andstartrrl to comedown. Q. Was Spangler vn the stage that evening? A. Yes; he was obliged to be there a!l the time; ne worked there altogether, the fame as I did; he had nothing to call 1 im away, except when he went to his boarding house; be was not there on the stage when the chair was carried into the box. Cross-examination by Mr. Ewing.— CJ. You did not see Mr. Spangler on the stage, did you? A. No; I did not notice hi.n particularly; I had been there so long I hardly ever n uiced gentlemen so particalarlv Q. And you do not know but what he might have bad something to call him away just at that time? A. No sir. I do not. Q. Who was this other gentleman in the box with Harry Ford? A. I may be mistaken, but I think his name is Buckingham. CJ. Was fie employed about the theatre? A. Hestayed there at nitrht for to take tickets; he was a door keeper in front oi' the house; I think he was helping Harrv Ford to fix the private box. CJ. At whathour in the evening? A. A little after 3 o'clock; I should think it might have been later or sooner; I had been out in the city taking bills around; I waa about goin^onlhe fly; I look my meals where- ever Icould, and when hecalledme.I put down my mral and got the chair. CJ. Did vou see Spangler as you went to the box at all ? A. No ; not when I went to tbe box nor when I came awav CJ. Describe thecbair? A. There Is no chair here like it; it was one of those high-backed chairs, with a high red cushion on it, covered with satin; the last OS TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. season, when they got it, it was in the private box, but Mr. Ford told me take it out ofthe box and carry it up to hi3 room. CJ. Was the furniture there manufactured for the box, and was it ofthe same character as the chair? A. Yes: a sofa and some other chairs; it was not my bu siness to be looking in this place, and I never noticed only when I was sent; theso'a was covered, I think, with the same material: I do not know whether tbe furniture was bought'as the property of the stage or the private box. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Did you take a large chair out oi this box at ihe time you put this one in? A. No sir. Re-Exaininationof John J. Toffey. By Judge Hclt.— Q. Since you were examined yester day slate whether you have been to a stable, and the horse of wbich you were s peaking? A Yes; I found him on the corner ofSeventeenth and I streets. CJ. Didyou recognize him as the horse you took up with the saddle and bridle under thee rcumstances you mentioned in your testimony? A. Yes, sir. By the Court— CJ. Is there anything peculiar about that horse of which you were speaking? A. Yes; I found h m on thecorner of Seventeenth and I streets. CJ. Didyou r-co^ni'-e him as the horse you took up with thesaddleandbridleunderthecircumstances you mentioned in your testimony? A. Yessir. By the Court.— CJ. Is there anything peculiar about that horse which enables you to recognize him ? A. Yes; his being blind in the right eye. Testimony off William Ertton, Examined by Judge Holt.— a State whether or not, after tbe assassination of the President, you wentto the room of J. Wilkes Booth, at the National Hotel, and opened his trunk? A. I did go there thatsame evening under the authority of the Provost Marshal. CJ. What d d you do on arriving there? A. I found J. Wilkes Booth's room; I was shown to it by the book keeper; I took charge of what things were in his trunk; the papers were taken to the Provost Mar Thai's office, and handed over to Lieut. Terry; Iplaced theminhis hands. Testimony of liiewtenant Terry. By JudseHo'.t.— CJ. State whether you are attached to theotficeof the Provost Marshal of this city. A. Yes, to Colonel Ingraliam's office. CJ. State whether or not, after the assassination, the witness Eaton pla"ed in your hands certain papers which he,reoreserted to have been taken from the trunk of J. Wiikes Booth. A. He eid. CJ. State whether the letter you hold in your hands was one of these papers? A. Yessir; the envelope was addressed to ''J. Wilkes Booth, Esq., National Hotel, Washington. D. C," and postmarked seeminsrly "Bal timore, Maryland, March 80th." The letter was read by Colonel Burnett to the Court, as follows:— Hookstown, Baltimore Co., March 21. ISfio, Dtsar Joh:n:— Was business so important tbat you could not remain in Baltimore till I saw you ? I came in as soon as I could, and Ibundyou had gone to Wash ington. I called, also, to see Mike, but learned from his mother he bad gone out with you and had not re turned. I concluded, therefore, he had gone with you. How Inconsiderate you have been. When I Ieftyou, youstatsd we would not meet for a month or so: there fore I made application for employ nent. an answer to which I shall receive during the week. I told my parents I had ceased with you. Can I then, under existing circumstances, come as you request? You know full well the Government sus picions something is going on there; therefore the un dertaking is becoming more complicated. Why not, for the present, desist, for various reasons, which if you look into you can readily see, without my mak ing any mention thereof. You nor any one can cen sure me for my present course. You have been «ts cause, for how can I now come after telling them I had Ieftyou? Suspicion rests upon me now from my whole family, and even parties in the country. I will be compelled to leave home anyhow, and how «oon I care not. No, not one was moie in for the enterprise than myself, and to-day would be theie,had you not done as you have; by this! mean the manner of proceeding. I am, as you wel 1 know, in need; I am , you may say, in rags; whereas, to-day I ought to be well clothed. I do not feel right, stalking about without means, and from appearances a beggar. I feel my de pendence, but even this was forgotten, for I was one with you. Times more propitious will arrive; you do not act rashly or in haste. I would prefer your first way. Go and see how it will be taken in It d, and ere long I shall be better prepared to again assist you. I dislike writing; would sooner verbally make known my views; yet, you now wait ing, causes me thus to proceed. Do not in anger peruse this. Weigh all I have said; and. as a rational man and a friend, you cannot censure nor upbraid my con duct. I sincerely trust this, nor aught else that should or may occur, will ever obliterate our former friend ship. Write me to Baltimore, as I expect to bein about Wednesday or Thursday; or, if you can possibly come on, I will truly meet you in Baltimore, at B corner. *'I subscribe myself your friend, "SAM," Testimony of William McPhaill. CJ. Are you acquainted with the handwriting ofthe prisoner, Samuel Arnold? A. lam. CJ Will you look at this letter and say If it is in bis handwriting? A. Yessir. By Mr. Coxe.— Q. How did you become acquainted with his handwriting? state that first. A. He once placed in my hand a written statement. Q. What Instrument did he place in your hands? A. A confession. „ „ „ , CJ. When did he write it? A. On tbe 18th of April. Q. Where? A. In the back room of Marshal Mc- Phail's office. „ CJ. Where is that? A. On west Fayette street, near Holliday. in Baltimore; the paper was handed tome, and by mo to the Marshal; of its arrival in Washing ton I did not know anything, only I was informed of its bavins been handed to the Secretary of War. CJ. And that was a paper purporting to be a state ment ol all that he knew of tnis affair? A. Yes sir. Testimony of Marshal AfcPhail. CJ. State whether you are acquainted with tbe hand; writing of the prisoner, Samuel Arnold? A. Only by receiving a letter from bim, which was handed me by his father, and dated tbe 12tb, at Fortress Monroe. The letter being then shown, ihe witness said, "Yes, this looks like it: this I * the letter." CJ. Whose handwriting is that indorsement on the back? A. I should think It was Mr. Arnold's. CJ. Have you looked at the body of the letter? A. No sir. CJ. You looked at the handwriting? A. No sir. CJ. Do you think it is his? A. I do, sir. Testimony of Littleton Newman. Q. Are you acquainted with the handwriting of the prisoner Arnold? A. No sir. CJ. Do you know him? A. Yessir. CJ. Will you statewhether or not some time last fall you were present when he received a letter in which money was inclosed; if the money was exhibited to you, and what was the'diaracter or' this letter? A. On the 9th or 12th of September there was a letter brought to him; there was in the s.me twenty or fi'ty dollars, I don't recollect which; I remarked he was flush, or bad money and having read the lei ter. he handed it over to me and I read some half dozen lines, hut I did not understand it; it was very ambiguous in its language! and I asked him what it mrant; hesaid it was some thing big, and I would soon see in tbe papers, or some thing to that effect. Testimony of Ethan .IT. Horner. CJ. Will you state whether or not some days after the assassination of the President, you arrested the pri soner Samuel Arnold? A. On the morning of the 17th of April last, Mr. Allen and myself arrested him at Fortress Monroe. CJ. Did you find any arms in his possession? A. Yes sir; we took them in the room at the back of the store in which lie slept; we searched his person and n car pet-bag and got a pistol : he said he had another pistol and a 1: n i lo also at his father's place near the Hooks- town road. CJ. What kind of a pistol was that you found? A A Colt's pistol. CJ. Was it like that f showing the witness a pistol)? A. No sir: not like that; but he said he left a pistol like that at his father's, By Mr. Ewing.— Didn't he say he left a knife and a plsiol at Hookstown. and what else did he say to you? A. lie made a verbal statement to us at Fort ress Monroe: there was a letter given us by his father to give to himwhPii we arrestrd him, and after we handed him the letter and he had read it i asked him If he was po^ng to give us the statement, and he gave us one, together w'th the names of certain men con-' npctedwiih theabdnction, or lather with the kidnap ping of Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Cox here rose and objected to any confession made by the prisoner that would or might tend to evi dence against any other ofthe accused. Mr. Ewing and Mr. Cox had a length v argument, which finally resulted i:i a ruling by the Court, admit ting as evidence fhe statement of 'the witness of the', whole conversation that took place at the time re ferred to. The witness then continued, and said the prisoner had stated to him that about two weeks previous to his going to Fortress Monroe he was at a meeting, held at the Lichten House; i asked him who attended tbe meeting, and he gave me the names. Here the witness took out a paper and read there* from, J. W. Booth, M. O'Laughlin, G. W. At'-eroth, John Surratt, and a man with an alias of Moseby, and a small man whose name I couldn't recollect. CJ. Did he say whether he was present at the meet^ ing himself? A. Yes sir; I asked him If he corres ponded with Booth; hesaid first that hedid not; then I mentioned to him a letter published in the Sunday American, where there was given a statement • of a letter found in J. Wilkes Booth's trunk, and I mentioned to him that the letter was mailed at Hookstown and signed '•Sam:" when he said that be bad written that letter, and that evening TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 69 we brought him to Baltimore; I asked him If Wilkes Booth was acquainted any in St. Mary's county or Charles county, and hesaid be had letters of introduc tion U Dr. Mudd and Dr. Queer: I asked who he got themlrom.andhesaid hedid not know; we proceeded to Baltimore and I left him in the office of the Provost Marshal. CJ. Di 1 be not state to you any description of what took place at the meeting? A. Yes; I recollect his saying that Booth cot angry at him because he said If the thing was notdone that weei be would with draw, and that Booth then said he ought to be shot, and he replied it took two to play at thatgame. Q. Didhenot sayt > you that he then withdrew from the arrangement, and accepted a position with John W. Walton, at Fortress Monroe? A. Yessir. CJ. Did he state tho exact date when that meeting was held at Washington? A. He may bavedoueso but I cannot recollect it. Q. Did he tell you that he had seen Booth since tbat night? A. I don't recollect whether he said he had seen Booth since that evening, but he said he would not have any connection with things if it was Dot done during that week, and that Booth said he would be justified in shooting him if he should with draw. Cross-examined by Mr. Ewing.— Did he not state to you tbat lie did alterwards withdraw? A. He may have said so, but I don' t recollect. Q. Hesaid to you then that after that time he had had nothing iurther to do with the conspiracy? A. Ye3, he said tbat. CJ. Did hesay where he went then? A. He went to Fortress Monroe and accepted the position under Walton. CJ. Did he say what time he accepted it? A. The 1st day of April or the last day of March, I am not cer tain which. Q. Did he not say this Interview was at Gau tier's, in stead oc theLicfiten House? A. T may be mistaken, but I think be said the Lichten House: I knew he said ltwasin Louisiana avenue, between Sixth and Four- and-a-half streets. Q. Did he say anything as to what had been the pur pose Oi the parties a "ter the time he withdrew? A. He said the purpt.se of the party when he was a member of it, was toa'Kiuct tho )ujadsot tbe Government, bo as to force the North 10 have an exchange of prisoners. or something to that effect: I asked him, also, what his part was to be in the consp. racy, and I think be saidthathe was to catch the Presideut when he was thrown from the box or'the theatre. With the exception of O'Laughlin and Mrs. Surratt. all the prisoners joined in the lau^h which the ilea of Arnold catching Mr. Lincoln in his arms naturally in duced. Q. Did he say anything as to his writing a letter to Booth, or as to Booth's importuning him to continue in the plot? a. There was a good deal of talking, and I don't recollect all that was said. vCJ. Don't you recollect h s saying that Booth went to his father's house twice after that, in order to get him to c;o on with tbe conspiracy? A. No sir; I do not re collect that. CJ. Did he say anything as to whom the arms be longed? A. I asked him where he got the arms, and hesaid Booth get the arms fcr the whole party. CJ. Didn't he say Booth told him when he left the conspiracy to sell the arms? A. Yes sir. CJ. To what arms was he then alluding? did you un derstand him as referring to the arms at his father's house, to the one pistol? A. Booth told bim to sell the arms. Q. Did you understand him to mean that the pistol wa j part of tbe arms that he had at his lather's bouse, the same arms? A. Yessir. By Mr. Cox.— Did he state to you that that was tne first and only meeting he ever attended? A. No sir; it was the first meeting, from what he told me. Q. Did he tell you tbat the meeting came to the con clusion that the plot was impracticable? A. He said hedid. Q. Did he tell you that tbey did? Didn't he say that tho scheme fell through because they all concluded it impracticable? A. He only said that he, individually, considered it so. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Did I understand you to say that the meeting itself bad determined to abandon the attack on tho President? A. No sir; only himself. -¦CJ. State whether you found a rope in his carpet bag at Fortress Monroe. A. I don't recollect any. CJ. Did he not tell you what the date of the meeting was? A. He may have, but I don't recollect; it was a week or two before he went to Fortress Monroe; he might have said three weeks. By Mr. Aiken.— Q. Was the name of Mrs. Surratt mentioned to you by Arnold? A. No sir, not to my recollection. ,By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Didyou examine his carpet bag at Fortress Monroe? A. Yes sir. iCJ. You found no rope there? A. I don't recollect ah v. CJ. Didhenot say to you that Booth had a letter of Introduction to Mr. Queen or Dr. Mudd? A. No sir, I understood him to say and Dr. Mudd. Q. Which Dr. Mudd? A. There is only one, I think. in Charles county. By Mr. Stone.— Q. Did he speak of Mr. Queen or Dr. Mudd? A. Dr. Queen aud Dr. Mudd. Testimony of Mr. Thomas. Q. State whether or not you are acquainted with the prisoner at the bar, Dr. Mudd? A. I am. sir. CJ. State whether or not some weeks since, before the assassination of the President, you saw him and had a conversation with him. A. Yes sir. Q. Where did it occur? A. At Mr. Downey's. Q. In that conversation did he speak of the Presi dent of the United States? A. He said that the Presi dent of the United States was an Abolitionist, and that the whole Cabinet were such, and that the South would not be subjugated under Abolition doctrine: hesaid the whole Cabinet would be killed within six or seven weeks and every Union man in Baltimore; he made a remark tome tnat I was no be ter than they were. Q. Was he silent iu his manner? A. He was not much excited. Q. Did you have any conversation with him about politic!!? A. I made the remark that the war would soon be over; that S>uth Carolina and Richmond were taken, and we would soon have peace; then he went on stating that the South never would be subjugated; that the President and Cabinet were ail Abolitionists aud would be killed, and every Union man in the State of Maryland. Cross-examination by Mr. Stone.— Q. How far isyour place from Dr. Mudd's? A. About a mile and a halt: Q. Did you see h i m frequently? A. Not very. Q. Was Mr. Downey present when you had this con versation? A. I bel leve he was out, sir. Q. How long did he remain out? A. I am not able to say precisely. Q. Did you have any conversation with Dr. Mudd be fore Mr. Downey left the room? A. I believe I had. Q. He left while you were conversing? A. Yes sir. Q. How did that conversation commence? A. It confmenced about the war: Isaid the war would soon be over, and that I was glad to see it. Q. Had you been discussing the question of exempt ing personsfrom military service? A. No sir. Q. Nothing was said about that? A. Not a word. Q. When did this conversation occur? A. Sometime in March; in the latter part of March. Q. What wassaidaiter Downey's return? A. I asked him, as lie had taken the oath of allegiance, whether he considered it binding; he said he was a loyal man, but he didn't consider the oath binding. Q. Had you met him at Downey's any other time during the year? A. Tnat was the only time sir. Q. How long did you remain there that day? A. Half ( r three quavters of an hour, perhaps. Q. Wa* not Dr. Muld's mamier jocose? A. No sir. Q. D.d he seem to be in earnest? A. It is impossible for me to say whether he was in earnest or not. CJ. Did it leave any serious impression upon your mind? A. Nosir, I didn't suppose such athing could come to pass: I went home and repeated what he said, and we all laughed at it; I thought that the man had more sense than to use such an expression. CJ. Did Mudd look as if be really believed it himself? A. When he first said it I couldn't think that he meant it, but after the President was killed, and Booth had been at his house, I thought that he meant it. Q. Did he tell you how the President and the Cabi net were to be killed? A. No sir. Q. If you had supposed that there was any conspiracy would you not have given Lhe information to tne au thorities? A. Idid. Q. Who to? A. To everybody I saw. CJ. Can you name any one you told it to? A. Yes sir; I told it to my brothers. I told it to Watson, I told it to many persons in Woodville, I told it to old Peter Wood. Q. But did you give any information to any one in authorny? A. I wrote to Colonel Ho'land about it, the Provost Marshal of the Fifth Congressional Dis trict in Maryland. Q. When? A. One week af.er hesaid it. Q. Did you get an answer? A. No sir, and I came to the conclusion tbat the Colonel never received my letter. Q. You are sure the conversation you have detailed is all that occurred? A. Yes sir. Q. Who le.t first? A. We leit about the same time. Q. Did you go together? A. No; I went home, and he went to his house, I guess. Q. When Mr. Downey returned didn't Dr. Mudd say to him that you had been calling the Bebel army our army? A. No sir nothing of thesort. Q. Did you mention this conversation to your bro ther before the assassination? A. Yessir. Q. To which of your brothers? A. To Dr. John C. Thomas. CJ. Did you mention It to Mr. Watson before the assassination? A. Yessir. Q. What is his full name? A. Lemuel Watson. Q. You spoke of Mr. Wood; was it Peter Wood, Sr.? A. Yes, the old man, sir. Q. Did you mention it to him before or after the assassination? A. After, sir. 70 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Q. Mr. Downey didn't seem to think anything of this talk of Dr. Mudds'? A. I told you he was not there at the time, sir, and when I mentioned it to him he said he was glad he did not hear anything about it. Testimony of John HTopp. Q. Look at that paper, and state if you have seen it before. Here the witness read the following telegram: "ToM. O'Laughlin, No. 57 N. Exeter street, Balti more, Md.:— Don't you fear to neglect your business. You had better come at once. J. BOOTH." Q. State whether you are a telegraphic operator in this city? A. I am a clerk in the olfice. Q. State whether this despatch was sent at the time of its date? A, Yessir; it was, but the year should be I860, and not 1864; that's one of the old printed forms. CJ. Do 370U know the handwriting of John Wilkes Booth? A. Yessir; I saw him write that. Cross-examined by Mr. Cox.— Q, "Don't you fear to neglect your business: you had better come at once." Can ycu tell me whether this is a question or a com mand? Objected to, and the question was waived. TesJimony of 12. C. Stewart. Q. State whether you are a telegraphic operator in this city? A. Yessir. at tbe Metropolitan Hotel. Q. Look at thi3 despatch and state whether you have any knowledge of its having been sent? A. Yes, I sent itmvself. The witness reads:— "March 27th, 1SG4, M. O'Laughlin, No. 59 Exeterstreet, Baltimore. Md. Gt-t word to Sam. and come in with or ¦without him on Wednesday morning. We sell that day sure. Don't fail. J. Wilkes Booth." Q. Is this last March or last March, a year ago? A. Last March; that is one of the old forms. Q. Did you know this man? A. No sir. Here a photograph of John WilkesBooth was shown to the witness, who, on seeing it, said:— "That's the man that sent it." Cross-examined by Mr. Cox.— Q. You know it was Bent in March, jkgo? A. Yessir. Q. It is dated 1864? A. That's one of the old forms; but I rcmembarit was sent this year. Q. Is that your indorsement on it? A. Yessir. Q. How long have you been an operator at tbe Me tropolitan Hotel? A. About ten mouths. Bv Judge IIo.t.—Q. You were not there iu March, 18C4? A. No sir. The examination of this witness being concluded, the Court adjourned till 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. Washington, May 19.— The witnesses for the de fense were to-day dismissed until Monday. About twenty have thus far been summoned. The United States have probably thirty more witnesses to ex amine, and as the effort will be made to conclude the testimony for the prosecution to-morrow, the trial will probably be closed next week. Testimony off Colonel 3. Iff. Taylor. By Judge Holt.— Q. State whether you are connected with the Provost Marshal's ofiico at Vvasbingtou? A. No sir; I am on duty at the head-quarters of the Department at Washington. CJ. Look at tbat paper, marked ]So, 7, and state whether you ever before had it in your hands, and from whom you received it? (The pancr referred to was one taken Irom the trunk of J. Wilies Booth, and in re gard to which the witner-s, Lieutenant Tyrrell, lestified that it was written in the cipher of the Confederate States.) A. I have had it in my hands; I received it from Lieutenant Tyrrell, an officer on duty in the Pro vost Marshal's office, on the night of the 14th of April; I gave it to Colonel Wells on the loth. Q. You received it from Lieutenant Tyrrell as one of the papers found in the trunk of J. Wilkes Booth? A. Yes sir; for which I had sent him. Testimony of Charles Rosch. By Judge Advccate Holt.— Q. Do you recognize the prisoner, Edward Spangler? A. I do not know him personally; I was not present at his arrest. CJ. Did you go to his house after his arrest? A. Yes sir. Q. What did you find there? A. A carpet bag, in which was a piece of rope, which I measured after wards and found to be eigbty-oue feet In length; the twist appeared to have been taken out of it; there was nothing else in the carpet bag except some blank paper and a dirtv shirt collar. Q. Where was that carpet bag with the rope left? A. At thehouse where Spangler took his meals, on theN. W. corner of Seventh and H street . CJ. When was it left? A. That I do not know. Q. Who were with you when you took the rope? A. Two of the military of the Provost Marshal's force; I do not know their names. Q. Vou did not see Spanglei himself there? A. I did not; I was to go with tho other officers to secure the papers, and we missed him; consequently I was not there when he was arrested. Q. Had the carpet bag been opened? A. No sir; we made out to open it with some keys we found. Cross-examined by Mr. Ewing.-Q. Where is the house at which you found the carpet bag? A. Itis situ ated on the northwest corner of Seventh street and H Q. Who gave it to you? A. We took it when we found it belonged to Spangler. Q. Who was there? A. A man who was commonly called " Jake," who worked at the theatre in company with Spangler; this man told me that was Spangler's carpet bag, and that was all that Spangler had at tbe house. . . L . . ., . Q. What persons were living or staying in the house. Didyou see? A. There were a couple of persons, boarders, I presume. I did notknow any ofthe parties. Q. In what room did you find the carpet bag? A. In a bed room up stairs. CJ, In what part of thehouse? A. As near as I can judge, it was on the south side ofthe house; that is. the room faced the south. Q. Describe the room? A. It was right near where Jake kept his trunk. The Commission reassembled at two o'clock, after the usual recess. Testimony of Chas. Iff. Rosen, Continued. Q. Look at that coil of rope and state whether or not it is the same which you found iu Spangler's carpet bag? A. (Looking at the rope.) I believe and am satisfied that it is. Q. What did you do with the monkey wrench? A. I found no monkey wrench; I would here beg leave of the Court to cirrert so much of the testimony as refers to the locality which I stated: upon reflection lam convinced that the house was on the northeast corner of Seventh and H streets; the room was on the second floor. Q. What was the number of the room. A. There was no number. Testimony of Wm. Eaton, (Continued.) Q. State to the Court whether you arrested the rri- soner, Edward Spangler, and on what day? A. I ar rested him; I do not recollect the day; it was the week after the assassination. CJ. Where did you arrest him? A. In a house on Seventh street, near the Patent Office; it must have been on the southeast corner of Seventh street and H. CJ. Doyou know whose house it was? A. I do not. Q. Did you find any weapons in his possession ? A No sir. I did not search bim. Q. Was it his boarding-house? A. Ithinkitwas. CJ. Who was with him? .a.. There were some ladies in the house. Testimony of William Waliace. By tbe Judge Advocate.— Q. State whether or not some lime after the assassination of the President you arrested the prisoner, O'Laughlin? A. I did; on the 17th of April. Q. Where? ' A. At the house of a- family named Bailor, in High street, Baltimore. Q. Was tbat his boarding house? A. I think not: I think his boarding house, or toe house where he stonped, was that of his brother-in-law. No. 57 Exeter stre'et. Q. Did you ask him why he was there instead of his boarding house? A. 1 did; he said that when bear- rived in town on Saturday ho was told that the officers had been looliiiv-? for him; aud that he went away to fie house of a lnend of his, where he stopped on Satur day or Sunday ni^ht. ij, Lid he ask yon what you had arrested him for? A. He seemed to understand what it was for. Q. Did he ask you ;t all in regard to tho cause? A. Nothing that occurs lo my mind at present. Q. Did bespeak 01 toe assassination of the President at all? A. He spoke of it as beinrra very bad affair. Q. Did you find any arms in his possession? A. No sir; wessarched him and found none whatever. C'ro;S-oxamined by Mr. Fox.— Q. Did the brother-inr law of t::ej.risoner send for the prisoner or go with you to arro:.t him? Julge B.ngham objected to the question. Mr.iox stated that the object was to show tbat the brother-in-law of the prisoner went a/ter him volun tarily. Judge Bingham replied that the question wai not properly a portion of tho cio^s-examinaiion, but was altogether now matter. Whatt'ie prisoner said to his bro.her-in-law had not been offered in cv,d:nce, and, in addition to that, it had been shown that the pri soner had resolved not to be taken at home, and was goin.5 to cbanso his boarding-bou-e. Mr. Cox.— 'Ihe object of the prosecution, I presume, is to show that the purpose of tne prisoner in changing his lod:in^s was to avoid arrest, tbe witness having testified that the prisoner wai found elsewhere. I de sire to r.sk him waethcr he found the pr soner at the instance oi'hts (.he prisoner's) brother-in-law. The objection was overruled, the Commission decid ing; that the question should bo answered. A. The prisoner's brother-in-law, Mr. Mallsby, lam well acquainted with: he was recommended to me on Sunday evening as be'.ng a good Union man, as one iu whom I could place confidence: he knew I was lools- in? for Mr. O'Laughlin; I told him I wished bim to assist me; he said that anything be could do to assis TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. LEWIS C. PAYNE. DAVID C. HAHOLD. E SOEME OF THE GREAT TRAGEDY. n SL > n X HE PI 3.8e ?< * -ALLE I - -4 ALLEY a a S3 "71 H Q itl A— Public School. B — Herndon House, (Hotel). C Tho only vacant lot communicating with alley. D— Tho only alley outlot to F street. E— Bank (formerly Savings Bank). (51 G — Newspaper Office. X — Restaurants. H— Model House. I — House taken to after the act. K— The alley by which the murderer escaped. TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. U £n£?r^n!i! orchestra, on the right hand side; there are two aisles to the orchestra, and my side was on tbe corner, on the leit hand, right under and bringing me immediately next to tbe music stand; at tbe report of the pistol I was startled: I was speaking to my sis ter, my head being turned to the left; I glanced back to the stage : an exclamation was made and a man leaped from the President's box, lighting on the stage. He came down with his back slightly towards the audience, but as he was rising his face came fully in view; I rose and attempted to leap on the stage; f made two or three steps. on the railing to the right after alightmg"from whern I sat and keen ing my attention on the man who had alighted upon the stage and who had jumped from tne President's box; when I reached the stage, on looking to tbe left I perceivfd he had disappeared on the le:t hand egress; I exclaimed "stop that man," and then went past the length of the stage, and turning to the right, was at a distance of. twenty feet from the door; but the door was slammed to. I ran and got to the -aoor very quick, but on com ing to the door I swung it the wrong way, but I remedied that and passed out; as I approached the door after I had last said, stop ihat man. some one said he has gone on a horse, and I heard the tramping of a horse; when I got out the door, I perceived a man mounting a horse : he was at that instant barely mounted; the moon was just be ginning to rise, and I could see him better; the horse was'moving as though prematurely spurred in mount ing; Iran in the direction to which the horse was headin r, at about eight or ten feet from tbe head ofthe horse, and the rider brought him around to the right again: the horse's feet were rattling violently on the stones; I crossed in the same direction, and was now on the right hand side of the horse, but he was gaining on me; whenabout two-thirds of the way out of the alley ne brought the horse forward and swept to the lett of Fstreet: I commanded him to stop: itall occu pied but two seconds. CJ. You found the door closed; did you see anybody about the door? A. I did. CJ. One or more persons? A. I passed several in the passage, one or two men, perhaps five persons alto gether; but near the door, on the right hand side, I passed aperson standing, who seemed in the act of turning; I noticed everything; my mind is impressed with all that occurred, and I saw a person there who didn't seem to be moving about. CJ. Look at theprisoners and pee if you recognize tbe man. A. I see Jju i one face that would recall him to my mind. Q. Which one? A. That one. By the Court.— Stand up, Spangler. Witness.— That one looks more like the man than any other there. CJ. Describe his appearance. Mr. Stewart here placed himself in an attitude, in ordertoshow the Court the position in which he had seen the man, which wag a three-fourths view. Witness.— I didn't observe so far as to have a clear impression of his visage; he was turning from thedoor towards me. Cross-examination.— CJ. Was it the passage way be tween the scene and the green-room, about two and a half feet in width, through which Booth ran? A. I don't know where the green-rnom is: I never was there, but if I had apian ofthe building I could point it out. Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett then handed to Mr. Stewart a plan ofthe theatre by which he ex plained the route^aken by Booth and by himself, and on which he marked the spot where he bad seen the man alluded to in the latter part of his examination in chief. CJ. When you got out of the door the person was just rising into his saddle? A. He wasin hissaddleleaning forward; his leit foot apparently was in the stirrup; he was leaning tot he left; the horse was leaving the walk In asortof'motion making apparently a circle: he was sufficiently mounted to go with the horse without being unbalanced; he was getting the horse under control for a forward movement. CJ, Youicouldnot say then that he had just got into thesaddle? A. He was balancing himself in tne sad dle; I would form an opinion from bis position and the motion of his horse that the moment he got his foot into one stirrup he started the hor&e, who having the rein drawn on one side more than the other did not at once make a straightforward movement. By Judge Holt.— Q. I understood you to say that all the persons you met with in the passage as you approached exhibited great excitement, except this particular man? A. Every person that came under mv notice in the brief space of not over two or three seconds as I ran through the stage toward thedoor were greatly agitated, and seemed literally be* wildered, except the person near the door, who did not seem to be under tbe same excitement. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. How long did it take you after entering that passage to get to the -door? A. lean hardly time myself; I was running as hard as I could, and was only "obstructed bv passing these persons; it seemed to me about as quick as you would count one, two, three, lour, five, from the report of tbepistoluntil I reached the door; I knew the discharge ofthe pistol- was either by accident or design, and that it was by design was solved by the man jumping on thestage; my impression was when he came from the Presi dent's box that the President had been assassinated; 1 was so much under that impression that though I had not heard a word alter the person on the horse had gone off, I informed the people in the alley there tbat the person who went off on that horse had shot the President. CJ. You say you saw only the profile of this person Iu the passage? A. The profile andfull face as he passed round. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Did you recognize Booth when you saw him on the Stage? A. Oh, yes; after I went out and returned I took my family home, and imme diately ran down the street towards the house of Sec retary Stanton, but finding persons bad been there, I turned and went rapidly back to the police station; found Captain Richards, Superintendent of Police; gave him my name and what information I had, and said^ to himlthoughtlknew whoit was;Ihadknown B'joth before by sight; some two years belbre: I was introduced to him one evening at the Metropolitan Hotel; then I had seen him on the stage, but I noticed him more during the*past winter at the hotel: I was two evenings with.some ladies at a hop at the National Hotel, and noticed this gentleman leisurely moving about the parlor; every person except the one I have mentioned^seemed to be perfectly bewildered on the stage; I felt very much vexed at his getting away. By the Court.— How long was it alter you heard the door slam until you saw this man balancing himself in thesaddle? A. Not more than while I was making two steps. CJ. Are you satisfied that thedoor was closed by some other person than the one who went out of thedoor? A. I could not possibly be satisfied of that; there was nothing to preclude the possibility that the door was closed by Booth himself. CJ. Are yuu satisfied that the person you saw inside the door was in a positiou, had he been so disposed, to have interrupted the exit of Booth? A. Beyohda doubt he was. Q. From his manner, he was cool enough to have done it? A. He showed no agitation like she other peu pie did. Bv Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Were not the other persons you have spokeii'of also in a position to have interrupted the exit of Booth? A. O yes, at least at the moment I saw them every person I met could have obstructed my motion, except one person, who was three or five feet off to the right; that was the person I described who seemed to be passing off. CJ. Then the person you speak of nearest thedoor wasin no betterposition to have obstructed the passage of r Booth than any ot the others, so iar as you know? A. None whatever. By the Court.— Q. Could this man nearest the door have opened it and gone out before you went out? A. Yes, the door was immediately within the control of the person who stood there. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Do you know whether any person on the stage, or in the passage as you went out, knew that the assassination had been committed? A. lean- not say that; they acted very much like people as tounded at something that had just occurred. Testimony of Robert A. Campbell. Examined by Judge Holt.— Q. State where you re side? A. Montreal, Canada. CJ. Are you or not connected with the Ontario Bank ofthatchy? A. I am, as first teller, CJ. Look upon that account, and state whether or not it is a correct abstract from the books of that bank?! A. It is; I examined it before I came away. : CJ. What is it? A. It is tbe account of Jacob Thomp son with tin-' Ontario Bank, Montreal. CJ. State on what day the account commences? A, The account commences May 30th, 18U4; prior to that! however, he left sterling exchange, drawn on the Rebel agents at Liverpool or London for collection; as soon as agents advised us of the bills being paid, the proceeds were placed to his credit; the first advices we had was May 30, and two thousand pounds sterling was the amount. Q. State when the account closed? A. The account closed April 31,1865. CJ. State the aggregate amount of credit and the ag gregate amount drawn? A. The aggregate amount of credit was 504.987,323; there Is now a balance due him of about $176*30. Q. Has he drawn lately to any considerable extent;? t TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 81 A. He has drawn $300,000 very nearly since March 1; be bought at onetime $100,000 in sterling exchange. Q. State the amount drawn out between the island 10th of April? A. The first entry in April is on tbe 4th, a very small check cf$100; there is a deposit re ceipt under date of 6th of April, of flSiytuo which was to be paid when presented; on the 8th of April ho pur chased 440 pounds sterling exchange, and also 4000 poundssterlin-ron thesamedate; on the 24th ofMarch he purchased $100,00;) sterling. Q. You know Jacob Thompson personally? A. Yes. I know him. CJ. State whether or not since the 14th of April last hehas left Montreal? A, He has: I heard him say myself he was going away, and I know lie has not been seen in the bank lately; one of the lasttransac tions was a check given to a hotel keeper for, as I sup posed, board: he said ho was going overland to Hali fax, en route to Europe. Q. Can you fix the date of that? A. I could not; Bince then he has disappeared from Montreal. -CJ. How long'was this before navigation opened? A. I think about two weeks; I know I thought it strange he was going overland, when by waiting two weeks he could have taken a steamer. CJ. He was known and recognized as the agent ofthe Confederate States? A. His account was simply with Jacob Thompson; we did not -know what. bo was; by newspaper report he was the financial aarent.of the Rebels; we knew that he bonghtSouthern sterling ex change bills on their agents in the old country; apart ofthe time he resided in Upper Canada, and a part ot 'the time in Montreal. CJ. Have you known him to be connected with other money transactions with other banks in Canada? A. Oh, yes; I knew of one transaction of fifty thousand with Niagara District Bank, at St. Catharines; that was a check drawn to the order of Mr. C. C. Clay, and deposited by him in Niagara District Bank; that bank sent it to us, and we put it to their credit; the date of that was August 16th, 1RR4. CJ. Did you know J. Wilkes Booth, the actor ? A. I did; I had one or two transactions with him. CJ. How often did you see him in Canada? A. I could notsay, I may have seen him a dozen times; I remember distinctly seeing him there. CJ. Did he have a small account at your bank? A. Yes he has still to his credit four hundred and odd dol lars. CJ. Have you any knowledge how that credit arose ? A. It was from a deposit that did not go through my hands, but through the hands of another receiving tel ler. The memorandum says rbeck drawn on Mer chants' Bank by Davis, 225and ten tweuty-doilar bills CJ. Who was Davis, the person referred to as drawing the check? A. He was a broker in Montreal, and lam not sure whether he was introduced by Davis, or by T. C. Martin from the States, somewhere from Richmond or Baltimore: when Booth came into the bank he pur chased a bill of exchange for sixty-one pounds and some odd shillings; hesaid he was going. to run the block ade: he asked whether in case he#should be captured his captors could make use of the exchange; I said no, not unless he indorsed the bill: he then said he would take three hundred dollars' worth, for wbich I think he paid American gold; these are the only two trans actions he had with us. CJ. Look at these bills of exchange taken from the body of Booth, and say whether these are the ones you refer to. A. They are Ontario Bank bills; there is no aoubt about tbat. m x t . , CJ. State whether or not these drafts were intended for use in the States or lor geiwral disbursement? A, We can never tell that; we never ask our customers any questions; checks are generally made payable to bearer, but in certain instances the word "bearer is scored out and '-order" put over; Mr. Thompson, be sides these sterling exchange transactions, has bought from us several times United States currency (green- CJ. In large sums? A. He bouebt on August 25th fifteen thousand dollars in greenbacks; July 14th. thir teen thousand one hundred and twenty-lour dollars: that was the amount in gold; I could not say what was the amount in greenbacks; at that time I think ex change was about filty-five. ^ . ,, Q. Did anv of these transactions occur during the past spring? A. On the 14th of March he bought one thousand dollars at 44%, for which he paid five hun dred and fifty-three dollars in gold; he bougnt several drafts in New York. J4. ... The Judge Advocate-General stated that there was only one other witness he desired to examine to-day. He was a very important witness; but for the same reasons stated in another instance, it was not desirable that his examination should be public. . The Court was thereupou cleared, and the remainder Of its deliberations for the day were in secret session. Washington, May 22.— The Court, after the reading Of the evidence of Saturday, proceeded to take the testimony of Miss HohoraFitzpatrick, as follows:— By Judge "Bingham.— CJ. State where you resided during the month of March last. A. I resided at the house of Mrs. Surratt, the lady who is at the bar. Q. State whether during the time of your residence at her house last winter you saw John H. Surratt and other men in company with him there. A. I saw John Surratt. CJ. What, other men came during the time you stayed there last winter? A. I saw John Wilkes Booth, and I saw twoof the prisoners at the bar. Which two? A. I saw Mr. Atzeroth and Mr. Wood (pointing to Payne.) CJ. Did you know him by any other name? A. I did not know him by any other name. CJ. How often did you see this Wood at the house? A. I never saw him there except twice. CJ. When was tbat? A. I do not know exactly about the time; I saw him there once, I think. In March. CJ. How often did you see Atzeroth there? A. He did not stay at the house at anytime. CJ. Did you seeJnm there several times? A. He was there a short time. CJ. Did you undprstand whether he stayed there over night once? A. Hedid. Cj. Look at the other prisoners at the bar, and say if you have seen any oneotthem at Mrs. Surratt's house; have you seen ihe one standing in the corner (Harold)? A. loo not know; I never saw the man. CJ. State whether you, in company w.th John Surratt and this man Wood, visited Ford's Theatre one night in March last?- A. Yes. Q. Did you occupy a box in that theatre? A. Yes. CJ. Which box there did you occupy? A. I do not know; I did not pay any attention ou which side it was. CJ. Was it the upper or lower box? A. I think it waa the upper. CJ. State whether John Wilkes Booth came Into that box that night while you, Wood and Surratt were in there? A. Yes. Q. What lady accompanied you? A.MissDeane. CJ. When didyou leave Mrs. Surratt's house? A. I went to Baltimore on the six o'clock train, the day alter we were at the theatre. Q. How long were you absent? A. I was absent about a week. By the Court.— CJ. Do you recollect whether, on en tering the theatre, you turned to the right or left to go to the box you occupied? A. I do not recollect wbich side. The hour of one having arrived the Court took the usual recess for an hour. Alter the recess, the Court took the Testimony of Captain Doug-lierty. Q. Slate whether or not you had command of a de tachment oi cavalry sent in pursuit of the assassin of the President, J.W. Booth. A. I had. Q. The circumstances. ot tbe capture havebeen fully detailed by olher-witnesses: I will ask wnat part, if anv, you took in the capture of Harold, and if any, "slate all hesaid on that occasion. A. There was considerable parley in reference to the arms be was supposed to have while he remained in Garrett's barn; we had a good deal of conversation with Booth about his coming out: Booth at first denied there was any body else in the barn; finally hesaid "Captain there i3 a man here who wants to surrender awful bad;" Baker, one of the detectives, who was there, said to me "tell him to band out- his arms and come out:" I re peated the direction to him, Harold, who was by the door, said, "I have no arms;" Baker said, "We know exactly what you've got;" I remarked to Baker, "You'd better let them come out;" Baker said, "Wait till Cunger comes;" 1 said "No," and addressing'the man at the door, said, "Open tbat door and I will take that man out myself;"' the door was partially opened; Harold pot out his hands, and I took hold ol them and pulled him out: I put my revolver undermy arm and turned him around to see if he had any arms; he had none; I asked him if he had any papers; be said "No thing but this," pulling out a piece-of map from his pocket: Itookhimbackashortdisumcefr«)mthedoop? and just at that timethe shot was li red and thedoor thrown open: 1 dragged him into the barn where Booth had fallen on the'ground: the soldiers and detecuves who were there came in and brought Booth out; I took charge of Harold; when -I bad brought him outside again he said, "Let me go, I will not leave, I will not go away," said I, "No sir;" said he, "Who has been shot in the barn?" said I, -'You know whoit is:" he said "I do not;" he told me his name was Boyd; said I, "His name is Booth, and you know it;" he said, "No, he did not:" I had him tied by his hands to a tree about two yards from where Booth had been carried to the verandah at thehouseandkepthim thereuntil we were ready to return: Booth, in tbe meantime, died; I sewed him up in a blanket, having previously fent some cavalry men lor a doctor: I gota negro who lives about hall a mile from there, with a wagon, put the body on board, and started ior Belle Plain, where a boat was waiting. CJ. Where did Harold say he bad met with this man? A He told me he met him about seven miles Irom 82 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Washington, by accident; I think be said between 11 and 120'clock on the night of the murder. CJ. Did lie persist in saying hedid not know Booth at all? A. He first said hedid not know bim, that he, Booth, said his name was Boyd. CJ. Did he state where they went after they had met in Maryland? A. He told me that they went to Mat thias Point and crossed there. CJ. Did he mention the houses they stopped at on tbe way? A. Not to my knowledge; the house of Dr. Stewart was rupntioned: whether he said so or not, I do not distinctly recollect. Cross-examined by Mr. Stone.— CJ. Did you hear Booth say anything about Harold's innocence? A. Booth said that he was the only guilty man, or words to that effect. CJ. Harold made no resistance at all? A. While coming home hesaid his feet were sore, and that he could not walk; I mounted him. on a horse and tied him. By Mr. Campbell.— Q. Did not Booth remark that this man was innocent? Was not this his expression? A. It was to that effect; I cannot swear that they were the exact words he used. Testimony of Wm. E. Cleaver. By Judge Holt.— CJ. State your residence andoccupa- tion. A. I keep a livery stable on Sixth street in this city. Q,. State whether or not J. Wilkes Booth at any time kept a horse or horses in your stable. A. He did in January last. CJ. Can you describe any of the animals he kept there? A. Yes; a oue-eyed bay horse was thereabout one month. Q. Why was he taken away? A. He sold the horse on tbe 30th of January to Samuel Arnold, one ofthe prisoners at the bar. CJ. Did you see the horse afterwards? A. I saw the horse a day or two afterwards, when Arnold paid for the livery and took bim away. CJ. Do you know anything; about the terms or cir cumstances of the sale? A. I only know tiiat Booth told me tbat he had sold the horse to Arnold, and that Arnold came a few days afterwards and paid the livery. CJ. Have you seen the horse since that time ? A. I have not. CJ. Did you see Booth and John H. Surratt go out of your stable, riding or otherwise? A. Yes; John H. Surratt would occasionally hire a horse to go out to evening oarties. * CJ. With whom generally? A. With Booth; Booth gave directions to let Surratt use his horse any time he desired. Q. Did you ever see the prisoner, Atzeroth, with Booth? A. Yes, I have seen him there with horses. CJ. With whom was Atzeroth generally in company at tbe stable? A. I never saw him with anybody; he was generally alone. CJ. Did you see him there frequently? A. No sir; I never saw him there but once. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Did you ever see Arnold after he took the horse away early In February? A. I did not. Re-examination of J. Ii. McPbail. By Judge Holt.— CJ. State whether the prisoner O'Laiisfhlin has been in the Rebel service. A. Hehas. CJ. How long was he in the military serviceofthe so-called Confederate States? A. .About one year; I think it was alter the battle at Amietam. or South Mountain, he'came in and gave himself up; that was in the year 1813. 1 believe; I examined the records of tbe Provost Marshal's office before I came over this morning, and found an oath ot allegiance signed by Michael O'Laughlin, and myself and others, and con cluded he was ihe prisoner at tbe bar of that name; the date is June Pith, 1863; I will state that O'Laughlin sent for me to correct what he thought was an error; he then stated that he did report at Martinsburgand took the oath of allegiance; I have here the oath, dated. Baltimore. June lGth, 1863, signed Michael O'Laughlin. Cross-examined by Mr. Cox.— CJ. Does it appear by this oath that it was taken at Baltimore?— A. The oath so reads. Q. And the prisoner stated that he gave himself up at Martinsburg? A. He told me he came into our lines at Martinsburgand there took the oath. CJ. Then may you not have been mistaken about. the oath having been taken at Baltimore? A. If he hadcomeinto our lines at Martinsburg, and taken tbe oath there, when be came into Baltimore he would have reported. It is customary for parties who have taken the oath elsewhere, coming Into the city, to report when they arrive. CJ. Do you know his handwriting? A. I have seen recently quite a number of documents which I believe to be in his handwriting. CJ. But you never saw him write? A. I believe not. CJ. Have you heard him acknowledge any of the letters you speak of to be his own? A. I have seen letters I believe be has acknowledged to be his own. but I have had no conversation with him about them. By the Court.— Do you know anything about the prisoner Harold prior to his connection with this affair? A. Only from his own declaration. CJ. Do you know that bis (amily reside in Baltimore? A. I do; they have resided there within my recollec tion, I suppose, ior thirty years. Examination of Dr. Verdi. By Judge Holt— CJ. State whetheror not on tbe night ofthe assassination ofthe President you were, called to the house of Mr. Seward. A. I was; one of the ser- van ts cam e for m e. Q. At what hour? A. I do not recollect; perhaps a little before eleven on Fr'day night. CJ- State in what condition you found tbe persons at that house you were called, to see. A. 1 found Mr. Hansell, a messenger of the State Department, lying on a bed, wounded by a cut in tbe side some two and a half inches deep. Q. Did vou see other persons in the house of Mr. Se ward at the time? A. I saw every one of them. CJ. State who they were and describe their wounds. A. Mr. Wm. H. Seward, Frederick Seward, Major Se ward, Robinson and Hansell. CJ. They were all wounded? A. Yes; I bad seen Se cretary Seward about nine o'clock that evening in his room; when I saw him next he was in his bed, covered with blood, blood all around him. and blood in the bed: Mrs. Seward, Miss Fanny Seward and his man Robinson were in the room. Cross-examined by Mr. Doster.— CJ. Did you see Mr. Frederick Seward on that occas'on? A. Ye*. Q. State whether he was -sensible or insensible. A. He had difficulty in articulat.ng: he wanted to say something but could not express himself, he knew me perfectly well: he had a smile of rpcoinition on his lips; as I was looking at his wound on the forehead he was evidently impressed that tbe seve'e-t one was on the back part ot his head: he commenced moving his lips and pointing his finger there: I examined his wound and lound his»skuil broken; Isaid.Doyou want to know whether your skull is broken or not, and he assented: he remained sensible for" half an hour and then went into a sloep: he woke up in abiut twenty minutes, when he was put to bed, and was very soon insensible. CJ. Did you also give the information, after examin- Ing'tbe elder Seward, whether the wounds weremor- talornot? A. Yes, when I came into the room wnere he was, I found terror in the expression of all his family, they '•evidently supposing his wounds were mortal: J examined him, and immediately reported to the family that, his wounds were not mortal, upon which Mr. Seward stretched out his hands, manilest- ing evident satisfaction. CJ. How long was At before Dr. Barnes made his ap pearance ? A. Probably twenty minutes. CJ. Was, or was not Mr. Seward at the time of this attack in a critical condition ? A. No sir; he had im proved very much from his former injury, when his )aw was broken. CJ. State what the effect of these wounds were upon Mr. Seward in reference to his former condition. A. The effect was tu debilitate him aud to make it still more difficult lor him to rally. CJ. Have you not at some timp before this trial stated that the wounds received by Mr. Seward had a ten dency to aid in his recovering from the former injury? A. No sir; I have heard that such an opinion was ex pressed, but I do not know by whom; that was not my opinion. Re-examination of John Borrow, alias "Peanuts." By Judge Bingham. -CJ. State whetheror not you were working at Ford's Theatre in January last. A, Yes«ir, I was. CJ. State if you know the stable in the rear ofthe theatre .occupied by Booth's horses and carriage, A. Yes sir. CJ. Who fitted It up? A. The prisoner. Spangler, and a man by the name of Jones. Q. Did he do that in January last, and before Booth put his horses in there? A. Yes sir. CJ. What did he do to the. stable? A. It was raised up a little behind aud stalls put in; a carriage room was also prepared. CJ. Was Booth there at the time he was doing it? A. He was there sometimes. Cross-examined by Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Did Booth oc cupy j, hat stable with a buggy and horses Irom that time on? A. Yes; first he bad a horse and saddle there; then he sold that horse and got ahorse and buggy. By Judge Bingham.— Q. When was that buggy sold? A. On the Wednesday before the President was mur dered. CJ. Who sold it? A. Ned Spangler, the prisoner. ,;•' By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Do you know who hesold it to? A. He took it down to thebazaar, where they sell horseS and carriages: but he'couldnot get what he wanted, and so hesold it to a man who keeDs a livery stable. * _Q. Did you go with Spangler to take it down? A. Yes sir. Q. Did not Booth and Gifford tell Spangler on Mon day to take it to thebazaar to sell? A. Yes; on the TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 83 Monday before it was sold they told him to, and I went out and cleaned it off. Testimony of James Maddox. _B£,J!«Jge Bins&ani.— Q. Were you employed at Ford's Theatre last winter? A. I was. CJ. State who rented the stable for Booth in which he kept his horses up to the time of the President's mur der, a. I did. Q. When did you rent the stable? A, I think In De cember last. CJ. From whom? A. From Mrs. Davis. CJ. For whom? A. For Booth. CJ. Who paid the rent, and how was it paid? A. I paid it monthly. r CJ, Who furnished the money? A. Booth. CJ. Were you i. resent at the decoration of the box on Friday afternoon theitth of April last, occupied bv tbe President? A. I wa* there at the time. Q. Do you know who decorated it? A, I saw Harrv Ford decorating u. CJ. Did you se? anybody else? A. I do not remember anybody else; there may have been others there. CJ. Do yon know who brought the rocking-chair in which the President sat. to the box tbat day? A. I do not; I saw the colored man, Joe Semms, with it on Irs head that afternoou, comiug down from Mr. Ford's room. CJ. You did notseewhoputitintothebox? A.Nosir Q. Have you ever seen that chair in the box before' A. Not this season; the first time the President came there we put it in; that was in 18(i3. CJ. Aud you do not know of its being there before for two years? A.Nosir. CJ, Were you in tbe box that day? A. No sir; I have not been in that box since 1863. Cross-examined by Mr. Ewing.— CJ. What has beeu your business at Ford's Theatre? A. .Property man. Q. Did your business require you to beon tbestage while the performances weregoing on? A. Yes, when there was anything to do. Q. Whatisyour position on the stage? A. It is to see that (he properties are put on right, and to give to the actors the property required to be used in the play. CJ. What part of the stage did you occupy? A. My room is on tbestage, and I have no special position. CJ. Do you know the passage-way by which Booth escaped? A. I was shown the passage-way; I did not Bee him escape. Q. State whether it is customary, during the perform ance, to have that passage-way clear or obstructed. A. It is generally clear; I have never seen it blocked; when we are playing a heavy piece we generally have to run flats in there pretty well, but it is generally clear. CJ. Is the American Cousin a heavy piece? A. No sir. Q. During the play ofthe American Cousin wou!d the passage through which Booth made bis exit properly be clear? A. Yes; it would properly be clear. CJ. Where was the prisoner Spangler's position? A. On the left-hand side of the stage; the side of the Pre sident's box; he always has been on that side since I have been in the theatre. Q, Did you seeSpan^ler that night? A. Yessir. CJ. State at what time you saw him during the per formance. A. I saw him uretty nearly every scene; if he had not been there I should certainly have missed him: I do not recollect seeing bim away from his posi tion at all; he may have been away, but if he had heen when a scene changed some other person would have had to run his flat; every person would have been in quiring where he was. CJ, If he had been away for what length of time? A. If he bad missed one scene they would have all known It; ono scene sometimes lasts two minutes. CJ. In the third act in the American Cousin are not the scenes shifted irequently? A. Yes, there are seven scenes in that act, as Miss Keene plays it. CJ. Would it have been practicable for Spangler to have been absent during the performance of that act for five minutes without his absence being noticed? A. Yes sir. Q. Would it have been for ten minutes? A. Yes, at particular times his absence for five minutes would have been uoticed; during the second act thescene does not change for about half an hour; at one time during tbe third act the scenes are pretty rapid. CJ. Were you at the front of the theatre during that play? A. In the second act I wasin the box office. CJ. Were you on the pavement? A. I went out the alley way, and had to go on to the pavement in getting Into the office. Q. Did you see Spangler there? A. Nosir; I did not CJ. Have you ever seen Spangler wear a moustache?. A. No; nbtsincelhaveknownhim.andlhaveknown him two years next month. Q. Where were you at the moment the President was assassinated ? A. At the first entrance leading to the left hand box. CJ. Did you see Spangler there shortly before? A. Yes sir; I think I did; I saw him iu his proper position as I crossed the stage after the second scene of third act was on. CJ. How long was that before the President was as sassinated ? A. I think about three or four minutes; I will not state positively; it could not have been long. CJ. When you heard the pistol fired did you see Booth 3hInffi0VS the«tas:e? ^. I did not; i : ffw hlnffirst wb®n ihe had nearly passed off the stage. Q. Did you run alter him? A. I heard them calling f°r water, and I went to my room for thai. **"lu,s „.Tii-Tk -voutsee Spangler after that? A. I did not « U. e next morning, as I recollect. t,S\ D'gyou bear Booth thaf night when he rode up to the theatre call ior Spangle A.Nosir, I did not By Judge Bingham.— a Dft/you know whether that K«i«w^9keiJ^ locked except* when it was occupied or being decorated? A. I do not know. Q. Do you know whether anv of the other boxes were occupied that night? A. t do not think any of Q. Do you not know tbat they were not? A. Icould not state positively whether they were or not: I did not take any notice except as to the President's box. By Mr. Ewing.-Q. When did you firsthearthat the President was to come to the Theatre that night? A. About twelve o'clock that day. CJ. Who told you? A. Harry Ford. Q. Do you know whether the President was invited ^«ie^p,18e/1ltn5t ni?nt? A- I ^ not; a young man employed at the President's house told me that night *£aK ad been uown there that morning to engage the box. Testimony of Lieutenant It. Hartley. By Judge Holt— Q. State whether you have been In the military service, and if so In what position. A. I have been iu the Signal Corps of the Army since August, 1S63. CJ. State whether you have been a prisoner of war, and if so at what time. A. I was a prisoner at Bich mond during a portion ofthe year 1864. CJ, At what prison? A. A part of the time at Libbv. while I was iu Bichmond, and In otherprisons at other times. CJ. State whether or not, during that time, you had occasion to observe that the Libby Prison had been mined by the Confederate Authorities. with a view of exploding it if the citv was captured by Federal troops. A. When we were first taken to Libby we were informed, when taken into the hall, tbat tbe place had been mined; on the next morning weweret-ikeu into a dungeon in the cellar part of the building; in going to the dungeon we had logo round a place of fresh dirt in the centreof the cellar; the guards would not allow any person to pass over or near it: on inquiry why we were fold there wa* a torpedo buried there; that remained t .ere while we were in the dungeon, and some time alter we had been taken up stairs. Q. Did you have an opportunity to examine the tor pedo? A. No, it was not opened while we were in the dungeon, we learned from officers who had charge that a torpedo was there. CJ. Did they speak of one or more? A. One; it was spoken of as the torpedo. CJ. From the appearance of the ground and theplace dug out, would you have supposed it to be a large or a small torpedo? A. The excavation apparently, from the fresh dirt dug out and put back again, was perhaps six feet in diameter. Q. Was that directly under the prison7 A. Yes sir, directly under the centre of the prison. CJ. Did they explain to you the object for which It had been placed there? A. Yes; different persons, in conversation, told us the prison bad been mined, on account of the raid near the city, under tbe command of Dabl'-jren; they said if the raid succeeded, and the prisoners were in danger of beiug liberated, they would blow us up. Testimony of Colonel R. P. Treat. By Judge Holt.— CJ, State your position in the ser vice. A. I am Chief Commissary of the Army of the Ohio, on General Schofield's stalf. CJ. Have you been on duty recently in North Caro lina? A. I have. CJ. Stale whether or not the army with which you were connected there captured several boxes said, to contain the archives of the so-called Confederate states. A. Yes, they were surrendered by General Joe Johnston to General Schofield at Charlotte, North Carolina. CJ. State under what circumstances they were de livered to you by General Johnston. A. I think a letter was sent from Johnston, at Charlotte, toGeneral Schofield, at Raleigh, stating that he had in his posses sion, at Charlotte, the archives of the War Depart ment of the Confederate States of America, and that he was ready to deliver them to General Schofield on his sending an officer to receive tbem ; the following day an officer of Schofield's staff went for them aud brought them to Raleigh ; from that point they were sent to Washington, and came in my charge. Q. To whom did you deliver them hero? A. To Major T. D. Eckert, of the War Department. Q. Were those boxes labeled so as to designate the contents of each ? A. Most of them were. Testimony of Major T. B. Eckert, By Judge Holt.— CJ. State whether or not ydu received and examined certain boxes purporting to contain the 84 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. archives ofthe War Departmentof tbeso-called Confe derate States of America. A. I did receive them yes terday morning, and they have been opened by my di rection, and to a certain extent have undergone exam ination by Mr. F. H. Hall. Testimony of F. "SB. Kail. By Judge Holt— CJ. State whether or not you have Opened certain boxes delivered to you by Major Eckert as containing the archives of the so-called Confederate States of America. A. I have. CJ. Look at that paper and state whether it was found in one of those boxes. A. Yes, I recognize it as one of the papers found. The paper referred to was read to the Court by Col. Burnett, and is as follows:— Montgomery, White Sulphur Springs. "Va. To His Excellency the President of the Conlederate States of America.— Dear Sir:— I have been thinking forsometimel would make this communication to you, but have been debarred from doing so on account of ill health. I now offer you my services, and if you will favor me in my designs, I will proceed as soon as mv health will permit, to rid my country of some of he'r deadliest enemies, by striking at the very heart's blood of those who seek to enchain her in slavery. I consider nothing dishonorable having such a tendency. All I want of you is to favor me by granting the necessary papers, etc., to travel on while within tbe jurisdiction of this Government. I am perfectly familiar with theNorth, and Jeel confi dent tbat I can execute anything I undertake. I have just returned now from within their lines. lama lieutenant in General Duke"s command. Iwas.ona raidlastJune in Ke itucky, under General John H. Morgan. I and all my command, except two or three commissioned officers, were taken prisoners, but find ing a good opportunity while being taken to prison, I made my escape from them in the garbof a citizen. I attempted to pass out through the mountains, but find ing that impossible, narrowly escaping two or three times being retaken, I directed my course North, and South through the Caoadasbythe assistance of Colo nel J. P. Holcombe. I succeeded in making my way round through the blockade; but having taken the yellow fever at Bermuda, I have been rendered unfit for service since my arrival. I was reared up in the State of Alabama, and educated at its University. Both the Secretary of War and his Assistant, Judge Campbell, are personally acquainted with my father, Wm. J. Allston, ot the Fifth Congressional District of Alabama, having served in the time of the old Congress in the year3 1849, 1850 and 1851. If I do anything for you Ishall expect your lull confidence in return. If you give this I can render you and my country very im portant service. Let me hear from you soon. I am anxious to be doing something, and having no com mand at present, all or nearly all being in garrison, I dtsire that you lavor me in this a short time. I would like to have a personal interview with you in order to perfect arrangements before starting. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant. Lieutenant W. ALLSTON. (Address me at these Springs, in hosoital.) On the above letter were the following indorse ments.— 1. Brief of letter without signature, 2. Respectfully referred by direction of the President to the Honorable Secretary of War. (Signed) BURTON W. HARRISON, Private Secretary. Received Nov. 29th, 1864, Record Book A. G. O. Dec. Bth, 1864. third A. G., for attention. By order J. A. Campbell, A. S. W. By Mr. Aiken.— CJ. From which box did you obtain tbat letter? A. From the box marked "Adjutant General's office, letters received from July to Decem ber, 1864." Re-examination of William E. Cleves. CJ. State to the Court whether you have examined the horse you were from here sent to see. A. Yes sir. CJ. Iu what stable? A; At General Augur's head quarters. CJ. Is it the same horse that Arnold bought from Booth? A. Yessir. CJ. You don't know what payment was made on the horse? A, I do not sir. Cross examined by Mr. Ewing.— CJ. How do you know Arnold bought the horse from Booth? A. Only as Booth told me; it was credited to him next morning. By Mr. Doster.— CJ. Did you ever see that horse in the possession of Atzeroth? A. Nosir. The Judge Aavocate-General stated that no more witnesses on behalf of theGovernment were present, and tbat unless the counsel for the accused were pre pared to commence their defense, he would ask for an adjournment ofthe Court for the day. Mr. Aiken remarked that the counsel for the ac cused preferred that the Government should close its evidence before commencing the defense. Alter some conversation among the members of the Court, as to the practicability of accomplishing any business during tbe following two days, on account ot the great review, the Court adjourned until to-morrow (Tuesday), at ten o'clock A. M. Washington, May 25.— The Court met at half-past ten o'clock. Mr. Cox called attention to an error in the record. On Monday Marshal McPhail presented the form of the oath of allegiance, and judged it bore the signa ture of Mr. O'Laughlin, but the witness had not suffi cient knowledge of the handwriting to swear to it po sitively, therefore it was not received as evidence, and was ruled out by the Judge- Advocate. He (Mr. Cox) did not, as stated, ask for the reading, but objected to it. He knew of no other way to correct the testimony than to ask that it be excluded from the evidence. The Judge Advocate-General said that that was right, and so the request of Mr. Cox was complied with. Testimony of Voltaire Randall, Knew the prisoner Arnold; he examined the pri soner's carpet-bag, and found i nit some papers, letters, clothing, a revolver and cartridges. By Judge Advocate Holt.— Q. Will you look at this revolver? (The revolver was handed to the witness.) A. This is the same revolver; I made a minute ex amination at the time; I examined it on the morning ot the 17th of April, at Fortress Monroe; the pistol was loaded, and is loaded at this time. The Court ordered the pistol to be discharged, By Mr. Ewing.— It was at the store of John W, Wharton, a short distance from the iort. The witness stated, in reply to Judge Advocate Holt, that the number of the pistol is 164.557. General Howe remarked that the pistol was a Colt's navy revolver. Testimony of Major Mai-sti. Served In the military service as an officer in one of the Maryland regiments from 1861 until the sist of Au gust,1 181j4; he occupied the position of Lieutenant-Colo nel; when he left tbe service he was a prisoner of war, and confined in the Libby Prison from the 15th of June until the 21st of March, 1864. By Judge Advocate Holt— CJ. State under what cir cumstances you were confined, the number of prison ers, and the treatment you received from the Rebel Government. A. Iwascapturedihreeandahalfmiles from Winchester, on the Martinsburg road: I was in General Milroy's command, and was captured by Gene ral Eweli's corps, and taken to Winchester, where I was detained for two weeks on account of ill health; I was somewhat sick, on account of excess of duty and exposure; at the expiration of two weeks, my health having improved, I was compelled to march to Staun ton; 1 was treated kindly on the road by the offi cers of the escort; when I arrived at Libby Prison the rations were small but tolerably fair at first; a half a loaf of bread was given to each man, with. four ounces of meat, and several spoonsiul or rice; after we had been there four months the meat, as a re gular thing, was stopped, and we received it only occa sionally; the prison authorities then deprived us of wheat bread, and gave us whatthey'calied corn bread; it was of a coarse character; I have known the prison ers to be without meat tnree or lour weeks at a time; in addition to the miserable corn bread, aiew potatoes were occasionally distributed, of the very worstchar- acter: this continued for some time, when the otlicers held a meeting with regard to the bad treatment which they had received; a letter was sent to Colonel Ou Id by General Streight, who was chairman of the meeting, complaining of the bad treatment, and asking ior im provement; to this Colonel Ould replied, "'Ihe treat ment was good enough, and belter than the Rebel pri soners received at Fort Delaware and other places." Ould was the Rebel Commissionerof Exchange. The witness continued:— "Alter I had been in Libby Prison five months I was taken sick with dropsy, lor want of proper nourishment, and sent to the hospital; while there I saw men brought in irom Belle Isle; their condition was horrible in the extreme; I was satisfied that they were in astarving condition; out of forty at least eight or twelve died tbe first night: I asked tbe surgeon in charge of tbe hospital, who was very kind to us at first, what was the matter with these men? he replied their condition was owing to want ot proper treatment and nourishment and ne glect; I had been there about two weeks when two of our-omcers made their escape: Major Turner.in charge of the prisoners, was passionate and insulting when ever he chose to speak; he took it into his head to re move us back from the hospital to Libby Prison; the room to which we were removed was wet with the wusbingolit out; some Ofthe sick wereinadying condition, and were compelled to remain there twenty- four hours without cots or a morsel to eat, as a punish ment because the two officers escaped; the treatment, I repeat, was very harsh; Colonel Fowler spoke to Major Turner with regard to the bad treatment, when tho latter replied, "It is too good lor you Yankees." fhe opportunity I had for seeing the had treatment was when men were brought to the hospital; they were emaciated for want of food; when food was TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. TZrwcrnxrn PPTTCT'Nr Garret's Farm where BOOTH was F OWLING Jtt>EN "ahQt and UAR0LJi captured. DEATH SCENE OF THE ASSASSIN. Map showing where Booth was killed and Harold captured. (6) TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 85 brought within their reach they were eager to get it and they would grr.sp at it. Q. Was there any pretense that this treatment was the result ot necessity, or that they bad not lood enough? A. All the reply I could get was i hat it was a matter of retaliation, and that their prisoners were treated worse than ours. Q. What proportion did the food bear to a ration, or for tbe comfortable support of Ihe? was it one-half or onoquarter? A. Aman culd poss.bly live on what was hrst given, all hough not a full ration: a man could not possibly live on it all the time: what was called corn bread appeared to be meal and bran mixed, and baked in a lough condition; lor davs we lived on that and water alone. Examination of Captain Emory. Was in the military service, and was captured at Winchester on the J5th ur June, 1SU3, and exchanged on the 4th of May, 18G4. He stated substantially ihe same as the preceding witness in respect to the food and bad treatment received by the Union prisoners. The money belonging to the prisoners was tauen away irom them, and, there:ore. mey could not buy lood. The bearingof the Rebel keeperof the prison was very rude. He always abused the prisoners. When the latter were brought to the hospital their condi tion was awful, from the result, as it was generally understood, of starvation. After the battle of Chickamauga fiueen or sixteen ol these sick prisoners were tied on a cart, to keep them from falling oil", although there were ambulances near by not in use: they were tied like sacksot grain. The witnesssaid he had to lieon the floor lor a long time, and had not yet recovered his strength. The Conimlltee ofthe Bebel Senate knew of their horrible treatment, but did not notice them on their visit. On one occasion he told the men he wantedsome medicine. Turner said he had none to give bim, and added, "The treatment is good enough for Yankees." An Inspeeior ofthe pr.son, named Turner, said the object ofthe treatment was io kill the prisoners, adding, '*lt is good enough for you. You had no business to come here. If I had com mand I would hang all of you.'' Testimony of Ben j. Swearer. By Judge Advocate Holt— Q. State to the Court whether you have beenin the military service of the "United States. I have; I was color sergeant in the regiment to which I belong. Q. State whether or not you were a prisoner of war at any time. A. 1 was; I was captured on the isth of October, it>(>3. Q. Slate how long after your capture you continued a prisoner of war, and at what poiut you were con fined. A. Five months and seven days; I was confined at Belle Isle. Q,. What number of prisoners were confined with you? A. When I leit there were about thirteen thou sand there. Q. Weie they kept in buildings, or simply on the naked sand? A. On the naked sand of the island. Q. In what season of the year? A. In winter. Q. Were they provided with any shelter? A. Some were. Ci. What proportion ot them? A. I judge about one- halt: Q. What kind of treatment did you receive? A. We had about halt enough food to live on. Q. Of whatdid the rations consist? A. There were twenty-five pounds of meat served up for one hundred men, and a big share of that was bone; some corn bread was browned up witli it. Q. What opportunities had you for cooking it? A. It was cooked lor us. Q. What was the effect of this system of starvation upon the health of the men? A. It was very marked ; the men had nothing else to live on, and 1 have seen men on that island starved to death; more than that, thebodiesoftho.se who died were allowed to lie for eight or nine dajs in the trenches without being buried; they would not allow us to bury them; they laid there, to the best of my knowledge, Irom seven to nine days. Q. Was that toe subject of remonstrance on your part? A. I judge it was; I spoke to the lieutenant in chajge of tbe prisoners on the island, and he told me he bad nothing to do with it; that he had his orders from Major Turner. 0. You say that they positively refused you permis sion to bury the dead? A. Yes sir; I asked as a per sonal favor to be allowed to bury the dead, but was re fused. Q. Did the men die in large numbers? A. I helped to carry cut from ten to fifteen and twenty a day; more than that, I saw men shot down without the slightest cause or provocation. Q. State whether the death of these men was caused mainly by starvation. A. It was. Q. Was any proposition made by the prisoners to the Rebel authorities to support themselves, if they should be allowed to secure provisions? A. I think there was; I cannot say ior certain, but there was a large number Who volunteered to work in order to get something; nnmbers ofthe men volunteered to work at building a machine shop there. Q. You say that one-half of these prisoners, in the dead of winter, laid out at night on the open sand, without any shelter from the weatheror any fuel to warm them? A. Yes sir; I laid there lor three months without any shelter; my ordinary weight is about one hundred aridseveniy pounds, but when I came home I weighed only about onChundred andTwenty-three; I do not think 1 would have lived had I staid there a month longer. Testimony of Wm. Bull. By Judge Advocate Holt.— Q. How long have you been in the military service oi the United States? A- I enlisted in laiffi. Q. When were you captured by the enemy? A. On thelHhotMay, 1KC4. Q. How long were you a prisoner? A. About eleven months and twenty-two days. Q. Slate where you were confined. A. AtAnderson- vilie, Ga. Q. How many prisoners of war were there at the t me of your confinement? A. I think ihat altogether there were in the neighborhood ot thirty-two thousand. Q,. State what treatment tbey received from the Bebel authorities while you were there. A. The treat ment was very poor indeed; they had no shelter what ever, but were compelled to live in a swamp; their blankets, hats, caps, their clothing in general, and their money, were taken Irom them. Q. "Vou say they were compelled to live in a swamp? A. Yes-sii; the encampment was in a swamp, CJ. Had itany shel.er? A. No shelter whatever. Q. State whetherthere was woodland inthat vicinity. A. Yessir; there was splendid pine wood around there, any quantity of it. Q. State tbe character of the rations served'out. A. Well, sir, every morning when the wagon came around, i here would be served to each man half a pint of corn meal, two ounces of bacon, and a half-spoonful of salt; this wi.s all the rations lor iwenty-iour hours. Q. What was the character of the bacon? A. Well, it was alive. Q. Was it rancid and rotten? A. Yes sir; onceiua while we would get hold ol a good piece, but not very often. Q. What was the effect of this treatment on the pri soners? A. It was very hurtful, and killed them off: the largest number of deaths in any one day, so far as my recollection goes, was one hundred and thirty- three. Q. Was ft not understood there that most of these deaths were occas'oned by starvation? A. It was. Q. Was any remonstrance addressed to the Bebel authorities in regard to these things? A. I do not think there was. Q. Bid you bear any statement on that subject Irom the enemy? A. Yessir. Q. What did they say? A. They said they did not care a whether the Yankees died or not. Q. Bo you remember whether a man by the name of Howell Cobb, formerly Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, visited Andersonville? A. I do; he made a speech there. I think, some time in February. Q. Lo you remember the tone of that speech, or what hesaid in reierence to the prisoners? A. He made some very bitter remarks; I do not recollect the exact terms. Q. Were they in support of the policy which had been pur^uedin the treatment of prisoners, or other wise? A.- He said tbat was the best they could do for them, meaning the prisoners; that if the authorities locked after them a little more no doubt they would fare better; he only said a few words, and did not seem to care much about tbe prisoners. Q. You say the men died at the rate of 100 to 150 a day? A I think that tbe day on which the largest number ot'deaths occurred was the 11th of September, when 133 of the prisoners died. Q. You say they were m tbe open sun; was the heat very great? A. 1 1 was vc ry intense indeed. Q. How was the water? A. We were obliged to drink water which had been made filthy in conse quence ofthe garbage thrown in the creek above. Q, Bid you regard that as accidental or the work of design? A. I do not know positively; theBebels al ways threw their filth and waste matter into thecreek above, and the men got up a remonstrance, the reply to which was that tney did not care a for the Yankees. Q_. How was the treatment in the prison; were many of tbe men shot? A. Yes sir; when I first went there in June, as many as six or eight a day were shot dead. Q. Did it appear to you that they were shot in wantonness? A. If a man got half a foot over the dead line, or near it, he was shot; it was said that they got a thirtv days' furlough for shooting a Yankee. Q. Do you remember whether Howell Cobb relerred in his speech to the Bebel emissaries at the North who were engaged in the work of firing Northern cities? A. He made some remark about a plan to burn and plunder the North; I cannot tell what were the words used. Q. What was the treatment of prisoners who were 86 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. sick in tbe hospitals? A. It was very poor indeed they got pitch-pine pills for the diarrhoea, pitch-pine pills for the scurvy, and pitch-pine pills for every thing else: they did not get any regular medicine. Q. Of what were these pitch-pine pills composed? A. Of a little pitch-pine, the stuff that runs out of the trees there, and a little vinegar; once in a while the patients would get a little medicine, or something. hike it. ' Q. Was any of tbe money taken from the prisoners returned to them? A. Not a cent. Q. What was your experience in regard to the taking of your clothes and money? A. When 1 was first cap tured they took my shoes off, and I walked barefoot to Gordonsville; they then took irom me my blanket and clothes, and lor nine months I had nothing on but a pair of drawers and a shirt: I laid there on the open ground ior nine months without a bit of shelter. Q. Was that the common experience? A. Yes sir; there were thousands there in tbe same fix; the corpse of a man who died in the morning could not be ap proached by night within twenty ieet, and pitch-iorks hod to be used to carry the body off to the trenches. By the Court.— Q. Did you hear any reasons given for depriving tbe prisoners of their clothing? A. It was because they needed it for their own use; I would state here that clothing was sent there by our Govern ment, and the Rebel Captain in charge over the prisoners took it himself, and this Captain was in command of the interior of the prison; Colonel Gibbs commanded the post. Q. Was Ihe quality of the provisions served out to you such that a man would not eat unless be wasin a starving condition? A. Yessir; I would not think of such a thing now, but a man in danger of starvation might eat them. Q. Do you think it possible to sustain life for any great length ot time on such food? A. I do not think a man could do it a great while; up to the day I left, which was the 24th ol March. 16,725 men had died there; that was the number taken from the books by myself. By Judge Holt.— Q. What proportion of those deaths, in your judgment and the judgment oi other prisoners, occurred irom starvation i.nd in consequence of this treatment of which you speak? A. I have no doubt over one-half; the fond which they received was the cause of their sickness, and after they got sick they did not receive any better food. By the Court.— Q. Was there any medical treatment given to those suffering prisoners? A, Very little; indeed nothing of any benefit. Testimony of E. W. Ross. By Judge Advocate Holt.— Q. State whether or not you have been in the service of the Bebel Govern ment. A. I never was in the army; I was a clerk at Libby Prison. Q. Were you a clerk there in the month of March, 1864? A. Yessir; about that time General Kilpatrick was making a ruid in the vicinity ot Richmond. Q. State what knowledge, if any, you had of Libby Prison having at that time been mined by ihe Confe derate authorities. A. I never saw the powder, but I saw the place where ihey said the powder was buried; I was away one night about that time, and when I came back in the morning one of the colored men at the prison told me that some powder had been put into the building; when I went to roll call one or the officers asked me whether the powder was there, and I told himldiduot know certainly, I saw the fuse in the office. Q. Did you ever see the place where the powder was buried? A. Yes sir, lrequently: two sentinels were placed over it to keep persons irom approaching the place. Q. Was the fuse kept in the office? A. Yes sir; Major Turner had it in charge; it was an eight-second fuse. Q. Did be state to you that the powder was there? A. Yes sir, and also said that this fuse was to set it off. Q. In what event was this explosion to take place? A. In case the raiders got into the city they would set it off. Q. And blow up the prison aud the prisoners? A. That must have been their intention. Q. How long did that powder remain there? A. In May they took it out secretly. Q. Do you know whether the fact of its removal was kept a secret from the prisoners themselves? A. I do noL. By the Court.— Q. Didyou understand by whose au thority the powder was put there? A. It was done while Winder was Secretary ol War. Q. State whether or not Major Turner, the keeper of the prison, did not seem to be acting under the autho rity ofthe War Department? A. He never told methat he was acting under any orders in the matter, or even that the powder was there. Q,. Was he not a subordinate of the War Department? A. Yes sir. Testimony of John La Tonche. By Judge Holt.— Q. State whether or not you have been in the service ofthe Rebels? A. Yes sir; I was in the Confederate States Army. 'u. State whether or not you were on duty at Libby I Prison in March, 1864? A. Ibadbeen detailed there and was on duty at that place at that time. Q. State what knowledge you have, if any, concern ing the mining of Libby Prison about that time by the Confederate authorities? A. Major Turner, the keeper ofthe prison, told me one day that he was going to sue General Winder about a guard; I believe we had no re lief tbat day; when he returned he told me that Gen. Winder himself bad been to see the Secretary of War, and that they were going to put powder in the build ing- in the evening oi the same day the powder came there; it was in twenty-five pound kegs, which were contained in boxes, and altogether amounted to, I sup pose, one hundred pounds; a hole was dug in the cen tre of the middle basement, and tbe pOwderwas put down therein; the ground was then covered over with gravel; I took one of the sentries from the outside of the building and placed him over this powder, so that no accident might occur; the next day -Major Turner showed us tiie fuse in the office; it was a long fuse, and was made of gutta percha; the jiowder remained there until, I think, sometime in May, when the prisoners were all removed from the prison; General Winder then sent a note to the office, with directions to take up the powder as secretly as possible; I do not remem ber the exact word. Q. State whether you heard in what event this pow der was to be set off? A. I did not hear at that time; I heard him say afterwards that in case of the raiders coming into Bichmond he would blow up the place. Q. Meaning tbe prison building and the prisoners in it? A. I suppose so. Testimony of George N*. SIcGee. By Judge Advocate Holt — Q. State whether you know the prisoner at the bar, Samuel Arnold? A. I do. Q. State whether or not he has been In the military service of the Rebels ? Mr. Ewing.— I object. The ground of my objection is that Arnold is here on trial ior- having been engaged iu a conspiracy to do certain things, and that it is not competent ior the Government to show, ii such be the iact, that before he entered into this conspiracy he was in the military service of the Coniederate Slates. He is not on trial for having been in the military service ofthe Coniederate States; he is not on trial ior having taken the oath ot allegiance and broken it, for they may see fit to follow this up by a statement of that kind, as has been done in the case of O'Laughlin. He is on trial ior an offense defined clearly in the charge and specifications, and it is not competent, it seems tome clearly not competent, to attempt to aggravate the offense with whicu he is charged, and ot which they seek to prove him guilty, by showing that he has been un faithful to the Government in other respects and at other times, and it is introduced aud can be introduced for no other purpose than that of aggravating his alleged acts in connection with the conspiracy. That course of testimony would be in effect allowing the prosecution to introduce testimony as to tbe pre vious cbarac.er of the accused, and that is a right that is reserved to the accused always, and is never allowed to the prosecution. More than that, it would allow the prosecution to do what the accused is not allowed to do on his own behalf in the point of character, that is, to introduce specific acts, from which his character may be inferred. Judge Advocate Holt.— I will make only a single re mark. I think the testimony in this case has proven what I believe to be sufficiently demonstrative, how kindred to each other are tbecnmesof treason against the nation and tbe assassination ot its Chief Magistrate. Tbe one seems to be a necessary consequence of, as it certainly is a logical sequence irom the other. Tne murder of the PresidentoftheUnitedStates, as alleged and shown, was, pre-eminently, a political assassina tion. Disloyalty to the Government was its sole, its only Inspiration. When, therefore, we shall show, on the part of the accused, acts of intense disloyalty, the bearingof arms in the field against that Government, we show the presence of an animus towards that Go vernment which relieves this accusation of much if not all improbability. This course of proof is con stantly resorted in other Courts. I do not regard it as In the slightest degree a departure from the usages of the profession. In the administration of courts of jus tice, the purpose is to show that the prisoner, in his mind and in his course of life, was prepared for the commission of this crime; that the tendencies ot his life, so evidenced by open and overt acts, points to this crime; if not as a natural certaintv, as a most probable result. It is in that view and with that object that tbe testimony is ottered. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham referred to Kos- coe's "Criminal Evidence." page 85 or 87, as authority ior the rule of law tbat when the intent with which an act is done is initial, other acts of tbe prisoner not ini tial, to prove the intent, may be given in evidence. It was alleged in the charge and speculations that the prisoner Arnold, with others, engaged in a conspiracy lo murder tne President of the United States, and others, with intent to aid the Rebellion against the United States. The object here now was to establish that intent thus put in issue by p oving that the pri soner himself was part ofthe Rebellion. Mr. Ewing said that he would defer speaking upon TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 87 the general principle involved, and content himself with arelerence to authorities in support of his posi tion. He accordingly referred to several authorities on the subject, irom only one of which we quote as follows:— "Evidence will not be admitted on the part of the prosecution to show the bad character ofthe accused unless hehas called witnesses in support of his character, and even then the prosecutor cannot examine as to particular acts." '.The objection was then overruled, and the following answer to the question was given by the witness :— A. Icould not say positively. Q. Did you hear Dr. Mudd say anything about send- i ne any one to Bichmond? A. Yes: he said to one of the men, one day, that he would send him to Rich- mCross-examined by Mr. Ewing.-Q. How many times did you notice these men in the woods? A. rney were there for a week or more, and I saw them seven or eight times; they all then went away together in the "a Do yon know their names? A. I think one was Andrew Gwynne; I do not know the names of the others Q Were they ever there at any other time than that week? I did not see them at any other time. Q. What other person saw them there? A. The wo man Mary Simms, who was on here just now, saw them- her and another woman were in the room; I don't' Know any white person who saw them, except Dr. Mudd and his wile. Q. Did Mr. Best see them? A. I do not know. Q. Did any ofthe field hands or any ol the neighbors see them? A. I do not know of any. 88 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Q. Where were the horses of these men kept? A. They kept their horses in the stable; sometimes Milo and sometimes Henry Ham. Q. What time in the summer was it you saw them there? A. I think it was about August. Testimony of Mslo Si:»ms (Colored.) ¦Examined by Judge Bingham.— Q. State whether you lived with the prisoner, Dr. Samuel A. Mudd. A. Ye3, 1 was his slave; I leit his house the Friday before last Christmas. Q, State if at any time while you stayed at Dr. Mudd's house you saw any men there. A. I saw two or three there lastsuinmer. Q, Where did the men stay? A. Sometimes in the house, and then down by thespring among the bushes; they slept down among tLie bushes. Q. Did you see the bed down there? A. Yes; it was fixed under a pine tree, with ablanket, and rails at the head. Q. Where did they get their victuals? A- From Dr. Mudd's; sometimes my sister carried it to them; some times they carried it their selves. Q. When your sister carried it where was it put? A. Down by the spring, Q. Who took it away? A. Sometimes John Surratt, sometimes one ofthe others. Q. How did you know John Surratt? A. I heard them call him at the house. Q. What kind of a looking man was he? A. He had light hair and wniskersand was a slim man. Q. When there were men in the house was anything said by Dr. Mudd about watching? A. He set some children to watch who was coming; if anyone was coming they were to tell him. Q. Do you know whether anything was said about any one coming while these men were in the house? A. I do not. Q. now were they dressed? A. They had on grey clothes with brass buttons. Q. State if you heard any talk between Gen. Gard ner and Dr. Mudd about Mr. Lincoln. A. Yes: I heard Mr. Gardner say ''Lincoln was — — son of a — , and ought to havebeen kilJed long ago;" Dr. Mudd said, "yes, that was much after his mind:" that was some time last fall Cross-examined by Mr. Stone.— Q,. Did you work in the house or in the field? A. In the field, but some times when I was at the bouse I took the horses. Q. How old are you? A. I reckon about fourteen years. Q. Would yon know John H. Surratt if yon were to see him? A. I don't know as I would now. Q. Who pointed him out to you? A. Dr. Mudd would say, "Lake Mr. Surratt's horse and carry him out to the stable and feed him." Q. How often did you see him? A. Two or three times. Q. How many came with him? A. Two or three. Q. Where was it that you heard this talk between Mudd and Gardner? A. AtBeantown. Q. How lar is Beantown from your house? A. About three miles; I went up with him after some liquor last summer. Q. Wns there anybody eise there besides Mr. Gard ner and Dr. Mudd? A. There were some men in there but I did'nt know them. Q. Was not Andrew Gwynn there with Surratt? A. Not ns 1 know of; I saw him at Dr. Mudd's father's house; I never'saw Andrew Gwynn at Dr. Mudd's house. Q. Who was with Andrew Gwynn? A. Jenny Dyer. Q. When was the last time you saw John Surratt at Dr. Mudd's? A. Last winter. Q. J- id he stay all night? A. Yes. Testimony of Wm. ftlarsnall, (Colored.) By Judge Bingham.— Q. State whether vou were the slave of and lived with Dr. Samuel A. "Mudd. A I married near him. Q. Dj you know Ben. Gardner, one of his neighbors? A. Yes, Ben. Gardner was my wile's master. Q. State if you heard any conversation between Gardner and Dr. Mudd about the battles on the Bap- Sahannock. A. Yes; I beard Mr. Gardner sav to Dr [udd, "Sam., wegavethem — down on the'Rappa- honnock." Ihe Doctor said '¦ Yes we did." Gardner said that "Old Stonewall was the best of the Generals-" Doctor said, "Yes, he was quite a smart man;" Gard ner said that "Lee had gone round up into Mary laud* that he was go>ng to cross the river at the Point of Rocks, remember that, and he would not be surprised iftheywere there now:" he said that "in n short time he wf uld take the Capita t and Washington, and have Old Lincoln burned up in thehouse;" Dr. Mudd said "He would not be surprised." Q. State whether Dr. Mudd made any objection A. He did not. Testimony of Rachel Spencer (Colored). By Judge Bingham.->Q. State whether you were a sUve ofthe prisoner, Dr. Mudd. A. Iwas; I leit him Jii January last. Q. While you were at Dr. Mudd's house did you see men come there at times? A. Yes, at the time men were passing through there last summer, some Ave or six came there. Q. What sort of a dress did they wear? A. A black or blue: they slept in the pines, about twenty yard3 from the house, near the spring. Q. Where did they get their victuals while they were there? A. At the house, and sometimes Dr. Sana took the victuals to them. Q. When they would come Into the house, did he say anything to any of tho servants or boys about what they were to do? A. Iwas in the kitchen; they said they had to go to the door and watch. Q. I id you hear tne names of any ofthe men who called at Dr. Mudd's house? A. Yes; Andrew Gwynn and Walter Bowie. Q. D.d you see a young man among those wbo visited there? A. Yes; be slept in the pines, too, when they were tli ere last summer. Q. Describe his appearance. A. He was not very tall; he was lair looking and slender, Q. Do you remember bis being there more than once last summer? A. I do not. Q. Do you remember hearing Dr. Mudd say any thing about Richmond? A. I heard bim tell one of hismenhe would send him to Richmond. Cross-examined by Mr. Stone— Q. You say you saw them there in the summer; was it the first of the summer or the last? A. I do not know; it was warm weather; they all came together and went together; I believe they staid at the Spring about a week. Q. Where were their horses? A. Inthestable. Q. Was Mr. Best livmg the.e that year? A. Yes; to the best of my knowledge he came there the winter before. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Albion Brooke was living there at the time these men were there. A. Yes he was. Q. Did Mr. Best and Mr. Brooke also see these peo ple? A. Yessir. By Mr. Bingham.— Q. Do you know whether Albion Brooke ever saw them or not, or did you merely sup pose he did? A. He saw them. Q. Did he tell you he saw them or how did you know it? A. He used to go with them ; they were all to gether. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Best ever saw them or not? A. I am not posit, ve whether he did or not. Tbe Judge Advocate-General here stated tbat, re serving the right to introduce i urther testimony on the general subject of the Conspiracy, the prosecution would here close. TESTIMONY FOR THE ©EFEWSE. Mr. Aiken stated that by agreement amongthe coun sel for the de'ense they would first introduce testimony in behalf of Mrs. Surratt. Theywould proceedasfar as practicable this afternoon but would not consider the testimony closed in respect to any one until all the testimony for the defense was in. Testimony of Father Wi^gat. By Mr. Aiken.— Q. State your residence in this city, and your occupation. A. My residence is Gonzaga College, in this c.ty, m F street, between Ninth and Tenth; I am a clergyman. tt. Are you acquainted with the prisoner. Mary E, Surratt? A. I am and have been for ten or eleven years. Q. Has that acquaintance been of an intimate cha racter? A. I knew ber very well. Q. Are you acquainted with her general reputation? A. I have always heard everyone speak very highly other as a lady and u Christian. Q. In all that acquaintance has anything ever come to your knowledge that wou'd indicate an unchristian character on her part? A. No, never. Q. Are you acquainted w,th Lewis J. Weichman? A. Only very sligntiy; I saw him a few times; lam not well acquainted with him. Q. State whetner. from your knowledge, he has ever been a student of d.viniiy. Question objected to by Mr. Bingham, on the ground that the purpose of the question was to impeach the character ot Weichman. He could notbe contradicted in respect to entirely immaterial matter. Mr Aiken rep.ied that the intention was to impeach weichman's testimony in this and manv other par ticulars, and as ihe foundation had been laid in the cross-examination the question was a proper one. Ihe objection wassustained by the Court. T&ota^f StM8 °'ty pf Eichmona • C«lKfllo Question objected, to by Mr. Bingham, for the same reason as last question, and objection sustained by tbe Q. In your acquaintance with Mrs. Surratt have you No" Steuiarw;'60"'6 eyesi8ht 0Q her »art? A" Cross-examined by JudgeHolt-Q. You say you know ^„?t1a^cter,ot,tue fisoner. Mrs. Surrattf For ¦ CcrlJ tianity is pood; have you any personal knowledge of her character, or loyalty? A.^o; my intercourse with her has never ext nded to political affairs. ¦ rturinV??, P'pfhiif1 i'1'erc0Qrse with her as her pastor paftof. Bebelli°n, nave you not? A. 1 am not her TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 89 Q. How often have you been in tbe habit of seeing her during the Rebellion? A. Sometimes not for six months, sometimes six weeks and sometimes as often as once a week. Q. Have you had free conversation with her? A. My conversation would only be for a few minutes. and then of a general character. Q,. Have you ever since the Rebellion heard her utter one loyal sentiment? A. I do not remember. Q. Can you state whether It is not notorious among those who knowanytbingofher, thatsheis intensely disloyal? A. I do not remember that this thing was ever talked about at all till since this last affair hap pened. Testimony of Father Boyle. By Mr. Aiken.— Q. State your residence In this city and occupation? A. My residence is at St. Peter's Church; I am a Catholic priest. Q. Are you acquainted with the prisoner, Mary E. Surratt? A. I have some acquaintance with her; I made her acquaintance some eight or nine years ago; I have merely met her casually some three or four times since then. Q. Do you know anything of her general reputation? A. I have always heard her spoken of as an estima ble lady; I never heard a word said to her disadvan tage. Q, In all your acquaintance with her, did you ever hear her utter a disloyal sentiment? A. I never did. Cross-examined by Judge Holt.— Q. Have you ever heard her utter a loyal sentiment? A. I never heard much of her sentiments at all; I saw her so little, and at such long intervals, that I could not undertake to say what her general character for loyalty is. Testimony of Father Stonestreet. By Mr. Aiken.— Q. State your residence and occupa tion. A. I reside at present in Washington; I am pastor of St. Aloysius church. Q. Are you acquainted with the prisoner, Mary E. Surratt? A. I am, Q. How long have you been acquainted with her? A. I first met her more than twenty years ago in Alex andria; alter that I did not see her for ten years, and since then only in transit as I was passing. CJ. Have you not within the past two years been more intimate with her? A. I have scarcely seen her. Q, Bo you know her general reputation as a Christian and a lady? A. I have always looked upon her as a proper, Christian lady. CJ. Have you in all your intercourse with her ever heard her utter a disloyal sentiment? A. Never; but there was no question of the kind at the time I knew her. Cross-examined by Judge Holt.— CJ. State whether you have probably seen her since the beginning of the Rebellion? A. I do not remember having seen her at all; I have no knowledge whatever of her character for loyalty except what I haveaeen in the papers. Testimony of Mrs. Eliza Moilahan. By Mr. Aiken.— CJ. Are you acquainted with the pri soner, Mrs. Surratt? A. I boarded with Mrs. Surratt from the 7th of February until the 16th of April. CJ. Areyouacquainted with the prisoner, Payne? A. I neversaw him as Payne; I saw the man pointed out as Payne at her house twice; he called himself Wood, Q. When did lie first come to Mrs. Surratt's house? A. I saw him first there in February, and the second time during the month of March. CJ. State under what circumstances he came to Mrs. Surratt's bouse, and how he introduced himself. A. Indeed I do not know anything about it; I went into the parlor and was introduced to him as Mr. Wood; I never changed a word with him atall. Q. Did he represent himselfa Baptist preacher? A. I asked Miss Ann Surratt who be was; she said he was a Baptist minister; I said I did not think he would con vert many s^uls. (Laughter.) CJ. At that time, how loug did he remain at Mrs. Surratt's bouse? A. I never saw bim but one night. Q. DidMrs. Surratt keep a boarding house? A. I do not think she did; only my family and another young lady boarded there. Q. Was she in the habit of giving people rooms in her houpe? A. I do not know anything about it; I never saw Mrs. Surratt until I went to board with her; I never heard of her. Q. How long did Payne stay there when he came in March? A. I do net know; two or three days, I think. Q. When was the last time you saw him at Mrs. Sur ratt's house? A. It- was some time in March; I do not Know the exact day; I thought he was a friend of theirs and never asked any questions about him; I think it was about the middle ot the month: it was alter the inauguration ofthe President I know. CJ. Have you ever seen the prisoner, Atzeroth, at that house? A. I have, though I never heard his name there. Q. When was that? A. I do not know: I saw him. come in at times; the ladies called him -'Port Tobacco." Q. Was any objection made on the part of anv of the fami'y to his being there? A. I heard Mrs. Surratt say that she objected to Atzeroth: thatsbe would not board him; I beard her say at the table that she wouldrather he would not come there at all. CJ. Have you been intimate with Mrs. Surratt? A. i cannot say that 1 was intimate; I liked her very much; she was a very kind lady to board with. Q. Did you have frequent conversations with her? A. Not very. Q. Were you acquainted with J. Wilkes Booth? A I have seen him at Mrs. Surratt's; I met him once in the parlor. Q. Did he come frequently to Mrs. Surratt's house? A. I never saw him there but three or lour times, and never met him but once. Q. Did he spend most of the time when he came therein company with Mrs. Surratt? A. I think he did; he would ask for Johu Surratt, and if he was not there he would inquire for Mrs. Surratt. CJ. Have you learned anything while boarding with Mrs. Surratt of her deiective eyesight. A. I never saw her read or sew after candle light. Q. Have you been in the habit of attending church with Mrs. Surratt? A. "Yes; during Lent we went to church very often together. CJ. Was she during that time constant in her reli gious duties? A. I believe so. Q. When was the last time you saw herson. John H. Surratt, at her house? A. Some time in March. Q. Have you seen him in the city since that time? A. I have not. Cross-examined by Judge Holt.— CJ. You sav you never saw Mrs. Surratt sew or read after dark; have you not often met her in the parlor at gas-ligbt? A. Yes. Q. Did she ever have any difficulty in recognizing you or anybody she was acquainted with in the parlor by gaslight? A. No sir. Testimony of Miss JHConora Fitzpatrick. By Mr. Aiken.— Q. When did you commence board ing with Mrs. Surratt? A. The Cth of October last. LJ. How long did you board there? A. Until the time I was arrested, alter the assassination. Q. When did you first meet at Mrs. Surratt's house tbe prisoner Payne? A. I do not know what month; I met him during the winter; I first saw him at break- last. CJ. How many times did you meet him? A. I only Bawhim there twice. Q. When was the last time? A. In March. Q. How long did he stay at that time? A. I do not know: I started to Baltimore the next morning alter he came. CJ. How long did you stay in Baltimore? A. A week. Q. Was Payne gone when you returned? A. Ye3. Q. Do you know the prisoner, Atzeroth? A. I do, CJ. When did he fir.jtcometo Mrs. Surratt's? A, I do not know the day or' the month. CJ. How long did he stay there? A. Only a short time. Q. Can you state under what circumstances he left? A. I do not know under what circumstances; 1 believe Mrs. Surratt sent him away. Q. Are you aware of his getting drunk in the house and making disturbance? A. I am not; I heard he had bottles up there, but I didn't know anything about bis getting drunk. Q. Wnat room did you occupy in the bouse? A.I slept in the same room with Mrs. Surratt and her daughter, Anna. Q. Was there a photograph of Booth in that room? A. Yessir. CJ. Was it yours? A. No. CJ. Have you ever seen that picture, "Night and Morning?" A. Yes. Q. Was that yours? A. No; that belonged to Mrs. Surratt's daughter. CJ. Do you know anything about Booth's picture being placed behind tbat? A. No. CJ. Did you own many of the photographs in the house? A. Not many; I owned some in the albums. Q. Were there photographs of Union Generals in the house? A. I saw one or McClellan, I think. CJ. Did you, wnile you were in tbe house, know any thing of defective eyesight on the part of Mrs. fturratt? A. I know she could not read or sew at night, on ac count ot'hor eyesight. CJ. Are you acquainted with Louis J. Weichmann? A. Yes. CJ. Was he treated in the house like a friend? A. He was treated more like a son. CJ. When did you last see Booth there? A. The Monday before the assassination. (J. When did you last see John Surratt? A. The nisht that he leit the house, two weeks beiore the assassination. , . Q. Did you see him anywhere in the city during those two weeks? A. No. ,_ „ „ ^ CJ. Did you ever buy any photographs of Booth or give one to Miss Anna Surratt? A. I bought one, and she bought one herself. Q. Have you ever known Mrs. Surratt to be unable to recognize persons of her acquaintance in the street? A. I remember of her passing Mrs. Kirby in the street once, without recognizing her; she did not see her at all. CJ. Was Mrs. Kirby on the same side of the street with her? A. Yessir. Cross-examined by Judge Holt.— Q. Did you ever 90 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. know Mrs, Surratt to have any difficulty in recogniz ing her friends in the parlor by gaslight; did she always recognize you? A. She did. CJ. you speak of owning some of these photographs' did you own the photographs of Stephens, Davis and Beauregard? A. No sir, they did not oelong to me. Testimony of George H\ Calvert. George H. Calvert was next called as a witness for tbe defense, and questioned in reference to a letter written by him to Mrs.Sur-attonthel2th of April last, but the letter itself not being in court, his examina tion was postponed until the letter could be produced. Testimony of B. F. Gwynn. J5y Mr. Aiken.— CJ. Where do you reside? A. In Prince Georges county, Maryland, near Surrattsville. Q. Are you acquainted with the prisoner, Mrs. Sur ratt? A. Yes; I have been acquainted with her seven or eight years. Q. Were you present at her house in Surrattsville in April last? A. I was, the day the murder ofthe Presi dent; I came irom Marlboro', and met her there; while I was passing in the carriage Mrs. Surratt said she w.anted to see me, and I stopped to see her. Q. Have you been in the habit oi'transactingbusiness for her? A. Yes, I have transacted some business for her; I sold some land lor her. CJ. Did you transact any business for her that day? A. No; she gave a letter to me to give to Mr. Northe. CJ. were you present at the house when Mr. Floyd returned? A. No sir. CJ. Are you acquainted with John M. Floyd? A. I am. CJ. Did you meet him that day? A. I did, at Marl boro'. CJ. What time in the afternoon of thei4th did you See him? A. At about four or lour and a ball'; Iparted with him at the road; I did not see him afterwards. CJ. What was his condition at the time? A. He had been drinking right smartly. Q. Did be seem to De considerably intoxicated? A. I could hardly tell that; he acted like a man who had been drinking some. Q. Had you a personal knowledge of Mr. Nortbe's buying land of Mrs. Surratt? A. I bad of his buying land of her husband. ' CJ. Did you know personally that she was there that day on that business? A. Nut except by the letter. Q. Was Mr. .F.oyd present at the time Mrs. Surratt banded you that letter? A, No sir. CJ. Did you see him again that afternoon? A. I did not. Cross-examined by Judge Holt.— CJ. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Floyd that afternoon? A. Yes, I think I did see him three or lour times that day at Marlboro'. CJ. I mean at home? A. I did not see him after he got home. By the Court.— Q. How far is It where you parted with him on the road to Surrattsville? A. About five rniles. Mr. Aiken.— CJ. You received the letter? A. Yes, ahd read it; the direction on the outside was, to read it and deliver it to Mr. Northe. Testimony of Captain Geo. Cottingham. By Mr. Aiken.— CJ. What is your business? A. Special officer in Major O'Beirne's Board of Enroll ment. CJ. Were you engaged in making any arrests of par ties after the assassination? A. I was. Q. Did you arrest John M. Floyd? A. No sir; my partner, who was with me. arrested him. CJ. Did you see him after he was arrested? A. I did; he was put into my care at the Post Oihce at Surratts ville. CJ. What Information did Floyd give you at that time? A. He denied knowing anything about it and for two days continued to deny it. I hnallytold him that I was satisfied he knew about it; that he had it on his mind aud the sooner he got rid of it the better. Hesaid, ''Oh! my God, if I should makea confession they would murder me." Said I, ''who would murder you?" He said these parties in the conspi racy. I told him that if he was going to free himself by letting these parties get out of it, that was his business, not mine; I then put him in the guard house; he seemed to be much excited; the Lientenant went to Washington for reinforcements; Mr. Floyd then stated to me tbat Mrs. Surratt had come down to his place on Friday, between four and live'o'clock; that she told him to have the firearms ready; that two men would call for them at twelve o'clock; that two men did call; tbat Harold dismounted from bis horse and went into Mrs. Surratt's or rather Floyd's tavern, and said '"I have something to tell you;" that Harold then told him to get those firearms; that the firearms were brought down and Harold took one; tbat Booth's carbine was carried to him, whether by Harold or Floydl do not remember; but that Booth said he could not carry acarbine.it was as much ashe could do to carry himself; that his leg was broken; tbat Booth said "We have murdered the President," and that Harold said "We have picked off Seward;" I asked Fioyd why he did not state these facts In the first place and not allow these parties to escape: thathe at least could have spoken about the firearms being In the house. . t„ CJ. What information didbe give you about firearms A. I was in the house when he came in from Bryan town and commenced crying out and hammering, "Oh, Mrs. Surratt, that vile woman, she has ruined me;" I said to him, "You stated there were two car bines, and that Booth could not carry his; where is that carbine?" he told me it was up stairs, tbat Mrs, Surra;t had some bags over it; I went up, but could not find it; I told them X would cut up the house before ? would go away without it; with that he told the hired man to get an axe; I did notgo into the room where he wentuntill heard three knocks on the wall, and! then went in, and after about the seventh blow I saw the carbine; it had been suspended by a string above the plastering; the string seemed to have broken and it bad fallen down. CJ. You did not find the carbine where he told you it was? A. No ; I hunted for it but could not find it. Q. During these two days, when Mr. Floyd was de- nyingall knowledge of these parties, did he mention the name oi' Mrs. Surratt? A. Not while he was de nying it; after hecon.essedhe mentioned her named. CJ. Who was present besides yourself at the time Mr. Floyd made this statement to you? A. Nobody that I know except that Mr. Jenkins, a brother of Mrs. Sud- ratt, was up in the room when I said I knew that Mr- Floyd wasguilty and that my mind was made up; I know that he was in the conspiracy; there had been blockade-runners arrested at his house: his house was a head-quarters for Rebels and blockade-runners dur ing Floyd'soccupation of it. Q. Didheevermakeanyfurtherstatement? A. Yes sir. CJ. What was that statement? Question objected to by Mr. Bingham, and objection sustained by tbe Court. CJ. Doyou recollect positively that Mr. Lloyd used the wo. ds "'fire-arms?" A. Ido. CJ. Did he tell yon Mrs. Surratt bought them there? A. No; I think hesaid Johnny Surratt brought them there. Q. When did Mr. Floyd state tbat Mrs. Surratt made that remark aboutlhe fire-arms? A. It was on Fri day, between four and five o'clock. CJ. Did he have the appearance at that time of being very much frightened? A. Oh no. he was not afraid; everything he said was voluntary; I advised him when I sent him down to Colonel Welles to make a clean breast of it. Q. What day of the week did he make this confes sion to you? A. I think it wasonTuesdayor Wednes day; I will not be positive; my business was to pre pare the way for other officers over me. Q. Did hesay anythingat that time about Mrs. Sur- rattgettinghimintodiificulty? A. Yes he did; he cried and threw his hands over his wife's neck ana howled for his prayer book; Mr. Floyd's wife and Mrs. Offut were there and heard all the conversation in that room; I told them to trace up. Cross-examined by Judge Holt.— State whether at the time Mr. Floyd mentioned the reasons why he had concealed his knowledge of this matter? A. He said he was afraid of parties there; be wasafraid if be made this confession they would murder bim. CJ. Who did you understand him to refer to? A. To those engaged in this conspiracy. CJ. What was theprecise language he used in refer ence to Mrs. Surratt? A. It was "Mrs. Surratt, that vile woman, she has ruined me; I am to be shot ! I am to be shot!" he meant by that, I suppose, that his guilt was so great there was no hope for him. Re-examination of It. JS". Early. (Former witness for the prosecution, but now sum moned for the defense).— CJ. You stared in your past examination that you came down to Baltimore ou Thursday afternoon in company with O'Laughlin, Captain Henderson and Mr. Murphy; will vou state iu what train you came? A. On the hatl-past three o'clock train I believe. Q. At what time did you reach Washington? A. At the usual time; I believe it takes two hours? Q. Did you come on the Accommodation train? A. I don' t know what trai n i t was; I think it reached here about half-past five o'clock. Q. Now I wish you would state, sir, where you and O Laughlin went to when you left the cars, and every place you were present with him? A. After leaving the cars we made our way to the avenue to Lichaus or,- Pullman's hotel; I think we went inside there and came out again; nenderson went 'nto a barber's shop to get shaved; O'Laughlin then asked meto'go' with him to theNational Hotel; when wo got there he went to the desk, telling me to wait, and he would de tain me only a few minutes; I went as far as the door; he left me standing there, and came back again In t.iree to five minutes, and after that we went back to Lichau's, andthenceup the avenue. Q. Did you take any supper there? A. Nosir; we went as far as Eleventh street, and turned back and went to Wecker's dinner saloon, over Wall and Steven son's, I think. CJ. Did you take supper there? A. Yes sir. TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 91 CJ. How long did that last? A. I guess about three- quarters of an hour. Q. What time did you leave there? A. About eight O'clock or halt-past seven. I should say; after coming out of there we returned to Rullmau's Hotel, and proceeded as far as the corner of Third street. where O'Laughlin and Murphy he leit me and Henderson, saying they were going to see Mr. Hoffman, a sick man, and would see us on'the corner again; they returned, accompanied by Daniel Lockran. and after that the five of us started up the Avenue to see the illumination; Mr. Lockran wanted us to go as far as the Treasury, as far as the public re servation, above Seventh street, when one compl ained of sore feet, and would go no further; we returned down the other side of Ihe reservation, when Murphy and Henderson said they had to leave; that was get ting on to nine o'clock, and we went into the Canter bury Music Hall just as tliey were finishing the first piece; we remained there till about ten o'clock, aud then weut to the Metropolitan Hotel, and from there went to Rullman's Hotel; we reached there about a quarter or hai :-past ten o'clock. > Q. Was O'Laughlin with you all that time? A. He was sir. Q. How late did you remain there? A. About one hour sir. CJ. Did anybody join you there? A. Mr. Gillett was passing there \vi;h a lady at the time, and stopped and spoke to O'Laughlin, I believe; we left there then and the others joined us, and we went down the avenue as faras Second street. I believe; Mr. O'Laughlin was acquainted t:t a saloon on the corner of E and Se cond streets, where there was a dance or some thing goitig on, and took us over there; one oi the party bought tickets, and we went into the ba'l; we stayed there about an hour, and came out and went upihe avenue again, and went into the Metropolitan, and remained there ti Hater one o clock; we then went out for five minutes, came back and went to bed. CJ. Was O'Laughlin with you all that night. A. Yes sir. Q. Do you know where Secretary Stanton's house is? A No sir Q. Do you know where Willard's Hotel is? A. Yes Sir. CJ. Now Stanton's house is more than six squares north of Willard's; I will ask you whether O'Laughlin could have been there between nine and eleven o'clock? A.Nosir. (Objected to). Q. Now sir, you stated that on Friday you woke him at the hotel, and that he was with you most of Friday? A Yes sir CJ Will you explain again where he was till bed time on Friday nisrlit? A. I was only with him from nightfall: he was at tbe hotel from supper till the time hewentout wiih Mr. Fuller. , , ,TT „ , CJ. Where did you have supper? A. At Welker s, sir; at tbe same place. Q. When did vou go there? A. At about 8 o'clock. Q. How long hid you stay there? A. Isupposethree quarters of an hour, CJ. Yousaid ynu was there when the procession passed, of Navy Yardmen? A. Yessir. Q. Where chd you go from there? A. We returned O. How long did he stay there? A. I can't say ex actly; Ireco'lectdistinct'y bis going with Fuller, but I don't reco'l?ct for certain whether it was belore or after the procession passed. •^„„„TTQ. Q. Doyou know howlie was dressed on Friday eve ning? A. Yes sir; he had a coat similar— it was just like a frock con behind. ,. . . . Q. Look at that coat (pointing to the prisoner); is thatthesame? A. Yessir. Q. Isthatthesaraepants? A. Yessir, Q. D'd vou make them? A. Yessir. CJ, Whatsortofa vest had he? A. It was of the same materia as the pantaloons. . CJ. Whatco'or? A. Well, a sort of plaid, only it is striped up and down, a kind of purple and green. Cross-exam nition by Jud^eHoIt.-CJ. State whether ornot vou were under the influence of liquor that night. A. We'*, ves, towards ten o'clock. CJ. How often did you drink before ten o'clock? A.I could notsay how many times I drank; we drank prettv considerab e. mi-„r,+ CJ. Eight times: ten times? A. I think we might have drank as of ten as that, but it was mostly ale; I never saw O'Laughlin drink any liquor. „„„-,,. a You were not separated from him at all on Fri day evening? A. Not till the time he went out of the Q^What time was that? A. Ten o'clock, or a little ^TVhendidyou see him again? A. On Saturday ^ W^ere did he leave you? A. At 10 o'clock on Friday night, at Rullman's Hotel. CJ. Where is that? A. Between Third, and Four-and- a-half street, the second door from the Globe office. Q Did.hegoout.then? A. Yessir; with Mr. Fuller. Bv tbeCourt.-Cj. Howlongwere you at the dining table on Thursday? A. From three-quarters ot an hmir to an , hoarf we had to staythere untd the dinners were got ready for the four of us. Q. Was there considerable wine drank there that aiternoon? A. Nosir, we had no wine. By Mr. Cox.— CJ. Doyou recollect what time it was when you left tbe Canterbury, on Thursday night? A. It was alter thetiance by some young ladies. CJ. Did I understand you to say O'Loughlin never drinks whisky? A. I seldom if ever saw him drink any. CJ. Did you ever see him drink? A. Only twice, I believe. CJ. Have you known him long? A. For the last five years, and for the last ten months more especially. Testimony ol Mr. Murphy. Q. Where did you reside? A. In Baltimore, sir. CJ. Did you come to Washington on Thursday, April 13th. A. Yessir. Q. In what company? A. With O'Laughlin, Hen derson and Early. CJ. Who proposed the trip? A. Henderson. CJ. What time did you get to Washington? A. About five o'clock. Q. Will you state all that took place all that evening? A. We came from the depot down to Rullman's, and there took adrinkor two: we started from there and went to the Metropolitan, anti went to several places; wet:ok supper at Walker's about eight o'clock; it might have been about hall-past seven. Q. How long were you occupied there? A. It might have been about halt an hour. CJ. Did supper have to be prepared? A. Yes sir. Q. Alter you leitthere where d'd you go? A. We went to Rullman's again, and there we met Dan Lockran: we then wentto see the illuminations, and stopped on the corner of Ninth street and the avenue, and aJter stonping theresome time we starled, and went to the Canterbury, leaving them at ten o'clock to go to Rullman's; it wa.saboutaquarter31a.st ten when we got there; we then went to Piatz's, and staid there about an hour and a*half, and that brought us to half- past eleven or twelve o'clock; we then started for Kid dles, on tbe corner of D and Second street, and staid there till half-past twelve or one o'clock, and then came back to thecorner of Sixth street and the Ave nue; and went from there to the- corner of Tenth and the Avenue, where we staid a while. U,. What was going on there? A. It was an all-night house, and we went in to get some refreshments. CJ. What time did youget back ti> the Metropolitan? A. About two or hali-pi-st two ; we went across the way to get a drink, and I think thatbrou^ht us to half- past two o'clock, and 1 hen we went to bed. r. John C. Thomas. By Mr. Stone.— Where do you reside? A. A. Woodville. Prince George county. Q, What is your occupation? A. I am a physiciant 96 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. CJ. How long have you been practicing? A. Niue- teeu years. CJ. State whether you are a brother ofthe D. Thomas who has been examined here as a witness. A. I am. CJ. S.ate whether your brother made any commu nication to yo on the subject of a conversation w>th Dr. Mudd in relation to the assassination of the Presi dent? A. The conversation that passed was' at my house on Sunday morning; he came there to Wood- ville, to church; I asked him the news; he was just from Bryantown tbe day before, and he was full of news; be was speaking ofthe arrest of Dr. Mudd, the finding of a boot at his house, &c; during tbe conver sation he repeated a remark that Dr. Mudd had made Borne weeks before. CJ. State whether be had ever mentioned that con versation to you before that time? A. No; never be fore tbat time. Q, And this was after the assassination and after the arrest of Dr. Mudd? A. Yes; the soldiers were at Bry antown, and Dr. Mudd had been arrested, as I under stood; I had not heard anything of the boot before; my brother made an error as to the date, and I think he is satisfied of it. Q. I understand you, then, to say that was the first , time you ever heard your brother speak or that con versation, and that he did notspeakof it before the assassination? A. He did not; that was the first time be mentioned it. Q. State whether you have or not attended your brother professionally sometimes. A. I have in some serious attacks; he had a very serious paralysis attack with paralysis of body: he was for some time laboring under cons;derable nervous depression, and was men tally affected by it, so that his mind was not exactly right for a long time. Q. State whether your brother's mind is now sound at all times? A. lam under the impression that it is not at all times. CJ. When his mind is not in its proper state, is he not credulous, very talkative and unreliable? A. He is credulous and very talkative; very apt to tell every thing he hears, and believes everything he hears; I do not pretend to say be would tell things he did not hear. Q. State whether, when his mind is not in aproper condition, his memory and reason are not both some what affected. A. His reason maybe somewhat af fected, and memory also, when these attacks come on, butwhenhe is in theenjoyment of good health he seems to be rational: he has not had an attack now for some t.me, and his health has been better. Cross-examined by Judge Bingham.— Q,. State whe ther you know on what Sunday it was that your brother made that statement in regard to Dr. Mudd; was It not Easter Sunday immediately following the assassination? A. I expect it was Easter Sunday; I think it was somewhere about that time. CJ. Now state what that conversation was In respect to the President, Cabinet and Union men of Maryland being assassinated within thirty days. A. He said that Dr. Mudd said Lincoln and the whole Cabinet would be killed in a few weeks, and that he as well as the other Union men in Maryland would be killed; Mr. Wood was present at that time. CJ. You are certain tbat in the same conversation he spoke of the boot being found in Dr. Mudd's house? A. Yessir. By the Court.— CJ. On the day of this conversation are you certain your brother was in his right mind? A. He seemed to be. CJ. He was not much excited? A. No. not at all. CJ. Doyou think he was capable of telling the truth on tbat day? A. Yes. CJ. From your knowledge of your brother's character for truth and veracity, of his mental condition, did you have any doubt in your mind that Dr. Mudd had said what be repeated to you? A. I thought probably my brother was jesting at the time, andl observed that il such was not tbe fact, he ought nottostatelt; he said it was certainly true, that he had made that statement to him in Bryantown; I supposed he had told it as he heard it. Testimony of Samuel McAllister. By Mr. Stone.— Q. Where do you reside? A. In Washington. CJ. How long have you resided iu Washington? A. Since the 2d day of December last. CJ. What is your occupation? A. I am clerk In Penn sylvania House, Washington. Q. Have you the register of that house with you? A. I have, (producing the register). Q. State whether the name of Dr. S. A. Mudd ap pears on that register as having been entered in the month of January, 1865. A. I have examined the month carefully, and the name does not appear. CJ. Do you know the accused, Dr. Samuel A. Mudd? A. I do not; he may have stopped at the house, and if hedid his name is on the register, as we do not allow any person to stop at the house-without registering. CJ. Turn to theH3dof December lastandstate whether you find the name of Mudd ? A. Yes sir; the name is here, Samuel A. Mudd. Q. State whether you find the name of another man named Mudd on that day ? A. Yes sir; J. T, Mudd. Q. What is tbe rule of the house in regard to guests registering their names? a x , Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham objected to the question. Theob'ection was overruled. A. All persons stopping at the hotel are required to. register their names; often persons come in and take meals; they do not register their names, but no person stops in the house over night without being required to register. _ « ^ By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham.— CJ. Do you know who slept in the room with Atzeroth on the night ofthe assassination? A. No sir; I was in bed at tbe time Atzeroth came. Q. You do not know whether Dr. S. A. Mudd was in the house or not in the month of January? A- Nosir, his name is not on the register. By the Court.— Do you know whether Dr. Mudd might have been in the Louse under an assumed name? A. I could not tell anything about that. CJ. Are you acquainted with the person registered as Mudd? NO sir. Testimony of Jos. T. Mudd. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. State whether you are acquainted with the prisoner, Dr. Samuel A. Mudd? A. I am. CJ. Where do you reside? A. In the Fourth Election , District of Charles county, about a mile and a half from the house of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd. Q. State whether you came with the accused to Washington last winter, and if you did, give the par ticulars of your visit. A. I came with bim to Wash ington on the 22d of December last; I recollect the date from the fact that we returned home on Christ mas eve, which wastbesMth. When we got to Washington we left our horses down by tbe Navy-Yard, and walked up to Pennsylvania avenue: it was in the evening; we wentto the Pennsyl vania House and registered our names, I think for lodgings; however, as we had not been to dinner, we concluded that wo wanted something better than an ordinary supper, so we went to a restaurant on the avenue, known as the Walker Bestaurant; we ordered supper, and remained there possibly an hour; after leaving there, we walked into Brown's Hotel, where we stayed about half an hour; we then went into the National Hotel; there was a tremendous crowd in there, and we got separated; I recognized an ac quaintance in the crowd, and got into conver sation with him; at ter that I came out of that place, and went along the avenue, stopping in several clothing stores, for the purpose of looking at some clothing which I intended to purchase next morning; I then walked up to the Pe.nnsylvaniaHou.se, and very soon after I arrived Dr. Mudd came; very soon after we went to bed; in the morning, after break fast, we went to the store of a man by the name of McGregor. I think, and purchasod a cooking stove; we were together after that once or twice during themorn- Ing; I had clothing to buy, and some little purchases to make, wbich I attended to; I saw the prisoner during the morning repeatedly; every five or ten minutes I would be with him; about one o'clock we left the ave- . nue, and came down to the Navy Yard, got our horses, and between two and tbrce o'clock went home; we came and returned together. Q. Were you in the Pennsylvania House when the prisoner rejoined you, after your separation from him at the National? A. I was sitting near the fire-place in the front room as'you enter, near the office where the register is kept; Dr. Mudd, when I first yaw bim came through the folding door into this room from the other room. CJ. Was any one with him as he entered?^ A. I think not; there might have been but I saw none. CJ. You say you were not separated from him the next morning more than fiveor ten minutes at a time? A. I think not; after the purchase of thestove he bad some shoes and some little things to buy and we sepa rated, but I saw him frequently: once, I think, he was coming from the Bank of Washington, where he had some litt'e business. CJ. Do you know by whom the articles bought by him were tak en to h is house? Judge Bingham objected to this question as being of no consequence. Mr. Ewing said he thought it a matter of much con- - sequence. The prosecution had proved by one witness a meeting between Booth and Mudd herein Washing- ' ton, and the delense expected to be able to show con clusively that if there was any such meeting it must have been at this visit; therefore the necessity of show ing that the accused came hereon business uncon nected with Booth: that the meeting with Booth had been put in evidence as a part of the conspiracy, and the delense had a right to show by the acts of the ac cused that he came to Washington on a purely legiti mate business visit. v j a Judge Bingham replied that the interview alleged to ' have taken place in Washington, between Mudd and Booth, was in another month from that here desig nated, and the attempt to show the purchase ol certain articles, and everything connected with their trans- portationto thehouse ofthe prisoner, would, if al lowed, result iu throwing no additional light whatever onthesubject. The objection was not sustained and the question was repeated. A. I took home a portion of his purchases myself; the stove was to have been TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 97 f€ taken home by a Mr. Lucas, who was then In market with bis wagon; I went twice with Dr. Mudd and twice by myself: Mr. Lucas said that if he sold out bis load of poultry he would take the stove down, and if he did nothe would not oe able to take It down that trip. Ci. Are you well acquainted with Dr. Samuel Mudd? A. I am; I have known him irom early youth. Q. Doyou know his general character in the neigh borhood in which be resides for peace, order and good citizeushlp? A. It is exemplary; I think I never heard anything to the contrary: be is of an amiable disposition, a good citizen and a good neighbor, besides being honest and correct. CJ. Doyou know bis character in the neighborhood as a master of his slaves? A. I do; I have Jived close by him all my life, and believe bim to be humane and kind; I never thought his niggers done a great deal of work, but have always considered that thev were treated very humanely. Q. Do you kn;>w of Booth's having been In that country? A. I do: I saw him at church; that Is, I saw a stranger there, and I asked who he was, and was told it was Booth, a great tragedian; from the de scription given of him, and the photograph, I am satis fied it was the same man; that was in the latter part of November or early in December. Q. Do you know on what business Booth was In that country? A. Only fromthecommon talk, whatlheard others say. CJ. What was the common talk? Judge Bingham objected to the question. ¦Mr. Ewing said that he knew it was the object of the Government to give the accused here liberal opportu nities of presenting their defense, and he did not think the Judge Advocate intended, by drawing tightly the rules of evidence, to shut out evidence which might fairly go to relieve the accused of theaccusationsagai nst them. It was better not only for them but for the Go vernment whose majesty hadbeen violated that there Should be great liberality in allowing the accused to present whatever evidence they might offer. The de fense wished to show that Booth was in tbe country ostensibly according to the common understanding of the neighborhood, iorthe purposed' investing inlands. This was -introduced as explanatory othis meeting with Dr. Mudd, whose family, as the defense expected to show, were large landholders and anxious to dis pose of their lands. Judge Advocate Holt stated that he was in favor of allowing the accused to indulge in the utmost latitude Of inquiry, and that when he fell short of maintaining that spirit he would be obliged if the Court would do it for him. In this instance, however, a mere idle ru mor in regard to which a cross-examination could not be made, was not, in his opinion, properly admissible. The objection was sustained, and the question was not put. Cross-examined by Judge Holt.— Q. Do you know the reputation of the prisoner, Dr. Mudd, for loyalty to the Government of the United States? A. I really do not so far as my own knowledge goes; I have never known of any disloyal act of his. Q. Have you ever heard any disloyal sentiment ex pressed by him? A. No sir; I have heard him express sentiments in opposition to the policy of the Admin istration. . . , ^ Q. Do you know that he has been opposed to the action of the Government of the United States in us endeavors to suppress this Bebellion, aud that bis op position to it has been open and undisguised? A. No Sir; I do not know that. Q. Doyou know that he has constantly held tbat the State of Maryland had been false to her duty in not going with the other States in Bebellion against the Government? A. I have never heard bim say so. Q. Have you not from time to time seen Confede rate officers about his bouse? A. Never sir. Q. You spokeof his amiability towards his servants, jdid you ever hear of his shooting any of them? A. I have heard of it. . „«»»«.* Q. Have vou any doubts of its truth? A. No sir. By Mr. Ewing.— Q. State wnaf. you heard about his shooting his slave. A. I heard that bis servant was obstreperous; that be ordered his servant to do some thing which be not only refused to do, but started to ;oaway; Dr. Mudd had his gun with him, and he thought he would shoot him to frighten him; I heard him say so myself; he shot him somewhere in the calf of the ieg. „ . Q, Was it with a shot-gun? A. Yes sir. . Q. Did you evei hearanythingot the servant having attacked him with a curry-comb? A. I do not think I eyer beard that; I heard but little about the matter. Q. Didyou hear that his servant's leg was broken bytbeshot? A. Nosir; I heard it was a flesh wound. Q. You speak of having beard him express himself In opposition lo the policy of tbe Administration; did he express himself with any violence? A. No. sir,. I never knew bim to make use of any expression m gentlemen's company which could not be admissable In ladies' society. Q. Did he ever talk much In opposition to the Ad ministration? A. I never heard him talk a great deal In opposition to the Administration except with refer ence to the emancipation policy. S Testimony of Francis &ueas. By Mr. Ewing— Q. Where do you live and what oc cupation were you engaged in last December? A. I live In Charles county, near Bryantown, Md., and was and have been a huckster forseveral years. Q. State whether there was any arrangement made between you and Dr. Mudd as tocarryingsome articles from this city down home for him last December? A. On Christmas eve Dr. Mudd came to me in market and asked me to take a stove home for him; he came to me several times, aud I promised to do it Ifl could. Testimony of John €. Thompson. By Mr. Stone.— CJ. Where did you reside last Fall? A. At Dr. Queen's, in Charles county. Q. Didyou know Wilkes Booth? A. I had a slight acquaintance with a man bearingthat name. * CJ. State how that acquaintance commenced? A. I wasintroducedtoaman styling himself Booth; I do not know whether the name was Wilkes Booth or not, by Dr. Queen, my brother-in-law; I think that was In October or November last. Q, Was this introduction given to you by Dr. Queen athishousel A. Yessir; Booth came there, I think, on a Saturdav night. Q. Had any ot the family there known him pre viously? A. I think I can say with certainty that none of the family ever heard of him before. Q. State how he got admission there? A. Dr. Queen's son, Joseph Queen, brought him there irom Bryan town. Q. Where is Dr. Queen now, and what Is his condi tion? A. He is at his place, in Charles county; be is a very old man, being seventy-four years of age, bed ridden and infirm. Q. Did this man Booth bring any letters of Introduc tion to Dr. Queen? A. I think he brought a letter from somebody in Montreal: if I am not mistaken it was from a. man by tbe name of Martin. Q. Did you see the letter? A. I hardly glanced over the letter, and paid very little attention to it; as well as I remember, Itwa3 simply a letter of Introduction to Dr. Queen, saying that this man Booth wanted to see the country. Q. State whether you were present at the first con versation between Dr. Samuel A. Mudd and this man Booth? A. On Sunday morning, this man Boo'h,Dr. Queen and myself went to ihe church at Bryantown and I introduced Booth to D r. Mudd. Q. State what was Booth's ostensible object in visit ing the country? A. It was for the purpose of purchas ing land; that I am confident of, as he so stated to me: he asked me the price of land in tbat section, and I told him as well as I knew that the land varied in price from five to fifty dollars per acre, according to the quality and situation and the improvements upon the land. Q. Did he make any inquiries of you as to who had land loi sale? A. Yes; I think I told him I did not know who had land for sale, but that Mr. Henry Mudd, the father of tbe accused, was a large property holder, and he (Booth) might purchase land from him. Q. Did he make any inquiry as to distances from tbe river? A. As well as I remember he did make in quiries or'me about the roads in Charles county, but I waa not Informed in regard to roads there; theonly road of which I had any knowledge was the road from Washington, known as the Stage Boad, leading down toBryantown;heasked me in regard to the roads leading to the Potomac Biver; I told him Iwas not conversant with these roads; that I knew them as lar as Al len's Fresh nd Newport, but no further. Q. Did Booth make any inquiries as to the purchase of horses in tbe neighborhood? A. I think hedid: I think he asked me if there were any horses in the neighborhood for sale; I told him I did not know; that tbe Government had been purchasing horses. Q State whether the meeting of Booth, Dr. Queen and yoursel t with Dr. Mudd at church was casual. A. It was simply accidental. „„„._.. . . Q. Where did you meet Booth? A. In the church vard in front of the church door, where the malapor- tionof the congregation are in the habit of assembling just previous to Divine service; I happened to see Dr. Mudd therewith various other gentlemen, and I in troduced him to the others present; I had no idea as to what the man's business there was lurther than tbat lie was a purchaser of lands; Ithink he told methi night before he had made aspeculation or was a share holder in an enterprise in Western Pennsylvania somewhere, and, as far as I remember, told me he had made a good deal of money out of these operations. Q. Did Booth stay at Dr. Queen's house during that visit? A. I think he stayed there that night and the "^ Dklyou ever see Booth again? A. I thinkl saw him again about the middle ot December following; he came to Dr. Queen's a second time and stayed all night, and left very early the next morning; I aid not see him alter that. , L A T , . . . _ Cross-examined by Assistant Judge Advocate Bur nett.— Q. How near do you live to Dr. Mudd? A.I think the distance is about seven or eight miles. Q. Is your acquaintance with Dr. Samuel A. Mudd 98 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. and his affairs oi a very intimate character ? A. I am not intimately acquainted with him; I know him personally. Q. You say that Booth spoke of purchasing lands. A. Yes sir; I told him that Mr. Henry Mudd. the father of the accused, was an extensive land holder, and he would probably be able to purchase lands from him. Q. He did not in that conversation say anything to you about purchasing land from Dr. Samuel Mudd? A. No sir. Q. Do you know whether Dr. Samuel Mudd owns any land there? A. I am not positive as to that. By Mr. Stone.— Q. Who lives nearest to this city, Dr. Queen or Dr. Mudd? A. I think Dr. Mudd lives the nearest. iBy the Court— Q. Did you see the name attached to the letter of which you have spoken? A. Yes sir; I think the name was Martin; I do not know the chris tian name. Q. You have never heard of the man whose name was. How recently had you then come from Rich mond? A. I had not been in Richmond for three weeks. Q. That was in March? A. Yes sir. Q. Do you remember the time in March? A. I think it was about the 20th or 21st. Q. When you went to Richmond, in February, do you remember who accompanied you? A. I remem ber one man by the name of Howe. Q. Did any person from this city accompany you? A. No sir. Q. Any from Maryland? A. No sir; they were all from Virginia. Q. This cipher, where did you get it? A. I've been acquainted with it some seven years. ..,.., Q. Where did you learn it? A. In a magician's book. Q. What did you use it for? A. I had no use for it. Q, What did you carry it for? A. I did not carry It; I could make it in twenty minutes. . Q. Did you ever teach it to John Surratt? A. No sir. Q. Did you ever meet, at Surratt's bouse, Mrs. Sla der? A. I never met her at Surratt's house; I met her here in Washington. Q. When? A. In February. Q. About what date? A. The 20th or 22d. Q. Did you have any conversation with her ? A. Vm sir Q. Did she accompany you to Richmond? A. Partly. avis. CJ. Where do you reside? A. At Dr. Samuel Mudd's. Q. How long have you resided there? A. Since the 9th of January last. CJ. What has been your employment there? A. Working on the farm. Q. Have you been there constantly since you first went there on the 9th of January? A. I have: I was absent from the plantation only one night. CJ. Do you remember what night that was? A. No sir; I don't really know; it was in the month of Janu ary. CJ. State how often Dr. Mudd has been absent from home from the time you went there up to his arrest, and the circumstances attending his absence? A. He has been away from home only three nights; the first time he went to Mr. George Henry Gardner's party, taking his family with him, and returning the next morning; that was in January, on the 26th; the second time he came to Washington with Mr. Lowellyn Gard ner, with whom he also returned ; that was o* the 23d of March; I am enabled to recollect the dav by tbe fact that while he was away the barn blew down: the third time he came to Washington. TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 105 Q. Do you know John H. Surratt or John Wilkes Booth? A. I do not. CJ. State whether you were or were not ill while at Dr. Mudd's, and ior bow lon'4? A. I was very ill for better than three weeks. I was taken ill in February, and my sickness lasted until March. CJ State whether Dr. Mudd attended you during your sickness? A. He did. CJ. State whether you did or did not see Dr. Mudd every day during all the time you were at his house? A. I saw him every day during the time Iwas there, except on the three occasions that he was away. CJ. State whether during the time you were there, you ever heard the names of John H. Surratt, John Wilkes Booth or David E. Harold mentioned in the family? A. I did not. CJ. Were you at home on the Saturday before Easter, the loth of April? A. I was. Q. Do you know anything of two men being there that day? A. I saw two horses there; I heard tnat two men were there. CJ. Do you know at what time that evening they left? A. Between three and four o'clock. Q. Were you out as usual working that day? A. I was. CJ. Did you see either ofthe men? A. I did not. CJ. Where were you on the Friday after the assassi nation of the President? A. I was on the iarin, at work. CJ. State whether you went for Dr. Mudd? A. I did. CJ. Where was he? A. He was at his lather's. Q. What did you tell Dr. Mudd? Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham.— You need not State what you told him. The question was waived. CJ. Some soldiers were at the house and yon went for him? A. Yes sir. CJ, He came home with you? A. Yes sir; he came as far as the barn, and then went on ahead of me, and I went to work. ' Q.' When you went after Dr. Mudd what did you tell him? A. I told him there were some soldiers at the house who wanted to see him. CJ- Was there anything said between you about a cart? A, No sir. Q. Did you ever hear Dr. Mudd, daring the time you were with him, express any disloyal sentiments? A. I did not. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. On the day after tbe President's assassination did you take breakfast with the family? A. No sir, I did not take either breakfast or dinner with tbe family that day; I was out attending the horses. CJ. What did you understand about certain parties Having been in the house? A. Nothing more than that two men were there; one with a broken leg. Cross-examined by Judge Bingham.— CJ. How do you Enow that Dr. Mudd went to George Henry Gardner's? A. I saw him going there. CJ. How tar was it? A. Not over a quarter of a mile. CJ. Where wereyou? A. I was home at the time. Q. His horse's head was that way? A. No sir; he walked. Q. That is all you know about that? A. Yes sir. CJ. You say you aid not see two men there on Satur day? A. No sir, I did not. CJ. How do you know that they had left the house on Saturday? A. Because their horses were gone when I returned to the house at four o'clock in the afternoon. CJ. How did you know that the men were gone? A. X thought so. CJ. You did not know it? A. No sir. Testimony of Jnliann Blols (Colored). By Mr. Ewing— CJ. State whether you formerly lived at the house of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd. A. I did. Q. When did you go there to live and how long did you stay? A. I went there on Christmas before last Christmas. CJ. Did you ever know of any Confederate officers or soldiers being about Dr. Mudd's house? A. No sir. CJ. Did you ever see Andrew Gwynn, Ben Gwynn or this man— exibiting to witness a portrait of Surratt— at that house? A. I did not. Q. Did you ever hear the names of Ben Gwynn, Andrew Gwynn or Surratt mentioned in the house while you were there? A. No sir. CJ. State what sort of a master Dr. Samuel A. Mudd was. A. He treated me very well, as also all that were around him; he was very kind to us all; Hived with him a year, and he never spoke a cross word to me that I know of. , Q. Did you ever know of his whipping Mary Simms? A. No sir, he never struck her that! knew of. CJ. Do you know what Mary Simms left the house for? A. On one Sunday evening Mrs. Mudd told her not to go away, but she would go; the next morning she (Mrs. Mudd) struck her with a little switch; I do not think she hurt her, as the switch was a small one. CJ. Dr. Samuel Mudd never whipped her at all? A. No sir; I never heard of him striking her. CJ. What is the general- reputation of Mary Simms among the colored people around there? A. She Is not a great truth-teller sir, because she has told lies on me. CJ. Do you know what the colored folks around there generally think of her? A. Well, they generally think she is a liar. CJ. Do you know what the colored folks there think ofMylewSimmsas a truth-teller? A. They thought the same of him as of Mary; if he got ansry with you he would tell a lie on you for the sake of satisfaction, Q. That was the general opinion about him? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did you ever hear Dr. Samuel Mudd talk about the government of Mr. Lincoln? A. Ineverdid. CJ. You left there two days before last Christmas; do you know anything about Dr. Samuel Mudd going away on that day? A. Dr. Samuel Mudd s wife told me he was going to Washington to buy a cooking stove. Q. Where have you lived since you left Dr. Samuel Mudd's? A. With Mr. Wall, in Bryantown. The Commission then took a recess until two o'clock at which time the body reassembled. Testimony of ©r. George ». Mudd. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. State your residence and busi ness. A, lam apractitioner ot medicineinthevillage of Bryantown, Charles county. Md. Q. State- whether you know the prisoner, Samuel A. Mudd, and what relation, if any, exists between you. A. I know him: his father and my father were first cousins; he was a student under me some years ago in tbe study of medicine. CJ. State whether you know his reputation in the neighborhood in which he lives lor peace, order and good citizenship. A. I know of no one whose reputa tion is better in that regard; it is very good. CJ. State what is his reputation as a master. A.I have always considered him. a humane man towards his fellow man. whether servant or otherwise; he al ways clothed and fed his servants well, and treated them kindly, so lar as 1 knew. CJ. State whether or not you saw Dr. Mudd on the Sunday afterthe assassination of the President. A. Yessir; I saw him at church; he overtook me after that on my way home to Bryantown, and I rode with him as far as his house. CJ. State whether hesaid anything to you about any persons having been at his house. Judge Advocate Holt objected to the question on the ground that theGovernment had not offered the de clarations ofthe prisoners in evidence. Mr. Ewing said that he- proposed to show by the witness, who was a man of unquestionable and active loyalty, that the prisoner had in/ormed him that on Saturday morning there were two susoicious persons at his house and had desired the witness, if he thought it advisable, to notify the military authorities of the lact of their being at his house, but not to tell it at large about them lest the parties and their friends might assassinate him (the prisoner) for the dis closure. This was a part of the very substance of those actions of the prisoner by which it was sought to implicate him, and was connected with acts of the preceding and subsequent days which theprose- tion had shown. This statement was virtually an act, and was done during the time of that alleged silence on his part, which had been urged as a means of impli cating him as an accessory before and after the fact in this murder. If the factthathehad been silentwas to be urged against him, was not the fact of his break ing tbat silence to be introduced in his behalf? More over, the statement was made at a time when the pri soner could not have known that any suspicions were directed against him. In support of his position Mr. Ewing readf'rom "Russell on Crimes," vol. ii. p.758,and other authorities. Judge Advocate Holt remarked that when partial declarations were given in evidence the accused hada right to insist that the whole should be given. In the present instance the prosecution had not offered de clarations of the prisoner. The ground upon which it was sought to introduce them, was that they were part of the transaction itself. But tbe transaction at the time these declarations were made had been com pleted; it had closed the day belore; it consisted in the fact of the prisoner having concealed and enter tained these men and sent them on their way rejoic ing, and that transaction on which the prisoner waa now arraigned by the Government was complete at 4 o'clock on Saturday afternoon. It was now proposed to introduce a declaration on the part of the prisoner made twenty-four hours afterwards— after he had had time to review his conduct. It was not competent to declare the motives by which his previous acts were governed, because there was no means of reaching these motives, or of introducing any testimony in re gard to them. . , „ Mr. Ewing replied the transaction was not wholly closed. The charge here was one of concealment, not only of the persons of those men while they were in the house, but a concealment of the fact that they had been in the bouse. Of fourwitnesses who testified that they went to Dr. Mudd's house on Saturday, two stated that Dr. Mudd denied that the men had been at hi3 house, and the accused now desired to show that he did give information to the Government on Sunday, through the witness on this stand, that the men were at his house. The objection of the Judge Advocate was sustained, and the question was not put. 106 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. CJ. State whether you communicated to the military authorities, in Bryantown, the fact of any suspicious .persons having been at the house of Dr. Samuel A. .Mudd on Saturday? A. I did. CJ. State to whom you communicated? A. I com municated, I think, to Lieutenant Dana, who was the principal in command of the military there at that time. CJ. When did you communicate it to him? A. I think it was on Monday morning. CJ. Whatstatementdidyoumaketohim? A. Istated to him that Dr. Mudd had informed me that two sus picious persons were ai.hishousc; thattheycame there a little before day-break on Saturday morning, andthat one of them had a broken leg. which he bandaged; that they were laboring under some degree of excitement; more so he thought than should have been caused by a brokenleg; that these parties had said they came from Bryantown, and were inquiring the way to Parson Wilmer's; that whilst there one of them called for a razor and shaved himself, thereby altering his appear ance: that he (Dr. Mudd) improvised a crutch or crutches for the man with the broken leg, and that they went the direction of Parson Wilmer's, I think; that is about the whole of what I told the Lieutenant. Q. Of whom did you get this information? A. Of the prisoner, Dr.jSamuel A. Mudd. Q. What time on Monday did you make the commu nication? A. I think Monday morning. CJ. By whose authority did you make the communi cation? A. The mentioning ot that matter to me, or any other matter bearing on the assassination, par ticularly such an assassination as the country and/ the world now mourn, was my warrant and authority from him and everybody else who knew me. CJ. At the time he imparted this information to you, was anything said about communicating to the mili tary authorities? A. When I leit him I told him I would mention the matter to the authorities and see what could be made of it; he told me he would be glad if I would, but if Icould make such an arrangement he would much prefer that he should be sent lor, and that he would give every information in his power re lative; that if it became a matter of publicity he feared for his life, on account of guerrillas that might be in festing the neighborhood. CJ. Did you say to what authorities you would men tion It? A. To the military authorities at Bryantown. CJ. Did you make any other communication to any other military authorities ofthe fact statedby Dr.Mudd? A. Yessir: I was sent for, I think, on Tuesday after noon, by your detectives, who asked me to go up into a room with them, where they questioned me very particularly relative to this affair; I staled to them what I have already stated here, and upon my ina bility to answer such questions as they propounded, they ordered a carriage and asked me to direct them to Dr. Samuel Mudd's house; I told them I would do it. and that I would go with them; they seemed to pre fer that, and I did go with them. Q. State what happened when you went there. A, Dr. Mudd was not at the house; the detectives went in side while I remained at the door; I saw him coming and told him as he entered the house that the detec tives had come there to ascertain the particulars rela tive tothatmatte^about which he had spoken tome; that I had made tbe statement to the military authori ties which he had made to me on Sunday, and that they weremaking special inquiry in reference to It: I had alreadysaid to those gentlemen (the detectives) that I was confident that the Doctor would state the matter just as I stated to them, and left the room and did not re-enter it during their examination of him. Q. Name the officers that went with you. A. One was named Lloyd, another Galtighan, and the others were Lieutenant Lovett and a Mr. Williams. CJ. State whether any inquiry was made by any of them, after the conference with Dr. Mudd, with refe rence to the route. A. When we got in the wagon, or, I think, just before getting in. they asked me if I would show them the way to Parson Wilmer's; it was then near nightfall, and I told them I would certainly do so if necessary; I then turned and asked Dr. Mudd, who was standing outside the door, what was the best route to take to Parson Wilmer's, and he gave me the infor mation; before we got to the main road to Bryantown these gentlemen concluded, in consequence of my stating to them that another road was preferable, to take that other road. CJ. State whether or not anything was said by either of those gentlemen about Dr. Mudd having denied that the two men were at his house. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham, objected to the question, when it was withdrawn. Q. State whether you were in Bryantown on Satur day at the time of the reception of the news of the President's assassination. A. I was there when the news came, and remained all evening; I did not leave the village. CJ. What did you hear as to the person or persons Implicated in the assassination? A. Lieutenant Dana, on whom I called for information, told me that the party who attempted the assassination of Secretary Seward was named Boyle, and claimed him to be the same who had previously assassinated Captain Wat- kins, of Anne Arundel county, Maryland, and that the party who assassinated the President was sup posed to be a man by the name of Booth, and that he thought the assassins had not yet got out of Wash ington. CJ. Was Boyle known in that region of country? A. Yessir; he had been about there, but not for three or four weeks, or later thon two or three davs alter the assassination of Captain Watkins. CJ. What was his character as known there; was he known as a desperado and guerrilla? A. He was; his character was very bad. CJ. State whether you were at church on Sunday, and what was known there about the assassination of the President. A. I was at church on Sunday; it was known that the President of the United States was as sassinated, and the matter was talked of. CJ. Was it, or was it not known that Booth had not crossed the river? A. No one. to my knowledge, supposed that he had crossed the river at that time. CJ. Did you have any conversation with Dr." Samuel A. Mudd at the church, or hear his conversation as to what he knew of the assassination? A. No sir; I heard him Judge Bingham objected to allowing the witness to state what he had heard the prisoner say. The objection was sustained and the question was not put. CJ. At the time you speak of having made a commu nication to the officers was anything said to them by you about Dr. Mudd having gone with one of the par ties after a carriage, and it so state what? A. I told them so and that is a parti forgot to meDtion, that Dr. Samuel Mudd did go to ascertain to see if he could get a carriage to take them away from the house; that he went to his father's and down below there; that he went with the younger ofthe two men but failed to get a carriage and they left his house on horseback. Q. Didyou tell them anything as to how the.man's leg was broken? A. Yes, I think I told them that one bone of his leg was broken. Q. Didyou tell them anything as to how it was said to have occurred? A. Yes, from the fall of a horse. Q. State the distance of the church at wbich you saw Dr. Sam. Mudd, the Sunday after the assassina tion, at Bryantown. A. I would suppose it to-be about six and a half miles from Dr. Sam. Mudd's house. CJ. Didyou give them any description of the persons of these two men, and if so, what? A. I do not think I gave them any. CJ. State whether you are acquainted with D. J. Thomas, one ofthe witnesses for the prosecution. A. I know him. CJ. Are you acquainted with the reputation in which he is held, where he is known, for veracity? A. His reputation for veracity has always been very bad since I have known him. CJ. How long has that been ? A. Since he was a boy. CJ. Could youstate what his reputation lor veracity was before the war? A. I do not think it was any bet ter than since the war. CJ. From your knowledge of his character for veracity, would you believe him under oath? A. If there were a motiveto misstate facts, I would not. CJ. Doyou know anything professionally of his men tal condition? A. I have considered him an insane man. CJ. State how and from what cause. A. I have seen him manifest such an abnormal condition of mind as to relieve him from responsibility for acrime in a Crimi nal Court; he is not always so insane; there seemed to have been a remittance in his manifestations of in sanity sometimes; I have met him when there was not much more disordered condition of mind than eccen tricity would imply; I would state that in approaching the question of insanity I feel a great diffidence and distrust, although it belongs to no profession more than mine; I feel as if I should be perplexed when the great master minds ofthe country, who have studied and understand thoroughly all forms of medical and legal jurisprudence as I apprehend gentlemen of the Court to be, aDd particularly the Judge Advocate, are to be my interrogators on the subject of insanity. Q. Is his reputation for veracity based upon the fact of his insanity alone? A. I cannot say that it is; I think it probable that his veracity is worse when in sane manifestations are prominent. CJ. .Ishis reputation for veracity good during times when his mental condition appears to be best? A. I never so estimated it. Cross-examined by Judge Bingham.— Q. Be good enough to tell the Court what works you have read on insanity. A. I have read a great many works upon insanity and medical jurisprudence. CJ. What work on medical jurisprudence have you read? A. Taylor's, and others on physiology and in- sanity. Q. Do any of these works tell how crazy a man has to be to make him unable to tell the truth. A. I do not know as they do especially. Q. Do you wish to state here to-day that Daniel Thomas is so crazy that he does not know how to tell the truth? A. No sir; I mean to say there seems to be a mental and moral insanity. Q. You say that at times he is more insane, mentally and morally, than he is at other times: now, when he is less crazy la lie more likely to tell the truth? A. I TRIAL OI1 THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 107 think he is more inclined to tell extravagant stories when he Is excited mentally. CJ. Are you prepared to swear that he Is so crazy that he does not know how to tell the truth when he is under oath before a court? A. I am not. CJ. Do you know what was his condition of mind when he gave his testimony before this Court? A. I do not: I had not seen much of him of late. CJ. What is moral insanity? A. Hook upon moral insanity as a condition in which persons are particu larly inclined to prevaricate in various ways. CJ. What do you call mental insanity? A. When a man is Incapable of discriminating and appreciating things as sane men do. Q, Did you ever know Daniel Thomas that he was notable to understand plain matters when he was spoken to about them. A. I do not know that I did; I could state some reasons why I considered him in sane. By the Court.— CJ. What is the form of insanity under which Mr. Thomas labors? A. There is no specific form that I know of, except at times a peculiar excite ment and inability to appreciate matters and things as other people do; It is not dementia; it is not mono mania; it is what is called aberration of mind; there is a certain form of insanity which exacerbates and re mits, but I do not know that it has any particular name or belongs to any particular form or insanity. CJ. Do you think his form of insanity would lead him to imagine a conversation he never had? A. I have seen him in a condition of mind when Ido not doubt he would; I have known him to labor under most de cided delusions and hallucinations. CJ. You have ¦known him to imagine things he never heard? A. Yes, oftentimes. CJ. How long have you entertained the opinion that Thomas was not of sound mind? A. I went to a pri mary school in our neighborhood when Thomas was a small boy; there was something very eccentric and amusing about bim then; he was different from other boys; he wasasourceof amusement, in the way of ec centricity, to his school mates seven or eight years ago, or perhaps longer than that: an insane condition or mind>seemed to manifest itself in him; so that the common expression was, of every one in the neighbor hood, that Daniel Thomas was crazy. CJ. Have you expressed an opinion to any one that he was not a man of sound mind previous to this ? A. Over and over again; long before the war. Q. Do you know that he has ever been objected to as a witness before a court of justice? A. Ido not. CJ. Have you ever known him to be a witness before a court of justice? A. On one occasion I did. CJ. Was his evidence objected to on a ground of In sanity? A. I think not. CJ. What is the reputation of Dr. Sam Mudd for loyalty or dslovalty? A. From my association with him I have had to consider him as sympathizing with the South. CJ. Did vou ever know him harbor Kebels or dis loyal persons? A. Never; I have never known him to commit any treasonable act; I have generally con sidered Dr. Samuel Mudd as very temperate in his discussions and expressions relative to the war; his ordinary manner or matter of discussion was the right or legality of Secession, which be maintained; he has generally, however, spoken very temperately, and never used any opprobrious epithets against the heads ofthe Government; he was much more temperate on tbatsubiect. I may state, than many other citizens of benighted Charles county and Southern Maryland. CJ. There were certain local organizations in the early part ofthe war in your neighborhood. Will you state what was their object and how they were re garded? A. There was an organization at Port Tobacco of that kind, the object of which, I think, was treason- ableithough it was said it was for thepurpose of quelling -insurrection in the neighborhood, and it may have been; I have regarded Dr. Samuel Mudd lor some time prior to the fail of Bichmond and surrender of General Lee's army, as Laking a very handsome prospective "view ofthe downfall of the Bebellion; I ¦remember administering an oath to him last year, and of being forcibly impressed with the respect and reve rence with which he took the oath, making a decided contrast to many others to whom I administered the oath on that occasion; so far as I know he has obeyed the provisions of that oath. . . By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. When did you administer the joath you speak of? A. If I remember rightly, it was when the sense of the people was taken relative to calling a convention to amend tne constitution of the State of Maryland, in June or July ot last year. CJ. Were you acting in an official capacity? A. I was rather delegated by two Judges as Chief Judge or election, in the absence of the regular Judge. I think I administerea the oath to some two hundred that CJ." For how long a time has he spoken of the down fall of Bichmond being sure? A. I think from and after the time he took the oath, if not before. Testimony of Colonel Martin Burlte. By Judge Holt.— CJ. State whether or not you know E. 0. Kennedy. A. Yes; I had charge of him, Q. Look at that paper and see if it is a confession made by him, A. It is. Q. State whether it is the confession of Kennedy, made in your presence, and ifso. how longbelorehis execution. A. It was made in ray presence; I do not know how long before his execution; I think a day or two. The confession referred to was read to the Court by Col. Burnett,stating that thlsJKennedy's object .in pour ing phosphorus on the floor atBarnum's Museum was not to burn It. knowing from experiment that it would not set the boards on fire, but to perpetrate a huge joke; and that the object in attempting to burn tbe hotels was to retaliate for the devastation perpetrated by Sheridan in the valley: not to burn women and children, but to show the people of the North that the desolations of war were not to be confined to the South alone. Testimony of H. B. Carter. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Where do you reside? A. In New Hampshire. CJ. State whether or not you were in Montreal last fall. A. Yes sir. CJ. Atwhat hotel? A. St Lawrence Hotel. CJ. State whether or not you met George N.Sanders and Jacob Thompson, Dr. Blackburn, J. Wilkes Booth, or any of them. A. I saw George N. Sanders, J. Wilkes Booth, Beverly Tucker, Dr. Blackburn and others whose names I do not now recollect; I saw Thompson at Niagara Falls on the 17th of June. CJ. How long were you at this hotel? A. From the 9th or 10th of September until about the 1st of February. CJ. State whether you observed the persons you have named in intimate association during that time. A. They were; all the Southerners who boarded there were intimate with each other, and had little to do with any one not sympathizing with them. CJ. Did you know J. W. Booth before you went there? A. I did. CJ. Did you observe him in intimate association with George N. Sanders and others? A. I did. CJ. Look at the prisoners at the bar, and see whether you recognize any of them as persons you met in Ca nada. A. Icould not swear that I ever met any of tbem there. Do you remember to have heard the name of John Surratt spoken of in this circle of men? A, Ido not know that I do. CJ. Do you remember having heard the name of Payne? A. I saw a man by the name of Payne every morning, but there is no man I see here I would call by that name; I think the man I saw was of the name of John; he was one of Payne's brothers; there were two of them who were arrested in connection with the St. Albans* raiders, but they were discharged; I do not think I have ever seen this man. CJ. Was Dr. Blackburn there the greatest part of tbe time? A. I think he was there when the Donegal Hotel closed, about the20th of October. CJ. State whether he seemed to be associated with J. W. Booth and the others you have mentioned. A. Ha was: but whether he came there before Booth or not I could not say. He was one of that clique of men who confederated together. Cross-examination by Samuel Foster— CJ. You say you were acquainted with persons by the name of Payne, neither of which is the prisoner at the bar. I ask you whether you knew where they came from, or anything about them? A. Only from what I heard from general reputation; I heard these were a party who originally came from Kentucky; that they had been in the counterfeiting business. Q. What time was it that you saw these men? A. John Payne, who boards there, came to the house every day, and was still there when I came away. Q. Did you see, about the time that you saw these Paynes, a man by the name of Montgomery? A. I saw no man by that name that I know of. CJ. Did vou ever see the Paynes there in company with a man named Cleary? A. I have John Payne; I could not say I have the other. CJ. Did you ever see either of them in company with C. C. Clay? A. I never saw Clay bat very little; I have seen them in company with Sanders, Tucker and Blackburn every day. ^ By Judge Holt.— CJ. Could you name any other Bebels in Montreal who constituted a part of this circle you have named? A. I could mention General Carroll, of Memphis, B. Wood, a man about thirty-five years old, a gentleman by the name of Clark, and an old gentleman from Florida who wore a queue; I think his name was Westcott. CJ. Doyou remember a man from Indiana byname of Dodge? A. I do not recollect him now. Q. Or a man by the name of Walker? A. No sir; I know many men I met every day but I do not know their names. They rather gave me the cold shoulder after they found my sympathies were with the North, and had very little to say to me. By Mr. Aiken.— CJ. Do you recollect Dr. Morrill there? A. No, not by that name; I might remember him were I to see his photograph. CJ. Did C. C. Clay have a room at the St. Lawrence Hotel? A. I could notsay. CJ. Did you see Payne go to the rooms of any of these persona? A. I once saw him coming out of 108 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Sanders' room; I never saw him, going in or coming out of any of the others. CJ. And you are sure he bears no resemblance to the prisoner at tho bar? A. Very little; he was an older man; I should not think of his being any relation to the man; there is no resemblance that I discover. Testimony of Godfrey J. Hyams. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Where have you resided during the past year? A. At Toronto, Canada. Q. State whetheror not, while there, you made the acquaintance of Dr. Blackburn. A. Yes sir I did, about the middle of December, 1863; I knew him pre vious to that by sight, but I never had any conversa tion with him; I have known him since that time. Q. Did you know him as in the Confederate service? A. I did not know he was in the Confederate service; I knew he was doing work for the Confederates. Q. State what arrangements, if any, this Dr. Black burn made with you lor the purpose of introducing the yellow fever into the United States; give all the parti culars of your arrangements; what was done under it. A. I was introduced to Dr. Blackburn by the Bev. Stewart Bobinson at Queen's Hotel. Toronto; Dr. Blackburn was about to take South some soldiers who had escaped from Northern prisons; I asked him if he was going South himself; he asked me if I wanted to go South and serve the Confederacy; I said I did; he then told me to come up stairs, that hewan ted to speak tome; I went up stairs with him into a private room; he offered his hand to me as a Freemason in friendship and said he would never deceive me; that he wanted to place confidence in me for an expedition: he asked me if I would like to go on an expedition: I told him. I did not care if I did; he said I would make an independent fortune by it— at least one hun dred thousand dollars— and more glory than General Lee; that I could do more for the Southern Confede racy than ifl had takenonehundred thousandsoldiers to reinforce General Lee; I considered after a time, and told him I would go; he then told me he wanted me to take a certain quantity of clothing— he did not say how much (coats, shirts and underclothing)— into the States, and dispose of them at auction"; he wanted me to take them into Washington City, into Norfolk, and as far South as I could go where the General Go vernment held possession; he wanted me to sell them on a hot day or night; it did not matter what money I got for the clothes, I was just to dispose of them for what I could get. CJ. What did he tell you you were to receive for your services? A. He said one hundred thousand dollars; he said I should have sixty thousand dollars as soon as I reported back to Canada, and that if the thing suc ceeded I could make one hundred thousand times as much. CJ. Where were you to get possession ofthe clothes? A. I was in Toronto to go on with my legitimate busi ness, and if I left I wa3 to inform Dr. Stuart Robinson where I was, and he was to telegraph or write tome somewhere about the month of January, 1864; I went on with my work until, I think, the 8th of June, 1864; on Saturday night I had been out to take a pair of boots home to. a customer of mine; When I returned my wife had a letter in her hand from Dr. Bobinson, which he had just called and left there; Icalledon Dr. Bobinson and askedhimwhatl was to do; Bobinson said he did not know anything about it; he did not wish himself to commit any overt act against the United States Government; that I had better take only enough money to carry me down to Montreal; I had a letter to Mr. Slaughter, who gave me directions to proceed to Halifax, where I was to meet Dr. Blackburn: the letter was dated May 10th. 1864; from Havana I went down to Halifax; Dr. Blackburn arrived there about the twelfth of July from Havana: he sent down to the hotel where I was stay ing and I went to see him; he told me that he had Clothing there which had been smuggled off, andin accordance with his directions took an express wagon belonging to the hotel down to the steamboat landing and got there eight trunks and a valise; he directed me to take the mings to my hotel and put them in a private room, which I did, and notified Dr. Blackburn; he asked me if I would take the valise into the States and send it by express accompanied with a letter as a present to President Lincoln; I ob jected, and the valise was taken to his hotel; he ordered me to scratch the marks off the trunks; they had Spanish marks on them; he told me a man would go with me the next morning to make arrangements with one or two vessels going to Boston to smuggle the trunks through; I went down* as directed, and made application to Captain McGregor; I do not remember the name of the vessel; the one who went with me had a consultation with Captain McGregor; I do not know what he said, but Captain McGregor refused to take the trouble; we next went to the barque Halifax, Captain J. O'Brien; the officer who was with me said I had some goods I wanted to take to my friends, and presents— silk and satin dresses. &c, and that he wanted to make an arrangement to smuggle them Into Boston; the captain and he had a private con sultation; when they came out he consented to take them on the Halifax, and smuggle them in; he took them on board his vessel that day, on arriving at Boston it was live days before we got an opportunity of getting them off, but he succeeded at last in doing it, and expressed them through to Philadelphia: from there I brought them to Baltimore, and brought five trunks hereto Washington; four of them I gave to a man representing himself as a sutler, from Boston, by the nameof Myers; I understood at the time he was a sutler in Sigel's army; he said h& had found some. goods that he was to take to Newbern, North Carolina; my instructions were to make a market ior the goods, and I turned tbem over to him; Dr. Blackburn told me at the time that he would have about 8100,000 worth of - goods got together that summer to be disposed of. CJ. What aid. he state to you was his object, if any, In disposing of those goods? A. To destroy the army, and anybody in the countiy. CJ. Did he state that these goods had been carefully inlected with fellow fever? A. Yessir. CJ. Did he explain toyoutheprocessby which he had infected them? A. He did not; he told me there were other parties engaged in it, he did not say who they were, who were about infecting other goods with small-pox, yellow fever, and so on. CJ. Didyou understand that the goods in this valise, intended to be sent as a present to President Lincoln, had also been carefully injected with yellow fever? A. I understood bim it had been infected with yellow fever and small-pox; I declined to take them. CJ. Did you ever learn from him whether he had ever sent that valise to the President? A. No, I did not; I have heard it was sent to him. CJ. What disposition of this trunk and clothes did you make in Washington? A. I turned them over to W. L. Wall & Co.. commission merchants; I requested an advance on them; they gave me an advance of S10Q, and I went back to Canada. CJ. Do you remember the date of that transaction? A. I think it was about the 12th of August, 18(J4; it was the largest of the five trunks: it had two watches in it, and was known as "big No. 2:" my orders were to be sure and have the 1 runk sold in Washington. Q. Didyou send any of the others further South or were they all left here? A. I turned them over to the sutler, who put tbem in a steamboat for Norfolk; I ap- glied to General Butler for a pass to go through myself ut the reply was that the army was about to move, and that no persons would be allowed a pass not con nected with it. CJ. State what occurredon your return to Canada. A. I went through to Hamilton without stopping; there I had to wait ior the,cars, and was met by Mr. Holcomb and C. C. Clay; they both shook hands w.th me, greeted me heartily, and congratulated me on my sale return and on my making a fortune; they told me I should be a gentleman for the future; I telegraohed to Dr.Blackburn, who was then staying at Montreal, r.a Mr. Holcomb had told me, that I had returned; tha next night between 11 and 12 o'clock, Dr. Blackburn came up and knocked at the door; Iwas in bed but looked out of the window and saw Dr. Blackburn; he told me to come down and open the door; that I was like all other rascals after doing something wrong- afraid the devil was after me; he was accompanied by James H.Young; be asked how I disposed of the goods, andl toldhim; hesaid it was all right if ''big No. 2" had been disposed of; that that would kill at sixtyyards' distance; I then toldhim that everything had gone wrong in my business there since I had. been away, and that Ineeded some money; he said ho would go to Col. Thompson and make arrangements to drew on him for any money I desired; he said the British authorities had solicited his attention to the yellow fever raging at Bermuda; that he was going on there, and, as Boon as he came back, he would see me; I wens to see Jacob Thompson the next morning; he said that Dr. Blackburn bad been there and made arrangements to pay me one hundred dollars when the goods had been disposed of according to his directions; I told him I needed the money; he said:— "I will give you fifty dollars now. but itis against Dr. Blackburn's requests when you show me that you have sold the goods I will pay the balance; I gave him a receipt for fifty dol lars on account of Dr. Blackburn; this was the llth or 12th of August; the next day I wrote a letter to Mr. Wall, here, saying I had gone to Canada since he sold the goods, and asked bim to remit to me the proceeds at Toronto; when I got the letter of William L. Wall I took it to Colonel Thompson; he said he was satis fied with it, and gave me a check for fifty dollars on the Ontario Bank of Montreal; I gave him a receipt for fifty dollars on account of S. P. Blackburn CJ. State whether or not Jacob Thompson, in all your connection with him, seemed to have a perfect know ledge of the character of the goods you were selling? j\.. 1 es, sir. Q. Did you mention to Wm the large sum that had been promised to you by Dr. Blackburn? A. I did and he said the Confederate Government had appropriated $200,000 for that purpose. Q. How did he excuse himself for not giving yon more ? A. When Dr. Blackburn returned irom Ber muda, I wrote to Montreal and toid him I wanted money; he made no reply; I then sent down to B. H. Young: subsequently Imet Dr. Blackburn, who said I had written him very hard letters, abusing him, and that he had not any money to give; he got into his car- TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 109 nageand drove off, and never gave me any satisfac tion, or paid me anything more. _ CJ. state under whatnameyoupassedwhen in Wash ington. A. J. M. Harris. .Qt- Where didyou stop in this city? A. At theNa- tional Hotel, and I brought the goods there. -Q. Can you give the precise date? A. I think it was the 5th ot August, 1864. CJ. In what name did you write this letter to Dr. Blackburn? A. Inmyownname. CJ. In what name did you- write to Mrs. Hall? A. In the name of J. W. Harris, the same as I had registered myself at the hotel. Q. Can you state whether C. C. Clay and Professor Ho comb, when you met on your return, in their con versation with you, seemed always perfectly to under stand the business you were engaged in? A. Yes; after I returned back to Canada I met Clay, Holcomb, Preston, Beverly Tucker, Dr. Blackburn, and several other gentlemen at the Clifton House, Niagara Falls. Q. Tney then had a knowledge of your enterprise? A. Yes sir. Q. And they complimented you upon your success? A. Holcomb and Clay did. Q. How do you know they had this knowledge? Was there a conversation between them that left no doubt ou.your mind as to the fact? A. In the conversation at the Clifton House I stated that I intended to return that night to Toronto; Dr. Blackburn had no money; he told me that he would go to Holcornbe, who had Confederate funds; he said that Holcornbe was going tostay there, and when he returned he would get money from him or Thompson ior the expedition; that he had to get it from one of them; I understood from that time that they knew all about it; I never spoke to them directly about it at all; I took it for granted^when they congratulated me on my safe re turn at Hamilton, they must have known all about it. CJ. You speak of Stuart Bobinson. a divine, of Louisville, Kentucky; who introduced you to -Dr. B.ackburn. Did he seem to have a kuowledge of the business you were engaged in? A. Not from me; I don't know what knowledge he had from Dr. Blackburn. Hesaid hedid not know the nature of the business I was going on, and that he did not want to commit any overt act. All I know is that Dr. Bobinson took good, care of me all. the time I was there that time until Dr. Blackburn wrote for me. He did not give me any money. I borrowed §10 to come down to Montreal from Mr. Preston. I went down to Montreal and saw Mr. Slaughter, who was to furnish me with funds to take me to Halifax. He said he was short of funds, that he bad lost several hundred dol lars by the failure of a banic. He gave me $z5 and said I had better go to Holcornbe at the Donegana House. I saw Mr, Holcornbe and told him Iwas short of funds and wanted $40. He said I had better take $50, but I replied saying I did not want it. The Judge Advocate asked the counsel for the de fense whether they desired to cross-examine the wit ness. Mr. Aiken replied that before the witness was dis charged he desired to know whether it was the purpose of the Judge Advocate to make use ofthe testimony in the summing up against any ofthe prisoners. Judge Holt replied that it was expected that refer ence would be made to all the testimony in summing up, but that the object of this testimony was to connect the Bebellion with this crime. Testimony of Wm. X. Wall. By Judge Holt.— CJ. Are you amerchant in this city? A. I am an auction and commission merchant. CJ. State whether, last summer, you received on con signment from a person representing himself as J. W. Harris, certain trunks aud goods? A. While I was out of town, last' August, my book-keeper received from a party named Harris, a lot of shirts and coats, which he desired to be sold at auction the next morn ing; the book-keeper said he would sell them; he asked for an advance on them, and §100 per trunk was the amount advanced, and the goods were sold the next morning; I did not see them at all. Testimony of A. Brenner. By Judge Holt..— Q. Were|you employed last summer In tbe service of Mr. Wall, commission merchant in this city? A. Yes sir. CJ.^State whether in the month of August a man re presenting himself as J. W. Harris sent to the store of Mr. Wall certain packages of goods for sale. A, A man calling himself Harris brought a package of goods to the store for sale; I thought him a sutler returning home, and I advanced him one hundred dollars upon them and sold them the next day; he said there were twelve dozen shirts, but there turned out to be more; I rendered an account of the sales to him at Toronto, Canada, with the balance of his money, in accordance with a letter received from him directing it, which I have here; it is dated at To ronto, September 1st. ]864, and he states that he had written to me previously in respect to five trunks, containing one hundred and fifty woolen shirts and twenty-five coats, but had received no response, and asked me to send him a check on New York for tbe proceeds. CJ. Do you remember anything about the marks which were on these trunks? A.Nosir; I remember the shirts were thrown promiscuously into the trunks: I sorted them out into packages of a dozen and sold them. CJ. Do you remember whether any trunk was marked No. 2? A. We marked them in selling them. By the Court— Did it seem to be new clothing? A I thought when I first opened the trunk it was not, and had doubts about its being a safe investment, but on looking further I saw it was new; it appeared to be crammed down into the trunk. CJ. What amount did the shirts bring? A. I see by the account sales which I have here that the whole amount was §142*90. Testimony of Tnos. ]L. Gardner, CJ. State whether or not you came up in company with Dr. Mudd to Washington last spring. A. I did, Q. State the date of the visit. A. The 23d day of March, I think, sir. * CJ. State whattimeyoulefthometo come up. A. On the 23d, in the morning, after the usual breakfast time. CJ. State the purpose of tbe visit. A. We came up to attend a sale of Government horses, which was to take place on Friday, but we heard it was to take place on Tuesday, and so were disappointed. CJ. Go on and state where you and Dr. Mudd were during that visit. A. We leit our horses at Martins, walked across the street, came down the avenue, and wentto a carriage factory; we then wont to a livery- stable, where he looked at some second-hand wa»ons and then went over on tne island to Mr. Clark's" and remained there till about dark, till thestore was about to close up; Dr. Mudd and myself walked around to Dr. Herring's, where we remaiupd some two or three hours, and then returned to Mr. Clark's, where we re mained all night; the next morning we took leave of Clark, and went into the Capitol to look at the paint ings; we then wentand took the street car, and went up to Martin's and got our horses, and after dinner we leit and returned home. CJ. SratewhosleptwithDr.Mudd. A. Dr. Mudd and myself slept together; there was but one bed in the room, and we occupied that. CJ. State whether you and Dr. Mudd were separated during the visit. A. No, sir: not at all; I am confident that at no time were we out of one another's sight from ourleaving Martin's until we started back. CJ. Did you not see anything of Booth during that visit? A. No, sir. CJ. Did you go into the National Hotel? A. No, sin I think we -stopped talking in front of the National Hotel looking at some Bebel prisoners passing, but we did not go in. CJ. Do you recollect the contest during the Congres sional election in your district in which Calvert was tbe>TJnion candidate and Harris was the Secession or opposing candidate? A. Yes sir, Harris ranas a Peace candidate, CJ. Do you know which one Dr. Mudd supported? Objected to. CJ. Do you know on wh at ticket Calvert wasrunning? A. As an unconditional Union candidate. CJ. Do you know which Dr. Mudd supported? Objected to. Cross-examined by Colonel Burnett.— CJ. Did you say that Mr. Calvert was running as a better Union candi date than Mr. Harris at that election? A. Yes sir. CJ. Was not Mr. Harland a candidate? A. I don't know. CJ. Were the other two peace candidates both of them? A. I don't know. Testimony of Mr. I>onning. CJ. State where you live. A. In Charles county, near Mount Pleasant. CJ. State whether you are acquainted with Dr. Samuel Mudd. A. I am very well acquainted with him. CJ. Are you acquainted with Mr. Thomas who testi fied here? A. Yes sir, I was raised with both, of them. Q. State whether or not Dr. Mudd and Mr. Thomas met at your house last spring. A. Yes sir, between the 1st and 15th they both met at my house. Q. Did they meet at any other time this Spring at your house? A. No sir. CJ. Did they come together? A. Nosir; Mr. Thomas came two or three hours before Dr. Mudd. CJ. How long did Dr. Mudd stay there? A. About half an hour; I don't think he staid over half an hour. CJ. Were you present all the time Dr. Mudd was there? A. Yessir: I never left the room. CJ. State whether or not, in that conversation at that time, Dr. Mudd said that President Lincoln was an Abolitionist; that all the Cabinet were such, and that theSouth could not be subjugated by Abolition doc trine, and that the President and Cabinet would all be killed in six or seven >eeks. A. There were nosuch words spoken l n the house, to my knowledge; I stopped there all the time; he came thereto see me to collect a little doctor's bill, and stopped thereabout half an hour; as I walked out, Dr. Mudd rose and followed me out; I went directly home; Mr. Thomas stayed with me an hour afterwards. CJ. Could Dr. Mudd have had any conversation with Mr. Thomas without you hearing it? A. No sir; even 110 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. if they had whispered Icould have heard it, I was so close to both oi them. CJ. Was any part of the statement I have recited to you made by Dr. Mudd on that occasion. A, Not to my knowledge. CJ. Doyou think you would have noticed it if it had been? A. I should certainly. CJ. State whether or not, two or three weeks after that occasion, you met Mr. Thomas on the road be tween your house and his. and whether he said to you that at your house Dr. Mudd had said that the Presi dent and the Cabinet and every Union man in the State of Maryland would be killed? A. He never said such a word; I never heard a word of that kind. CJ. Neither before nor after the assassination? A. No sir, neither. CJ. On i hat occasion did Dr. Mudd say that he did not consider the oath of allegiance worth a chew of tobacco? A. Not that I recollect; there never was a word of it spoken. CJ. What was the conversation about? A. Daniel Thomas was saying to Dr. Mudd that he was appointed a detective, and then referred to others; to Dyer and to Dr. George Mudd, and, perhaps, to one Hawkins; to being detective as well as he could, but didn't pre tend to catch anybody himself: it was his duty, he said, to go to their houses, but he said he never would catch any body. Cross-examined.— CJ. Were they talking during the whole half hour? A. Yes; they were detailing a lot of foolish things. CJ. What did Dr. Mudd say? A. I had no conversa tion with tbem. CJ. What did Dr. Mudd say to Thomas? A. He said that he was a jack. CJ. What did he call him a Jack for? A. Thomas said he was appointed a Deputy Provost Marshal, and Dr. Mudd said, "lam a better educated man than you are, and I am not fit for that office," and then they talked, and Mudd called him a jack; I didn't like that, for I don1 1 suffer jacks to comeinto my house, CJ. How long were you gone before Dr. Mudd went out? A. Not two seconds. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Did I understand you to say that you were not out of the room during that interview? A, Yes, sir; I was sitting about oneyard from them; it was cold weather; we had not wood enough on the fire, and we all sat close to it. CJ. You heard all the conversation? A. Yes, sir; ©very word that was spoken. Testimony of H. Ii. Mudd, Jr. CJ. Where do you live? A. Near Bryantown. CJ. How far from the accused? A. Three-quarters of a mile. CJ. Didyou last winter or spring, in company with Dr. Mudd, come up to the neighborhood of Washing ton? A. Yes sir. CJ. State v. here you both went? A. We left home on the 10th of April and stopped about twelve miles from Washington. We went to Giesboro' to buy horses and stayed there till io o'clock. We didn't find any horses that suited us as they were nearly all diseased. I made a proposition to go down to Martin's near the bridge and get some dinner, and we went and took dinner there. CJ. Where did you go then? A. Directly home. CJ. State whether you were separated from Dr. Mudd during that visit. A- Not during that visit; we were aJ 1 the time together. CJ, State whether you crossed the eastern branch. A. Nosir. CJ. Did you go on to Washington? A. No sir. CJ. State whether you saw anything of John Wilkes Booth during that visit. A. No sir, I did not. CJ. Do you know anything about any other visits Dr. Mudd made to Washington? A. Yes sir, on the 23d or 24th day of December and on the 23d day of March he was there. CJ. Who came with him the first time? A. Jerry Dyer. CJ. Who came with him. the second time? A. Mr. Gardner. CJ. State whether you know anything, except of those two visits, from the 1st of January to the present time. A. I saw him three or four times a week, sometimes at church, and sometimes at home; I never saw him any where else. Q. How longbave you been livingwithin three-quar ters of a miie of Mudd's place? A. All my life. CJ. Didyou live there last year? A. Nosir; Iwas at college, but I came home on the 20th day of June. CJ. Have you been here ever since? A. Yes sir; ever since. CJ. Do you know of any part of the Confederate soldiers being about your brother's house since the 29th day of July, 1864? A. I do not sir. CJ. Did you hear orsee John Surratt at your brother's house? A. Never, sir. Q. State to the Court whether or not your father is a land owner in the county. A. Yes sir. CJ. How large? (Objected to by Assistant Judge Ad vocate Bingham.) CJ. How large a farm Is it that your father has? A. Between four and five hundred acres. By Colonel Burnett.— Q. Do you mean that he owns It? A. Father gave it to him; he never had any deed for it; he is simply there as a tenant; my father owns it. CJ. Don't you know that Dr. Mudd does not own a foot of land of any kind? A. I do not, sir. By Mr. Ewing.— The Witness— I have always under stood that the farm was set apart for him by his father: it Is known as his farm. CJ. Do you know of your brother having sold and re ceived the proceeds of any land belonging to your lather? A. Yes sir; the land on which Mr. Forey new lives he bought from my father; the house was burnt down and my brother sold the farm. CJ. Who held the title? A. My father sir. Testimony of Mr. Hardy. I live In Charles county, two miles and a half above Bryantown: I dined at the house of Di. Mudd's father one week after the assassination; a messenger came for him to go to his own house and I went with him; we met Lieutenant Lovett in Dr. Mudd's yard; Dr. Mudd introduced Lieutenant Lovett to me, and he then walked into the house, and Dr. Mudd told Lieu tenant Lovett that the boot was in the house, and. asked him if he wanted it; I think he mentioned it af ter we got into-the house; no inquiry had been made before in my hearing. CJ. Was anything said about where it was found ? A. Mrs. Mudd said she found it in dusting the room under the bed. Cross-examination.— I don't know what remark was made about searching the house. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Who gave the boot to the officer? A. Dr. Mudd himself. CJ. What time of day was it? A. Between 12 and 1 o'clock; we had dinner at Dr. Mudd's father's; I didu't see the messenger; I think it was Mr. Davis' child ran in and said Mr. Davis was in the yard and wished to see Dr. Mudd.Testimony of B>r. Blandford. CJ. Where do you live? A. In Prince George county, about twenty miles from, the city. CJ. State whether or not, during last spring or winter, you accompanied Dr. Mudd towards Washington. A. I did, on the nth of April, to Giesboro', to attenda sale of Government horses there. CJ. Siate who was in company with him. A. His brother; we arrived at the sale before the hour, and I remained there with him till twelve o'clock, examining horses; they were of an inferior qualitv, and he made no purchases during my stay there; at about half-past twelve o'clock I leit him and made an engagement to meet him again; I wentxo Washington and gotback to Martin's at about half-past two o'clock, and found Dr. Mudd there. CJ. When you started for Washington you left his brother with him at Giesboro'. A. Yes sir. CJ. Did you find him. there when you returned? A Yes sir. CJ. State where Martin's Is. A. On the forks of the road, not more than one hundred yards from the bridge; one road leads to the right, and the other is the stage road leading into the country. Q. That is on the other side of the Eastern Branch? A. Yes sir. CJ. Have you any knowledge of Dr. Mudd offering to . sell his farm? A. I think he said he would like to sell it. Q. When did you hear him speak of that? A. For several years back. CJ. What place did he refer to? A. The place that he lived in; I heard him speak of it in the last eighteen mouths several times. CJ. How long did you stay at Giesboro' together? A. Till eight or nine okjlock. Testimony of Mr. Martin. I am acquainted with both Dr. Samuel Mudd and Henry L. Mudd, and also with Dr. Blandford; I saw themon the 23d of March, and also. I think, on the 4th of April last; both Dr.Samueland Henry L.Budd were - at my house for one or two-hours; Dr. Blandford joined them between three and four o'clock. CJ. Was Dr. Mudd there afterwards, between tbat . rime and the assassination? A. No sir; neither w-s Henry L. Mudd nor Dr. Blandford. Testimony of Mr. Montgomery. ,-r1 .A™ acquainted with the prisoner, ¦ Dr, Samuel Mudd; in las* December he made an arrangement with me for bringing a store to Washington; I reckon it was on the 22d-ot that month, in the morning The Court then adjourned till ten o'clock to-morrow TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. ill Washington, May 80.— Visitors of both sexes continue to crowd the court room almost to suffoca tion. At the trial Messrs. B. Hubbard, John E. Boberts and Charles E. Follows, of Col. Baker's Detective Force, are in attendance, euforcing order and cour teously attending to their appropriate duties. The record of the previous day having been read, the prosecution proceeded to call three witnesses, the remaining being for the defense. Their testimony was as follows :— Testimony of Lewis F. Bates. By Judge Advocate Holt.— CJ, State where you re side. A. In Charlotte, N. C. CJ. How long have you resided there? A. Little over tour years. Q. In what business have you been engaged there during the past year? A- 1 have been engaged as Su- fierintendeut of the Southern Express- Company for he State ot North Carolina. CJ. State whetheror not you saw Jefferson Davis re cently at Charlotte, N. C, and under what circum stances. A. He stopped at my house on the 19th of April last. CJ. Did he make an address to the people on that oc casion? A. He did, on the steps of my house. CJ. State whether or not, in tbe course of that ad dress, or towards the close of it, a telegram was re ceived by him announcing the assassination of the President, of the United States. A. It was. Q. From whom? A. From John C. Breckinridge. Q. Did he or did be not read that telegram to the crowd? A. He aid. Q. Look at this (exhibiting to witness a telegram), and see whether it Is the same despatch? A. I should say that It was. The despatch was then read, as follows:— Greensboro,, April 19; 1865.— His Excellency Presi dent Davis:— President Llncolnwas assassinated in the theatre in Washington, on tbe night ofthe 14th inst. Seward's house was entered on the same night and he was repeatedly stabbed, and is probably mortally W(Slgned) JOHN C. BBECKTNBIDGE. CJ. State what Jefferson Davis said alter reading this despatch to the crowd. Endeavor to recollect his pre cise language. A. At the conclusion of his speech to the people he read this despatch aloud and made this remark:— " If it were to be done it were better that it were done well." ,„.„,, CJ. You are sure theseare the words? A. These are the words. , _ CJ- State whether or not, in » day or two afterwards, Jefferson Davis, John C. Breckinridge and others, were present in your house at Charlotte? A. They were. CJ. And the assassination of the' President was the subject of conversation? A. A day ortwo afterwards that was the su-siectof their conversation. Q. Can you remember what John C. Breckenndge said? A. InspeakingoftheassassinationotPresident Lincoln he remarked to Davis that he regretted it very much: that it was unfortunate tor thepeople of the South at that time; Davis replied, " Well, General, I don't know; if it were to be done at all, it were better it were well done; and if the same were done to Andrew Johnson, the beast, and to Secretary- Stanton, tlie 30b would then be complete." „ A ^ ^ „ Q. You feel confident that you recollect the words ? A. These are the words used. . Q. State whetheror not the regret which John C. Breckenridge expressed at the assassination was be cause of its criminality, or simply because it was un fortunate for th e people of the South at that time? A. I drew that conclusion. . Q. Was there any remark made as to the criminality dfthe-act? A. Nosir; he simply remarked that here- gretted It as being unfortunate for the South. CJ. Of what State are you a native? A. Of Massa chusetts. Testimony of J. C. Conrtney. CJ. Where do you reside? A. At Charlotte, N. C. CJ. In what business were you engaged there? A. In the telegraph business in connection with the Southern Express Company. CJ. Lookatthetelegraph despatch of which Mr. Bates has just spoken, aujt state whether or not itpassed over the wires at the date indicated? A. Yes sir; that is a true copy. (A copy ofthe message telegraphed on the 39th of April last, to Jefferson Davis, was shown to witness.) . „ n , . , CJ. From what point?" A. From Greensboro', signed by John C. Breckinridge. „ CJ. This despatch was sent from the office to Jefferson Davis at Charlotte? A, When the message was- re ceived he was en route to Charlotte ; it was delivered to him at Mr. Bates' house, in Charlotte. Judge Advocate Holt then stated that inasmuch as the counsel for the prisoner, Spangler. had' not as yet opened the case for the defense, he desired to call an other witness for the prosecution in regard to that prNo objections being made, the following witness was called;— Testimony of Jacob EUttersnach. By Asssistant Judge Advocate Binguam.— CJ. State whether you were a carpenter at Ford's theatre down the 14th of April last? A.I was. CJ. Were you present on the night of the 14th when the President was shot ? A. I was. CJ. Which box in. the theatre did the President oc cupy thatnlgbt? A. It was on the left hand side of the stage, the right hand side as you come in from the front. CJ. When the shot was fired did you hear anybody cry "Stop that man?" A. I did. CJ. State where you were and what you did when you heard the cry "Stop that man?" A. 1 was standing on tbestage, aboutthe centre, behind the scenes, when somebody cried out, "The Presidentis shot!" Then I saw a man running across the stage towards the back* door; ho had a knife in his hand; I ran to the last en trance, and as I came up to him he grabbed forme, and struck at me with his knife; I jumped back; he then ran out and slammed the door snu t; then I went to open the door, andl thought it was kind of fast; L could not get it open very readily; at tbat time some body cried out, "Which way?" and I answered "This way." Then I got out, but the man had got on bis horse and gone down the alley; I then came in and met Spangler. Q. What Spangler? A, Edward Spangler, the pri soner, and he kind of Blapped me on the mouth with his open hand, and said, " Don't say which way he went;" I asked him what he meant by slapping me in the mouth, and he said, " For God's sake, shut up!" that was all he said. Q. When you went out that door had anybody else besides the man with tbe knife gone out before you? A. I did not see anybody. CJ. Did anybody go out after you? A. Yes, but I do not know who it was. CJ. Did you leave the door open when you ran out? A. Yessir. CJ. What was your business on the stage? A. My busi ness was to shove ihe wings. CJ. State what sort of a man, if any, went out after you. A. I thought he was a tall, pretty stout man. CJ. Do you know him? A. No sir, I did not notice him particularly. CJ. When you came backinto the theatre was the door open orshut? A. It was open. Cross-examined by Mr, Ewing.— CJ. State where you were standing, when you heard, the pistol fire J,. A. In the centre-of the stage. CJ. Where was Spangler then? A. He was about in thesame place. Just about where we shoved off the scenes: he was standing, there, and seemed to look pale. CJ. You are certainyou both stood there when the pistol was firedr A. Yessir. Q. Didyou know that the pistol had been fired im mediately after it happened?" A. Not right away; I did not know what had happened until I heard somebody halloo "Stop that man: the President is shot." CJ. When you came back whereabouts was Spangler? A. In the same place where I left him. CJ. Was there a. crowd there? A. The actors were there and some strangers; there were some women standing there belonging to the theatre; I do not know their names? Q. Do you.not know one of them? A. I do not know any of their names, not having been acquainted' with them: I had been there only four weeks. CJ. Did any one of them take any part in that play that night? A. Yes sir, some of them did. CJ. What parts did they take? A. I do not know what parts, but one they used" to ¦call Jenaie. CJ. How close was she to you when Spangler struck you? A. About threeor four feet. CJ. She heard Spangler state the words you have given? A. I do not know. CJ. He said it loud enough for her to hear?' A. Not so very loud. ,, ..,,*, CJ. Hesaid it In the usual tone? A. Yessir.helooked. scared and kind of crying. CJ. Did you hear the people crying "burn the the atre?" A. No sir; I just heard them hallooing "hang him, shoot him," that was all I heard. CJ, You mentioned what Spangler did and said tffyou to several persons since then? A. Yes sir; I do not know, I think I told some detectives that came there. CJ. Did you tell either of the Messrs. Ford? A. No sir; I told Gifford. , JJBr M •CJ. What did you tell Gifford that Spangler saiar A. I told him Spangler saidl should notsay which way CJ. When didyou tell Gifford? A. The same week. I think that I was released from Carrol prison, the week CJ. Do you not know what they called the detective whom you told? A. No sir; he had black whiskers and a very heavy moustache, and weighed about uu P CLCaii you recollect anybody else to whom you told it? A. I might have said something about itatthetable in the house where I boarded. CJ. Did you see Booth open the door? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did yoiusee him shut it? A. No sir. CJ. How erase to you was this big man who run out after you ? A. He might have been five or six yards 112 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. from me when I heard him or somebody else halloo out "which way;" I have not seen that man since. Q. How long was it before you came back to where Spangler was standing ? A. It might have been two or three minutes. Q. And he was crying ? A. He looked so; he seemed scared. CJ. What did you say to him before he spoke to you as you have stated? A. I did not say anything. CJ. Were you at supper with Spangler on the night before the assassination? A . Yes sir; we boarded to gether. Bobert Martin, a witness for the defense, being called, stated that he was mistaken in that portion of his testimony of yesterday referring to the visit of the prisoner, Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, to his house on the 4th of April. It was Jerret Mudd, not the prisoner, who visited him, and the date was 11th instead of 4th of April. The witness further stated that the prisoner, in company with Jerrett Mudd, called on him while he was in market in Washington on the 24thof December last, and that he saw tbe prisoner again on the 23d of March, in company with Mr. Lewellyn, the occasion of these gentlemen stopping over night at his house, and that he did not recollect seeing him on any other occasion. Jerry Dyer, a witness for the defense, being recalled, stated that he had never gone into Virginia. He in tended to say that he had not crossed the Potomac since 1861, but did get to Bichmond, Virginia, at that time with the party who had been sleepmgin the pines. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham— CJ. Who were the parties whom you accompanied to Bichmond at the time of which you speak? A.Ben. Gwynn and Andrew Gwynn. CJ. That was after the Bebellion commenced? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did you see Jefferson Davis while you were in Bichmond? A. I did, but I never spoke to him in my life; I remained in Bichmond only about a week, and did not meet with any ofthe officers of the Bebel or ganization there except Taylor, to whom I went to get a pass, Q, What business took you to Bichmond? A. I went there to avoid arrest. CJ. You preferred to fall into the hands of theenemy? A. I regretted very much the necessity of going there. CJ. To what pines do yon refer in your testimony? A. To the pines about Dr. Mudd's house. CJ. Did you sleep in the pines at night? A. Yes sir. CJ. Who fed you? A. Dr. Samuel A. Mudd. Mr. Ewing objected to a further examination of this witness, asallthe.se facts had already been stated by him in his examination in chief. General Hunter Inquired whether the witness had not sworn that he was a loyal man and had been such from the beginning of the Bebellion? Judge Bingham replied that he so understood. CJ. Did you not belong to an association hostile to the Government of the United States? A. I belonged to a cavalry company. CJ. Was it not the purpose of that organization to stand by the State of Maryland in any position she might take, loyal or disloyal? A. That I do not know. CJ. Did you not publicly proclaim yourself in favor of the secession of Maryland? A. Not that I am aware of; I may have done it. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. State whether when you went to Virginia you entered into the Confederate service. A. I did not; I did not go for that purpose. CJ. State whether when you returned you took the oath of allegiance. A. I did. CJ. State whether you have done any act to aid or en courage the Bebellion since taking the oath? A. I have not, that I am aware of. By Mr. Bingham.— CJ. When did you take this oath of allegiance? A. In 1861; I am not positive as to that; I know it was a short time after I returned, CJ. Who administered the oath of allegiance? A. One of the lieutenants or captains; I think, down at General Hooker's camp. Testimony of Marcellus Gardner, By Mr. Ewing,— CJ. State whether you know the prisoner, Dr. Samuel A. Mudd. A. I do. CJ.. State whether he has ever said anything to vou about offering his land for sale, and, if so, when? A. I have heard him, on several occasions, during the past two years, state that be wanted to sell out. CJ. Were you at the church in the neighborhood on the Sunday after the assassination? A. Yes sir. CJ. Was the fact of the assassination ofthe President then known and talked about at the church? A. Yes sir; I think it was generally known. CJ. State whether the name of the assassin was gen erally known. A. I think not. CJ. Did you see Dr. Mudd there? A. Yes sir. CJ. State whether you heard.Dr. Mudd say anything as to how he regarded the assassination. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham objected to the question . Mr. Ewing said that he had again brought this ques tion before the Court for the purpose of calling their attension specially to the character ot the declaration which he expected to prove, that Dr. Mudtl spoke of the assassination as an atrocious and revolting crime, I and a terrible calamity to the country; and that he spoke of it generally among his neighbors at the church in that way. The prisoner was charged with a concealment of the fact of those two men being at his house, which was a concealment extending over Sun day, and his declarations showing his feelings with re ference to the crime during the time he was alleged to have been acting accessory to it were admissable. The objection of the Judge Advocate was sustained, and the question was not put. Mr. Ewing then stated that he had no further exami nation of the witness to make. Testimony of Jos. W. Say] or. By Mr. Stone.— CJ. Where doyou reside? A. In the Eighth Election District of Prince Georges county^ Maryland. CJ. State whether you know the general reputation of Daniel G. Thomas for truth and veracity. A. I know his general -reputation in that respect pretty well, both from report and observation; it is bad. CJ. From his general character fortruth and veracity would you believe him on his oath? A. From my own knowledge of him I would not. CJ. How long have you known Thomas? A. Since he was a small boy. CJ. Did you know his general character fortruth ana veracity before this war? A. I have known him all the time; I never heard him spoken of well at any time; his reputation is that he never tells the truth when a lie will answer his purpose. Cross-examined by Judge Holt.— CJ. Did you ever know of Mr. Thomas speaking falsely when under oath? A. I never knew him tone sworn. CJ. Did you ever hear it charged upon him that he swore falsely? A. I do not know that I ever did. CJ. The reputation of which you speak is, that he talks idly, extravagantly and unreliably, bufrtbat re putation does not extend to any statements which he would make while under oath. A. I never heard that he had been charged with swearing falsely. CJ. Is he not reported to be an honest and loyal man in his neighborhood? A. Well, he is sometimes one thing, and semetlmes another, just as the prospects of either side vary. Q, Have you been loyal yourself since the Bebel lion? A. I have. Q. Have you constantly desired that the Govern* ment should succeed In suppressing the Bebellion? A. Always. In reply to some further questions, the witness said that his ground for suspecting the loyalty of Mr. Thomas at particular times, were based upon what that person had told others; that personally he was very friendly with Mr. Thomas, their residences being near each other; that he had never had any private or political differences with tbat gentleman, and that tbe reputation of Dr. George Mudd, as a loyal man anda supporter of the Government, was universal in that neighborhood. Testimony of "Wm. A. Mudd. By Mr. Stone.— CJ. Do you know Dr. S. A. Mudd? A. Ido. CJ. How far do you live from him? A. About a mile and a half, Q. State whether at any time last year you saw a Captain White, from Tennessee, or a Lieutenant Perry, at or about Dr. Samuel Mudd's premises. A. I never did. CJ. Did you see Andrew or Ben Gywnn or George Gwynn about his premises at any time last year? A. No sir; I have not seen Andrew Gwynn since he left for the South; Mr. George Gwynn I have seen at our church several times since he returned. CJ. Didyou see any person staying out in the wooda about Dr. Mudd's, during last year? A. I did not: 1 never saw a man there that I had heard of as having been South, except one; I recollect seeing Mr. Ben Gwynnatthe Doctor's; I rodeup.and ascertained from him that he was scouting, or something of that kind; that has been quite three years ago; it may have been in thefirstyearof the war; it was the time I understood they were after him. Testimony of Francis S. Walsh. By Mr. Stone— CJ. Where do you reside? A. I have lived in this city since 1837. I am a druggist CJ. Do you know the prisoner Harold? A. Yes, I have known him ever since he was a boy. I havfl known him intimately since October, 1863. CJ. Has he been in your employ, A. He was for nins months, as a clerk. CJ. State as near as you can his character9 A Ha lived in my house; I knew nothing objectionable in his character. He was like most young men light and trifling in some things, but in his moral character! saw nothing to find fault with. He was temperate in his habits and regular in his hours. CJ. State whether he was or was not in his general character more of a boy than a man? A I think so CJ. State whether or not he was easily influenced or- persuaded by any one around him? A. I should think he was: more easily than boys or young men of his age: he was boyish in many respects. By Judge Holt.— Q. What do you suppose to be his age? A. About twenty-two years. TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Interior View of the Court Koom Occupied by the Military Commission. *¦* _ aJ S o <0 a- 3 3 00OT 1-3 w o a tef 5=1 HCSSWo HH a Ed O aa w a> sp»Ma H ^ ?=. ° <3 S cJ S> St t) &f o a b o «* B PRISONERS DOCK DOOR TABLE [ OF | PRISONER? COUNSEL! -A^ TABLE OF j PRISONERS I COUNSEL / / (POST 3> KJ K a 30 -a o39m33 1 TABLE 1 1 *» ! ; n r- WITNESS STAND ra rn S ° ** — 3 F IMPOST » =i s« 1 ' ' 73 TABU •< 1 JUDGE ADVOCATE window! ]dqqr / WINDOW SPOST Boxes centaining As- _J sassins' implements. :0j 21 *\ THE PRISONERS' MiA.IVA.CLE9. The above is a correct drawing ofthe manacles usod I hands, as in the old-fashioned shackle, where the In confining the arms of the prisoners. The wristlets | clasps are connected by cham Unks, thus effectually are attached to an i.ron bar, about twelve inches in | preventing the culprit from unfastening or breaking length, which prevents the wearer from joining his | them. (8) TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 113 Testimony of James Nolces. By Mr. Stone.— CJ. Where do you reside? A. I have lived at the Navy Yard in this city since 1S27. Q. Do you know the prisoner Harold? A. I have known him trom his birth, about twenty-two years, X believe. Q. Have yon seen a good deal of him? A. I have been intimate in his family tor about eighteen or nine teen years. Q. How iarge a family? A. Seven or eight; he was the only son. CJ, State what is his general character for boyish ness; whether he was easily persuaded or led away. A. I have always looked upon uim as a light, trifling boy, of very little reliability. Q. Is he or is he not easily persuaded by anyone around him? A. I should think he was. CJ. More so than the generality of young men of his age? A. Yessir, I am. certain ot that. Q. Would he be especially liable to be led away by any one of lascinating address? A. Ibaveneverheard him enter into any argument with anyone; all his conversation that I have heard has been of a light and trifling character. Testimony of William M. Kiellotts. By Mr. Stone.— CJ. Where do you reside? A. I have lived in this City for fi I teen years. (J. State whether jrou know the prisoner, Harold, •wed? A. I do. Q. Have you known him all the time? A. Yes; for nearly thirteen years. Q. State whether you saw him during the month of February last? A. I think I did. Q. How often? A. I could not say how often; Iwas at home; I live next door to his fatner's, and have oc casionally seen him in the yard, morning and after noon; I suppose I saw him nearly every day. CJ. State whetheror not he is of a tiifling character, and easily persuaded. A. I believe he is; I saw him veryoiten in boys' company; Isbouid think he was moreofaboy than a man; he never associated with men at all. Testimony of Emma Harold. By Mr. Stone.— Q. State whether you are the sister of the prisoner, David E. Haroid. A. X am. Q. State whether he was at home on thei5th of Fe bruary last? A. Yes; I remember it from the fact of senaing a valentine to him, which he received on the 15th. CJ. Had you any talk with him in relation to that va- lentineon the 15th? A. No; but my sister had. Q. State what was the next date you can fix on which he was at home? A. The 19th; I remember that date by the iact that X brought a pitcher of water up stairs; he met me in the hall, and wanted I should give it to him; he tried to take itaway from me; X held on to it, and it spilled over; that was the Sunday morning after St. Valentine's day. Q, And you do not remember his being at home be tween these times? A. He was at home, but I cannot fix tne day. Testimony of Gen. Edward Johnston. The Rebel Major-General Edward Johnston was here called to the stand. CI en. Howe.— Before this witness is sworn I wish to submit amotion to the Court. I will state the facts upoo which X base the motion. It is well known, as it is to a great many officers of the army, that the person now on the stand, Edward Johnston, was educated at the National Military Academy, at Government ex pense, and thac since that time, for years, he has held a com mission in the army oi theUnited States. It is well known iu the army that it is a condition precedent to resigning a commission tbat anofficer should take an oathoialiegianceandfidelitytotheGovernment. IniSiil it becamomy duty as an officer to tire upon aRebel party ofwhichthis man was a member. That party struck down and killed loyal men who were in tne service of the Government; since that time it is notorious to all the officers of the army that the man now here intro duced as a witness has openly borne arms against the United States, except when he has been a prisoner in the hands of the Government; I understand that it is proposed he shall testify before this Couit; becomes here as a witness, witn his bands red with the blood of his loyal countrymen, shot by him or by h is assistants, in violation of his solemn oath as a man and as an officer; I submit, therefore, to this Court whether be does not stand in the eye of the law as an incompe tent witness; I regard the offering as a witness of a man standing in open violation ofthe obligations' of an oath administered to him as an officer as an insult to the Court, aud an outrage upon the administration of justice; X move that this man, Edward Johnston, be ejected irom the Court as an incompetent witness. General Ekiu— I rose to second the motion. I am glad that this question has now been presented to the Court. I regard this man as clearly incoinpetentas a witness, In my judgment, of all the men in this coun try, for those who have been educated by the Govern ment, nourished by the Government, protected by tbe Government, and who have joined the enemies of the Government, to come into a Court of justice, and espe cially beloreamilitary commission oi a character Buoh as that here assembled, is the height of impertinence andXtrusL the resolution which has been presented will be adopted by this commission without hesita tion. Mr. Aiken— Before the Commission decides upon themotion ot Gen. Howe it is proper for me to say thai I was not aware of the fact mat because a person had borne arms against the Government it would dis- quali.y and render him incompetent as a witness. Therefore, X could not, of course, have intended any insuit in introducing Gen. Johnston as a witness, it will also be recollected that at least one witness who has borne arms against the Government was intro duced here hy the J uuge Advocate without objection of any member of the Court. General ICautz— Q,. Does this person appear here as a volunteer witness? Mr. Aiken— He does not. The Judge Advucate-General— I feel bound to say, that as aruleot law, before a witness be rendered so imamousasio become absolutely incompetent to tes- tiJyhemustbe convictedby judicial proceeding, and the record of that proceeding must be produced as the basis ot his incompetency; without tbat condition any evidence of his guilt only applies to his credibility. This Court can discredit him as far as they please upon tbatground, butldo not think thelaw would authorize the Court to declare this witness incompe tent, however unworthy he may be of credibility. General Lew Wallace— I hope, for the sake of the character of this investigation,- and for the sake of public justice, not forth at ofthe person introduced as awitness, but for that ofthe prisoners at the bar, now on trial, the officer making the motion will with draw i t. General Howe— Upon the statement of the Judge Advocate-General that this person is not technically an incom, etent witness, I withdraw the motion. By Mr. Aiken.— CJ. "Wbatisyour present sfatusas a prisoner of war? A. I am a United States prisoner of war, captured at Nash ville, now confined at Fort War ren, in Boston harbor. Q. Were you or were you not an officer in the so- called Confederate service, and, it so, of what rank? A. I was a Brigadier-General in the Confederate States army irom the year I8ti3 up to the date of my capture. CJ. Did you have a higher rank than that? A. I did. CJ. AreyouacquamtedwithHenryfeteinacker? A. X am acquainted with a man who went by that name and who represented himself to me as Henry Von Steinecker. Q. Was he a member of your staff? A. He was not. CJ. Did he rank as an engineer officer, and receive pay assuch? A. Hedid not rank as an officer, neither as an engineer, staff, or line officer; he was a private. Q. To what regiment and company did he belong? A. He belonged to the StonewallBiigade, Second Vir ginia Infantry, I think; I am not positiveon that point; 1 do not remember the company. CJ. Was the Second Virginia Infantry attached to your division? A. It was part of the Stonewall Bri gade, and that was one of the brigades of my division. CJ. State to the Court bow, when, and under what cireum stances Von Steinacker presented himself to you. A. In the month of May, 18GH, a-man accosted me in Bichmond, in Capitol Square, by my name and the rank I bore in the United States Army, as Major Johnson; he told me he had served under me— Judge Bingham— What has that to do with it? there has been no inquiry made as to his services under you— Witness— Well, he met me in Bichmond and ap- Slied Jor a position in the Engineer Corps, stating that e had served under me previously; that he was a Prussian by birth, and an engineer by education, and he would like to get in the Engineer Corps in our ser vice. Judge Bingham— You need not tell what he said Witness— He applied to get into our service; I had no such position to give, and declined giving it, and he le.t me: he called again and made a second application (or the position; I told him I could not give it to him; I was then ordered off to Fredericksburg, and in about a week this man appeared there again, and made ap plication ior a position either in the Engineer Corps or on my stall; I told him I could not give nim a position in either, but that if he would enlist as a private, from his representations of himself as an engineer and a draughtsman,! would put bim on duty in the Engi neer Corps as a private; on these conditions he enlisted as a private in the Stonewall Brigade, Second Virginia Inlautry, andl assigned him to special duty at head quarters; he was to act as draughtsman and assist my engineer officer, and he so continued to act till Iwas told he had left. CJ. Was be subjected to court-martial at that time? Question objected to by Judge Bingham, on the ground that records of courts-martial must be pro duced, and he did not think there were any courts down in Virginia in these days that could try at all. Mr. Aiken stated that, as under the circumstances the records of thecourtcould not be produced, parole evidence could be admitted, and he presumed the question was not seriously objected to. 114 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. The objection was sustained by the Court. ' CJ. Where in Virginia was your encampment after the battle of Gettysburg? A. Near Orange Court House. Q. Do you know or not of a meeting of the officers of that Brigade at the camp of the Second Virginia Regi ment? A. X know nothing of it, and never heard any- thingof the kind. Q. Did you ever learn the fact that a secret meeting was held there at that time? A. I never heard of any euch secret meeting. Q. Did you ever at any meeting of the officers of your division hear plans discussed tor the assassination of the President of the United States? A. X never heard any plans discussed in any meeting of t^.e officers, nor did I ever hear the assassination of the President alluded to by any individuals in my division. Q. Are you acquainted with J. Whkes Booth, the actor? A. I am not; I neversawbim. Q. Look at that picture (Booth's) and see if you ever saw the man? A. Never, to my knowledge; I did not know, in iact, there was such a man until after the assassination of President lancoln. Q. Have you a personal knowledge of the iact of Lieutenant David Cockerill losing a horse? Judge Bingham— I object. We do not propose the question ofhorsestealinghere.it is not in the issue. Mr. Aiken— The charge was made in the paper pre sented that Von Steinecker had been guilty ot horse stealing, and I understood we were to be permitted to prove any allegations in that paper. Colonel. Burnett— Anything that is legitimate and competent to be proved. We did not go further. The objection was sustained by the Court. CJ. Didyou ever learn anything while atLhe South of a secret association by the name of* Tne Knights of the Golden Circle," or "Sons of Liberty?" A. I never belonged to any such association myself, and never knew any one who was reported to belong to them, aud never knew anything ot tbem. Q. While in Richmond have you heard it freely spoken of in the street and among your acquaintances that the assassination of the President of the United States was a desirable result to be accomplished? A.I never heard it spoken of a^ a desirable object to be ac complished; in iact, as Xsaid before. I neverheardany officer or person allude to the assassination of the President as desinble. to the best of my recollection. CJ. Wai Von Steinecker a member of Gen. B'enker's starf? A. Not that I know o.; he to:dme tbat he was. CJ. Did he state to you tbat he was a deserter from our service? A. He stated to me that he had deserted or attempted to desert, and was ap prehended. Cross-examined by Judge Bingham.— CJ. Have you ever been in the service ofthe United States? A. I have. Q. Were you educated at the United States Military Academy? A. Yessir. Q. How long had you been in the army of the United States? A. I graduated in 1838. Q. And had been in our army down to the breaking out of the Bebellion? A. Yessir. Q. What was your rank in the army at that time? A. Captain and Brevet Major of the Sixth United States Infantry. Q. State how you got out of the service of the United States. A. I tendered my resignation, which was ac cepted. CJ. Tendered it to whom? A. To the Adjutant Gene ral of the United States; I tendered it in May, 1R61; it was not accepted for three or four weeks; I received the acceptance of my resignation in June lollowing. CJ. Did you then enter into the Rebel service, A. I went to my home in Virginia, where I remained a few weeks; I then entered tbe Confederate States' service, and have been in it ever since. CJ. What was the final rank held by you in that army? A. Major-General. CJ. Were you a Major-General in 1863? A, I was for a partof 1863: 1 think my rank as Major-General com menced iu February of that year. Testimony of Mrs. Mary E. Jenkins. Examined by Mr. Stone,— CJ. State whether you know David E. Harola. A. Yes, I know him. Q. Can you state whether he was or was not in Washington on the 18tb of last February? A. He was at my house on the 18th and received my rent; I have his receipt to show. Testimony of Mrs. B*otts. Examined bv "Mr. Stone.— Q. State whether you know one of the accused, David E. Harold. A. Yes. CJ. State to the Court whether be was or was not' in Washington on the 20th of February last. A. X cannot state whether he was or was not; became to my house on the i(»th, and I told him I would send the money to thehouse, which I did; I did not see him the next day; he used to come to my house, and when I would not be prepared to see him I would tell him I would send the money to his house; his receipt was dated the 20th of February.Testimony of the Rebel Major H. K. Douglas*. Examined by Mr, Aiken.— Q. State to the Court whether you ever held a commission in the so-called Confederate service? A. I have, several; my last com mission wasthatof Major and A. A. G.; I served as such on the staff of six general officers, and among others on that of Major-General Edward Johnston. Q Are you acquainted with Henry Von Steinacker? A. I know a man by the name of Von Steinacker; I do not know what his first name is. CJ. Was he or not a private in your service; and if so, in what regiment? A. He was in the Second Virginia Infantry. Stonewall Brigade. Q. Did he receive the pay, bounty and allowances of a private? A. I don't know. CJ. Do you recollect, after tbe return of your army from Gettysburg, where it was encamped. A. I was wounded at Gettysburg, and left in the bands of the enemy; I was a prisoner ior nine months. CJ. When you returned to camp did you meet Von Steinacer again? A. I do not remember seeing him again. I got a letter from him immediately after I returned to camp. CJ. Do you know ot any secret meetings ever being held in your camp, at which the assassination of Presi dent Lincoln was discussed? A. No I do not. Q. Were you acquainted with J. Wilkes Booth, the actor? A. No. By the Court.— Q. Were you ever in the United States service? A.. I was not; with the permission ofthe Court I would like to make a statement. General Howe, "I object to tbe prisoner making any state ment." General Foster, "I hope the witness will be allowed to make his statement." The President, "If no further objection is made the witness will proceed with his statement. Witness,*'! just wish to say to tne Court, undersland- ingthat evidence has been given by which implication has been cast on the 'Stonewall Brigade," that as a man who has held positions in that brigade as private, aud line and staff officer, I think their integrity as men, equal to their reputation for gallantry as soldiers, would iorbid them to be employed as nigbi assassins or President Lincoln. In their behalf I only wish tosay that I do not believe they knew anything about or in the least sympathized in any such unrighteous or un- soldierly action." Testimony of Oscar Henricks. Examined by Mr. Aiken— Q. Have you been in the service of tiieso-called Con federate States. A. I have as engineer officer at onetime on the staff of General Edward Johnston, and at others that of different Gen eral officers. CJ. State whether you are acquainted with Henry Von Steinacker? A. I am. CJ, When and under what circumstances did that commence? A. He was detailed by me as draughts man immediately after General Johnston took com mand. CJ. Was he employed as such? A. I employed him, as such. Q. Did he ever have the rank or pay of an Engineer officer? A. He did not. CJ. Are you acquainted with J.Wilkes Booth, the actor? A. I am not. Q. Did you ever see a person calling himself by that name in camp? A. No sir. CJ. Do you know of any secret meetings of officers ever taking place in your camp, at which the assassi nation of President Lincoln was discussed? A. None ever did take placp. Q. Did you ever learn the fact that Von Steinacker was a member of General Blenker's Staff? Question objected to by Judge Bingham, and with drawn. CJ. Did you ever learn the fact of his deserting the service of theUnited states? Question objected to by Judge Bingham, and with drawn. Q. Do you know that fact? , A. I do not, only from his statements and acknowledgments on several oc casions to me. Q. Have you ever heard of or been cognizant of a secret treasonable society, ibr the purpose ofthe assas sination of the President of the United States? A. I am not cognizant of any, nor have lever heard of any. Q. Were any members of your staff or yourself members of an organization known as Knights of tho Golden Circle or Sons of Liberty. A. So far as i' am concerned I never have been, nor do I know of any ot the others having been. Q. Have you heard declarations made in Richmond to the effect that President Lincoln ought to be assas sinated? A. I have not. Testimony of Thomas C. Nott. Examined by Mr. Aiken— Q. Where do you reside and what is your occupation ? A. I reside in Prince George county, and have been tending bar at Mrs. Surratt's place for Mr. Floyd. Q. Didyou see Mr. Floyd on the 14th of last April? A. Yessir, Isaw bim in the morning of that day, and also just before sunset. CJ. What was his condition at that time? A. He was pretty tight when I saw him; he was going around to the kitchen in a buggy; he had been to Marlboro', and TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 115 was carrying rouud there some fish and oysters; I did Dot see him when he came back, and the next I saw of him he was fixing a buggy Mrs. Svrrratt wasin. Q- Had hebeen forweeks before drinkingagood deal? A. Yes, he had been tight pretty nearly every day and night too. Q. Did he really have the appearance of an insane man? A. He did at times. Cross-examined by Judge Bingham.— Q. Did you see him tie th§ buggy of Mrs. Surratt? A. With assistance he did; I do not Know whether Mr, Floyd. Mr. Welch- manor Captain Gwynn tied it; theywereall there; I was Dot present at the buggy; I saw them fixing it. and tbat is alt I saw; Iwas across the street, returning from the stable. Q. And do you know how tight a man Is by looking across the street? A. No; I was with him alter that, nearly all night. By Mr. Clampitt.— Q. Do or do you not know whether Mr. Floyd attended Court at Marlboro' that day ? A. He did. Q. Where did you first see him that afternoon? A, Driving around the kitchen; he came round to the front ofthe house while Mrs. Surratt was there. Q. Did you hear any conversation that took place between Mr. Floyd and Mrs. Surratt? A. I did not. Q, How close were you to the buggy? A. Probably fifteen or twenty yards off. By Judge Bingham.— Q. What Captain Gwynn was that who was at Mrs. Surratt's buggy? A. Captain Ben. Gwynn. Q. Upon reflection do you not recollect that he had gone be'ore Mrs. Surratt came? A. I do not recollect anything of the kind. Testimony of J. x. Jenkins. Examined by Mr. Aiken.— Q. Where do you reside? A. In PrinceGeorge county. Q. Were you or were you not at Surrattsville on the 14th of April last? A. I was. Q. Are you acquainted with Lewis J. Weichman? A. Yes. Q. Were you at Surrattsville at the time he drove up to tbe house with Mrs. Surratt? A. Yes. Q. Did Mrs. Surratt or not at that time show you a letter? A. She did, from George Calvert. Q. Did she show you any other papers? A. She Bhowed two judgments obtained by Charles B. Calvert In tbe Circuit.Court of our county, against Mr. Surratt. Q. Do you know, of your own knowledge, whether (hat business brought Mrs. Surratt to Surrattsville that day? A. I only know she showed me this letter and judgments. Q. Did you transact any business for Mrs. Surratt that afternoon? A. I made the interest out on the judgments. Q. Did she express to you during ber entire stay at Surattsville that day any wish or desire to see John M. Floyd? A. She did not. CJ. Were you at the place when Mr. Floyd drove up? A. Yes. CJ. What was his condition at that time? A. He was very much intoxicated. CJ. Was Mrs. Surratt upon the point of going away when Floyd drove up? A. Yes: she had been ready to start for some time before Floyd drove up; she had business with Captain Gwynn, and when he came she went back and stopped. Q. At what time did you leave? A. About sundown, I judge. Q. Have you, during the last year or two, been on terms ot intimacy with Mrs. Surratt? A. Yes sir. Q. Have you, in all your intercourse with her, heard her breathe a word ot disloyalty to the Government? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Have you at any time ever heard her make any remark or remarks showing her to have a knowledge of any plan or conspiracy to assassinate the President, or any memberof the Government? A. Nosir. Q. Have you ever heard her mention at any time any plan for the capture of the President? A. I have not. Q, Have you been frequently at the house of Mrs. Burratt when Union troops were passing? A. Yessir. Q. From your personal knowledge of the transac tions that occurred then aud there, can you state whether ornotshe was in the hubit of giving them milk, tea. andsuchothernourishmentasshehad in the house? A. Yes, frequently. Q. Was she in the habit of receiving pay for H? A Sometimes she did and sometimes she did not. Q. Do vou recollect on or about the time of a large number of horses escaping from Giesboro' whether or not any of them were taken up and kept on her premises? A. Some of them, I disremember how many. Q. Were these horses fed and kept by her or not? A. Yes. Q." Were they all given up? A. Every one. Q, Do you know whether she took a receipt for them? A. She received a receipt, but never got any P Q." Can you state whether you ever knew Mrs. Sur ratt toicommit any overt act of any description against theGovQrnment? A. I never did. Q. Was it not Mrs. Surratt's constant habit to ex press warm sympathy for the sick and wounded of our army? A. I do not remember ever hearing her say anything about that. CJ. Do you know of a defective eyesight on her part? A. I have been present when she would beunableto read or sew by gaslight; this has been the fact for several years. Q. Do you recollect on any occasion of her failing to recognize immediately friends who were near her? A. X do not recollect any. Q. Do you not recollect that on one occasion Mrs. Surratt gave the last ham she had to Union soldiers? A. I do not. Q Do you know of a person by the name of A. S. Howell? A. Yes, I have seen him; he stopped at the hotel, 1 think twice. By Mr. Clampit.— Q. Did you or not, meet Mrs. Sur ratt on the Tuesday preceding the assassination? A. I can't say on Tuesday; it was a few days before. Q. When you met her did not you ask for the news, and did notshestate in reply that our army had cap tured General Lee's army? The question was objected to by Colonel Burnett, as irrelevant. Mr. Clampit said he desired toshow tbat the prisoner at that time, exhibited a loyal feeling in the matter. Colonel Burnett replied that the only legitimate means ofproving loyalty were to prove her reputation ior and acts or loyalty; these could not be proved by her declarations. Mr. Clampifijieplied that as the Government had en deavored to prove the disloyalty of the accused, he thoughtit was competent to prove her loyaltv, but he would nevertheless vary his question, and ask the wit ness what was the reputation of Mrs. Surratt for loy alty? A. Very good. Q. You have never heard her express any disloyal sentiment? A. Nosir. Cross-examined by Colonel Burnett. Q. What relation are you to the prisoner, Mrs. Sur ratt? A. She is my sister. Q. Where did you reside while she was living at Surrattvilie? A. About a mile and a half this side, and I have been residing theresince. Q. Are you now under arrest? A. I am. Iwas ar rested and brought here last Thursday week. Q. Where were you on the evening of the day pre vious to your arrest? A. At Lloyd's Hotel. Q. Did you meet at that place Mr. Coltenback? A. Yps. Q. Did you have any conversation with him at that time in reference to tnis trial? A. Yes, sir, we were talking about the trial. Q. Did you meet a man by the name of Cottingham there? A. Yes.I went tberewitbhim. Q. At the time you met Coltenback. what was safd about tbe trial in reierenceto the witnesses summoned against Mrs. Surratt? A. I think I told him I would look at the paper and see. CJ. Anything e'se? A. Not that I know of; I might have tofd him that my sister found his family. Q. What relevancy had that to the conversation? A. I disremember how the conversation commenced. Q. Did you at that time and place say to Mr. Colten back that if he, or any one like him, undertook to tes tily against your sister, yon would see that they were got out of the way ? A. I did not say anything of the kind. Q. Did you say you would send any man to hell who testified against your sister? A. I did not. CJ. D.d ycu use any threats against him if he ap peared as a witness against your sister? A. No, noth ing like that. CJ. statewhatyou did say on thatsubject? A. Itold him I understood he was a witness, and he was to be a strong witness against my sister, and I told* him he ought to be as she bad raised his family. CJ. Did you call him a liar? A. I disremember. Q. Was there any anger exhibited in that conversa tion? A. I did notmean it if there was. Q. Did you have any talk about John Surratt having returned from Bichmond? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Did you talk about John H. Surratt's going to Richmond ormention anything about a paper showed you that he bad been to Richmond? A. No, I never mentioned John Surratt's name. Q. Did you see the letter found by Mr. Collenbach in the bar? A. I did not. Q. How did you learn that Mr. Collenbach was to be a witness? A. He told me himself. Q. When did you come in that evening? A. I think about ten o'clock: I went in with Mr. Cottingham. Q. Didyou or did vou not use any threat against Mr. Collenbach? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Wouldn't you know it if you had? A. I think I ought to: I do not think I did use any, only in refe rence to tbe pubiic press; I told him I would look at his statement. CJ. And if yon found in tbe public press that he had testified against your sister what did you say? A. I do not recollect. Q. On the evening of the 14th. when you saw Mr. Floyd and Mrs. Surratt and Gwynn, how long had you been at Floyd's house? A. I judge it was about two 116 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. o'clock when I got there, and I stayed till about sun down, or a little a "ter. Q. How many persons did you see there during that time? A. I suppose from ten to fi.teen. Q. Did Gwynn leave belore Mrs. Surratt did? A. I think hPd!d. Q. Do you recollect whether he saw Mrs. Surratt on that occasion or not? A. He did see ber in the parlor; I went in at the door as he spoke lo her. CJ. Who was in there? A. Mr. Weichman. I think. Q. Did you see Gwynn come out? A. I do not recol lect that I did see him when he left the house and went home. Q. Didyou hear the conversation between him and Mrs. Surratt? A. No, I did not go into tbe parlor while they were conversing. Q. You have been asked here as to Mrs. Surratt's loyalty? What- has been your attitude towards the Government during this war? A. Periectly loyal, I think. Q. How did you stand when the question ofthe seces sion of Maryland was under discussion ? A. I spent §3000 to hold her in the Union, and everybody in that neighborhood will testify. Q. Have you never taken part in any way against the Government during the entire war? A. Never by act. word, aid or sympathy with the Rebels. By Mr. Aiken.— Q. State if you know for what you are under arrest? A. I do not. Q. Stateif youhadany conversation with Mr. Cot tingham about a ?3000 reward? A. Our *m mission ers had offered §3000 reward to any party wno would give in'ormation on the -subject of the assassination; he claimed it for tne arrest of John M. Floyd, and asked me ifl would see the Commissioners and ascertain whether he would get it or not. Q. When you stated to Collenback that he ought to be a stirring witness aiainst your sister, because she had brought up his children, did you mean it, or did yon speak ironically? A. Ididnotmean it at ail. Q. Is it a iact that Mrs. Surratt did rear that family? A, Partially so. Testimony of Anna E. Surratt. Q. State your full name. A. AnnaE. Surratt. CJ. Are you under arrest at the present time? A. Yes sir. Q. When wereyou arrested? A. On the 17th of April, Q. Are you acquainted with Atzeroth? A. I have met him several times. Q. Where? A. At our house in Washington citv. Q. When did he first come there? A. Sometime after Christmas; I think It was in February. Q. How long did he remain there then? A. He did not stay over night, to my knowledge; he used to call sometimes now and tnen. CJ. Can you state irom your own knowledge whether or not Atzeroth was given to understand that he was not wanted at the house? A. Yes, sir; mamma said she did not care to havestraneers there, but we treated him with politeness, as we did every one who came to thehouse. CJ. Do you or do you not know of frequont instances in which Mrs. Surratt failed to recognize her friends? A. Yessir. Q, Is she able to read or sew by gaslight? A. No sir. Q. Have you not olten plaguedher about wearng spectacles? A, I told her she was too young-looking to get spectacles yet, and shesatdshe couidnotseeto read or sew without them of dark mornings; she could read some, but she seldom sewed ofadark do, v. Q. Do you know Lewis J. Weichman? A. Yes. Q. Was he a boarder at your mother's house? A. Yes sir. Q. How was he treated there? A. Too kindly. Q. Was it or not your mother's habit to sit up and wait for him when he was out late? A. Yes: just as she would wait for my brother: We chman engaged a room for Atzeroth; when became Weichman and he used to make private signs to each other. Q. Did you refer to Atzeroth or Payne ? A. To Atzeroth. Q. At what time did Payne first come to your house? A. He came one night after dark, and leit early tbe next morning. Q. How long was that before the assassination? A. It was after Chris mas, not very long after. Q. How many time 'did he come there? A. He stayed onenipht when he first came and we did not see him again for some weeks: it was Weichman who went to tbe door, and it was Weichman who brought Payne in there; I went down stairs and told mamma he was there, and shesaid she did not understand and did not like strangers coming to tbe house, but to treat him politely as she had been in the habit of treating every one who came: he called two or three times after that. Q. Did he ask lor accommodations for the night? A. Yes sir; and he said he would leave the next morning, and I believe he did. CJ. Were you acquainted with Booth? A. Yes sir, I have met him. Q. When was he last at your house? A. On the Mon day before theassassination. Q. Did your mother go to Surrattsville about that time? Yes sir; on Friday, the day ofthe assassination. Q. Do you know whether or not the carriage was at thedoor ready to go when Booth came? A. Yes, I think he came and found her about to go: she bad been speaking about going a day or two belore that on a matter of business, and she said she was obliged to go, • Q. How long did Booth remain? A. Not over a few minutes; he never stayed long when he came. Q. Doyou recognize that picture as ever belonging to you? (The picture known in this record as "Spring, Summer, and Autumn" was shown to the witness.) A. Yessir, it was mine; it was given to me by Mr. Weichman. Q. Was there any other picture in this frame ? A. I put one of Booth's behind it. I went to a gallery with Miss Ward, and while we were there we saw some of Booth's, and as we know him; we got some of them, but my brother told me that he would take them away irom me and so bad them. Q. Didyou own any photographs of Davis and Ste phens? A. Yes sir, and General Lee and General Beauregard and a few others; I don't remember them all. CJ. Where did you get tbem? A. Father gave theni to me before his death, and I prized them very highly on his account. Q. Did you have no photographs of Union Generals? A. Yes sir; of General McClellan, General Grant and Joe Hooker. Q. Do yo i recollect the last time you saw your bro ther? A. Yes sir. ,Q. How long was that before the assassination? A. On the Monday before it was two weeks. Q. Have you seen him since? A. Nosir. Q. Was he and your brother on frieud'y terms? A.I never asked him; he used to call to see him some times; one day I know he said Booth was crazy, and he wished he would not come there. Q. Where was your brother in IfiGl? A. At college. Q. Whatcollege? A. St. Charles College. Q. Was he a student there at that time? A. Yes sir; but not of divinity. Q. How Ion? was your brother at that college? A. For three years; but he spent his vacations at home in August. Q. Miss Surratt, did you at your mother's house, at any time, on any occasion, ever hear a word breathed as to any plot, or p'an. or conspiracy in existence to assassinate tbe President ofthe United States? A. No sir. Q. Did you ever hear any remarks made with refer ence to the assass'narion of any member of the Go vernment? A. No sir. Q. Did you ever hear it discussed by any member of the family to capture the President oft he United States? A. Nosir, I did not; where is mamma? By Mr. Ewing-Q. What year did your brother leave college? A. In 1831 or 1862; the year my father died; {sotto voce) where is mamma? Q. What year were you in school at Bryantown? A, From I85i to 1SG1; the Kith of July was the day I loft. Q. Didyou ever see Dr. Mudd at your mother's house at Washington? A, No sir. The girl here kept nervously glancing towards tha dock, and tapping the stand with her foot impatiently. Thecounsei, Mr. Ewing, with an evident desiret sir. Q. Did the bay mare come in that night? A. Yea sir. Q. What time? A. To the best of my knowledge, eleven o'clock; we have a clock there, but it isn't going, Q. What condition was the mare in? A. Pretty much as she was when she wentout. Q. Did she look as if she had been ridden hard? A. No sir. Q. Was there no foam on her? A. No sir. (Mr. Mc Allister was here recalled, and having testified that he had seen a pistol and a dirk knife in the possession of Atzeroth, and that he had kept the same for him one day, he was shown the knife and pistol said to have been found in the alleged coat of Atzeroth, but declares himselfunable to positively identify either. The pistol he knew was not the same.) Testimony of Miss Harold. Q. Are you the prisoner's sister? A. I am, sir. The witness was then shown the coat and tbe hand kerchief found in the coat alleged to have been taken from Atzeroth's room, but she could not identify either as the property of her brother. Testimony of Captain F. Monroe. Q. State whether you had custody of the prisonersat the barsubsequent to their arrest. A. Yes sir. Q. Where? A. On board the monitors. Mr. Donner then desired to hand into court a writ ten request from the prisoner Atzeroth that his con fession to Captain F. Monroe be admitted. Counsel stated that hewas aware that be had no legal right to insist upon this and that'he merely made a question for the liberality of the Court to decide. Judge Ho.t then remarked:— "I think it is greatly to be deplored tbat counsel will urge such matters on this Court as they know aud admit to be contrary to law." The Court then decided tbat tbe confession should not be received, and Captain F. Monroe was, therefore, dismissed from the stand. Charles Sullivan, ex-Governor Farwell, and others. were then called on the part of the defense; but they not being present, the Court adjourned till ten o'clock to-morrow morning. Washington. May 31.— Before the Court to-day, the following evidence was elicited :— Testimony of Hartman Rochler. By Mr. Doster.— Q. State your residence. A. I re side in Montgomery county, Maryland. Q. Are you a cousin of the prisoner Atzeroth? A. I am. Q. State whether the prisoner came to your house subsequent to the assassination of the President. A. He came there on Sunday evening. Q. Give the particulars of his visit. A. I met him as I was on my way to the Church; he remained in my house from Sunday evening until Thursday morning, about 8 or 4 o'clock, and during that time be did not make any attempt to hide himself, but walked about and worked in the garden a little. Q. Did you notice anything peculiar about his ap pearance when you first met him ? A. No sir; he looked the same as he always did when he came to see me. Q. Were you present at his arrest? A. When he was arrested in the house I was down stairs, and he was up stairs. Q. Did he hesitate to go when they arrested him? A. He was very willing to go. *¦ Q. Do you know whether he was In possession of a large quantity of money? A. I do not. m Q. Do you know anything about his reputation for courage? A. No sir. Q. Did the prisoner have on an overcoat when he came to your house? A. When we arrested him In the morning he had on the same coat as he has now; it was a kind of grey overcoat. Mr. Doster then stated to the Court that all of the witnesses summoned in the case ot Atzeroth were not present, and that he could not proceed in tbe order he desired until they were present. He intended to set up the plea of insanity, and had sent for friends and relatives of the prisoner, who were to be brought seve ral thousand miles distant, who bad not arrived. Tbe delense then proceeded with the cases of the other prisoners. Testimony of William 8. Arnold. By Mr. Ewing.— Q. What relation are you to the pri soner. Samuel Arnold? A. I am his brother. CJ. Wherp do you reside? A. At Hookstown, Mont gomery county, Md. 118 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Q. State what you know, if anything, asto thewhere- abouts of the prisoner from the 20th of March last to the 1st ot April? A. From the 21st of March until Saturday, the 25th, he remained in the country ; he then went to Baltimore, and returned on the 26th, eoing again to Baltimore on the 28th or 2Dth; on the afternoon of the 1st of April he started for Fortress Monroe ; while in Baltimore he stayed at his lather s house, and I saw him at home almost all the time J. was there On the cross-examination of the witness, which was conducted by Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett he stated that the only means by which he knew that the prisoner came to Hookstown on the 21st, was the fact that he had purchased some farming ntensils on that dav, and made an entry of the purchase in a book which he kept at home. The pistol delivered to the witness by the prisoner on the 1st of April was loaded at the time. The prisoner had tired the loads out and reloaded it while in the country. Testimony of Frank Arnold. By Mr. Ewing.— This witness, in answer to a series tit questions, testified that he was a brother of the pri soner, Samuel Arnold; that be lived in Baltimore county, and occasionally in the city, at his fathers house; that the prisoner slept with him on the nigh is ofthe 30th and 3ist of March; and that, having re ceived a letter from a Mr. Wharton, at Fortress Mon roe, to which gentleman he had made application ior a situation, he started to go to the Fortress on Saturday afternoon, April 1st, about 4^ o'clock. Testimony of Jacob Smith. By Mr Ewing.— Tne substance of the testimony of this witness may be summed up as follows;— He re sides at Hookstown, Maryland, about half a mile from the residence of Wm. S. Arnold, brother ofthe pri soner, Samuel Arnold; saw the prisoner nearly every day between tbe 20th and 22d of March, and about the 1st of April, sometimes three or four times a day: occa sionally at thehouse of his brother, and again while he would be crossing witness' farm. Cross-examined by Assistant Judge Advocate Bur nett.— I was not sure as to tbe day on which the pri soner came to Hookstown, having no means of ascer taining positively; he may have stayed until the 30th, or leit before then. Testimony of John T. Ford. By Mr. Ewing.— Q. State where you reside. A. In Uje city of Baltimore. Q. State whether or not you are the proprietor of Eord's Theatre, in the city of Washington. A. I am. Q. Are you acquainted with the prisoner, Edward Spangler? A. lam. q. How long has he been in your employ? A. I think from three to four years, at intervals, over two years continuously. * Q. State whether you were in or about the theatre or Sh this city at tbe time of the assassination ofthe President. A. Iwas in the city ot Bichmond on the day of the assassination; I arrived there about two dtelock on that day. *Q. Were you acquainted with John Wilkes Booth? A. I have known him since early childhood, since he was ten or eleven years of age, and intimately for six dr seven years. ^J. State whether you have ever heard Booth speak of Chester, and if so, in what connection? Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham objected to the question, and it was not pressed. CJ. State whether Booth ever applied to you to em ploy Cnester, who has been a witness for the prosecu tion, in your theatre? Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham objected to the question. Mr. Ewing stated that the object of the inquiry was not to attack Chester, but rather to corroborate his as sertions, and to show that at the same time tbat Booth was endeavoring to induce Chester to join a conspiracy for the capture ofthe President, he was also endeavor ing to induce Mr. Ford to employ Chester, in order that when once in tbe theatre he (Booth) might use the man as an instrument. This would go to affect the case of several of the prisoners at the bar, particularly that of Arnold, who, in his confession, stated that the plan was the capture of the President: and also thecase of the prisoner Spangler, by showing that Booth was not able to get in the theatre any instrument to assist him in his purpose. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham stated that a party who conspired to commit a crime might ap proach the most upright man In the land with whom, before bis criminalitv was known, he might be on terms of intimacy. It was then the misfortune of such a man, not his crime, to be approached in that ¦way, but icdid not follow because Booth approached this man Chester, tbat be (Booth), either living or dead, was armed with the power of coming into a court of justice and proving what he said to that third person. Theobjection was then sustained, and the question was not put. Q. State what were the duties of the accused on tbe stage. A. The accused, Spangler, was employed as a stage hand, not as the stage carpenter; he was a la borer, and his duties were to assist in getting the scenery into place, and removing it from the grooves, as the necessities of a play required; those were his duties at night: during the day he was to assist in doing the rough carpenter work incidental to certain plays. Q. State whether his duties were such as to require his presence upon the stage during the whole ofthe play. A. Strictly, no sir; his absence for a moment might impair the success ofthe play, and cause dis*- satisiaction among the audience; it is very important for the success of a play that the changing of the scenery should be attended to promptly irom tho rising to the falling of the curtain; there were inter vals, it is true, but the prisoner could not judge exactly how long a scene might last. Q. State whether his constant presence during tho second scene ofthe third act of the American Cousin would be necessary. A. It would, unless he was ac curately informed ofthe duration of that scene; it is rather a long scene; longer, perhaps, than any other of tbat act. Q. How is It with the firat scene? A. It is quicks but a few moments; the other eight or ten minutes. Q. How is it with the second act? A. The duration of a scene, I would say, depends in a great degree upon the activity of the partips engaged in it; I hardly think there was an interval of more than five or eight minutes between those scenes. Q. Therefore the constant presence of Spangler upon the stage would have been necessary? A. It would. CJ. What were his duties in the intervals between the scenes? A. To be prepared for the nf»xt change; to be ready with his scene and to remain at his post of duty, as an emergency often arises during the performance of an act requiring extra service on his part. Q. State who had the regulation and control of the passage-way through which Booth escaped. A. The stage manager directs and the stage carpenter executes the work belonging to that i.art ot the theatre, and the entire stage. Q. State the names of those persons. A. John B» Wright was the stage manager, and James J. Gifford the stage carpenter. Q. Was the prisoner (Spangler) charged with the duty of keeping the passage-way in order? A. It was no duty of his, unless specially assigned to him by the stage carpenter. Q. State whether that passage-way is usually ob structed in any way. A. It should never be obstructed; my positive orders were to keep it clear and in thebesp order; it is a passage-way used by parties conyng from the dressing-room and green-room, and in a play like tbat ofthe American Cousin, in which the ladles were in full dress, it was absolutely necessary for a proper performance that there should be no obstruction t h ere. Q. Do you know whether, as a matter of iact, that passage-way was kept clear by the stage manager? A, The stage manager was a very exact man in all those details; I have always found it clear, unless in the pe»* formance of some spectacular play, when at times tt would be partly encumbered. Q. State whether you ever knew Spangler to wear a moustache. A. I never did. The witness was further examined, and the following testimony elicited :— Tbe prisoner seemed to entertain a great admiration for Booth, who was a peculiarly fascinating man, and who seemed to exercise a control over the minds and actions of his inferiors; he excelled in gymnastic exercises, and his leap from the Presi dent's box to the stage was not one which required any rehearsal: he bad often introduced a similar leap into the witch scene of Macbeth; since the latter part of September last, during the entire theatrical season, Booth frequently visited the theatre, and had his let ters directed there: the prisoner (Spangler) had lived in Baltimore, and considered that place his home, usually spending his summer months tn tbe neighbor hood of tbat city, engaged in fishing and crabbing. The rope found in Spangler's carpet bag was here shown to tbe witness, who testified that in his opinion it might have been used by the prisoner in catching crabs, though experienced crabbers used a much longer rope. He had seen such a rope used by amateurs, in regard to his visit to Bichmond, the witness testified that bis object in making tbe visit was to see an uncle, a very aged man. and a mother-in law, who resided there. He had not heard of the assassination of tbe President until the Sunday evening following, while on his return. Cross-examined by Judge Advocate Holt.— Could not say positively whether tbe private boxes in the the atre were ordinarily kept locked; Mr. Gifford, the stage carpenter, had control of such matters, and the keys of the boxes were kept by Mr. James O'Brien- the chief usher. The authorized parties having tickets for sale for those boxes on the day of the assassina tion were witness' brothers, James B. and Harry Clay Ford. The play of the American Cousin, when firs1* introduced, was an exceedinglv popular play, hut of late years bad drawn only fair audiences. From thft characters ofthe two men, and their relations to each other, witness believed Booth to have been capable of exercising e. great influence, either for good or evil, over the prisoner (Spangler). TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. ,119 The Court then took a recess till two o'clock, at which time the body reassembled. Re-examinatton of Mr. Fergnson. By Mr. Ewing.— Q. State whether directly after the assassination of the President you saw Mr. Stewart get ypon tbestage. A. I am not acquainted w't Mr. Stew art; alter Booth passed off I saw a large man. in light clothes, with a moustache, jump upon the stage; a mo ment afterwards Miss Harris called for water in the box; this large man, whoever be was, turned around £nd looked towards the box; some oue halloed, ca'ch im: Miss Laura Keene raised her hands and said; We have caught bim, or. We will catch him; I then saw this man run out; it was probably two or throe minutes after Booth run out befoie he jumped upon the stage. Q. Had you seen anybody else run out before him? A. No one but this man Hawk. Q. If any onehad gone out before would you have Been him? A. I think so: I thought it was very singu- lar'that no one cot on to tbestage. Cross-examined by Judge Bingham,— Q. On which Bide ofthe dress circle were you? A. On the right side; Qp thesameside with the President's box. Q. How near did you sit to the private boxes on that Side? A. I weutc'ose to tbem, so near that I could not see what was passing below distinctly; I saw Laura Keene when she ran in. Re-exaaniiiation of Mr. Best. By Mr. Ewins.—Q. State your business In Washing ton. A. I am manager of Grover's Theatre. Q. State whether you were in the habit of seeing John Wilkes Booth during the last season, before the Assassination of the President, and if so whether he made any inquiry ofyou with regard to thePresident attending the theatre? A. I have seen him about there frequently, and he made such an inquiry the day before the assassination; he came into the office some time during the a'ternoon of Thursday, and interrupted me and the prompter ot'the theatre In reading the manu script; beseated himself in a chairand entered into a conversation npon tbe subject of the illumination: there was to be aeeneral illumination of the city on ^Thursday: bp asked me if I intended to illuminate; I {old him I did to a certain extent, but my great II- uminaticn would be on the next night, in anniversary Ofthe fall otSumter; he asked me ifl was going toin- Ste the President; I think my reply was "yes, and at reminds me I must send that Invitation;'' I had had Itinmind for several days to Invite the Presi dential party to a: tend un the night ofthe Hth. Q. Did you invit * the President? A. I spnt Mrs. Lin coln an invitation; my notesweregeneratlvaddressed to her as the best means of accomplishing tbe object. Q. Was there anything marked in Booth's manner of making the inquiry? A. His manner struck me as rather peculiar; he must have observed that we were busy, and it was not usual to come in and disturb us; he pushed the matter so far that I got up, laid the manuscript away, and entered into conversation. Q. State whether or not it is customary in theatres to keep the pas ase-way between the scenes and the green-roomariddressing-roomciear. A. Yes: itshould be a point with the stage carpenter to keep tbestage clear and the scenes put away; it depends somewhat upon how much room there is. Q. Would you consider three feet a wide or a narrow passage? A. I shonld consider it rather narrow, but there are no two theatres alike in that respect: it would be more ncce°sary to keep the passage clear if it was narrow than if it was wide, of course. Q. Would ynu consider a leap from the second tier of boxes in Ford's Theatre to the sta^e an extraordinary or difficult one? A. From my present recollection I Bhouldsay not very difficult. Q. State what boxes the President was in the habit of occupving when he attended Grover's Theatre. Question objected to by Judge Bingham as irrele vant. Mr. Ewing stated that the object was to show that it was easier to escape from Ford's Tneatre than Gro ver's. as the reason why Ford's was selected by Booth for the accomplishment of his purpose. The objection was sustained by the Court. Testimony of Iff. A. James. By Mr. Ewing.— Q. State whether you Ford's Theatre when thePresident was assi A. I was. Q. State the position of Plersoff and Edward Spang ler at the time it occurred, if you know what they were A. I was standing on the stage ready to draw a flat, and Spangler was. standing right opposite to me on the stage at the time I heard the shot fired off. Q. From the position you were in could you see the President's box? A. I could not; neither could Spang ler; he was standing behind the scenes; he was on the iame side with the President's box, and I was on the opposite side. ^Q. When the shot was fired did you see what be did? A. I did not; I didn't notice whether he removed away or remained. Q. What did you do yourself? A. I really do not know what I did; Iwas excited at the time; I did not go anywhere; I was standing there behind tbe curtain. :ere at mated. Q. Which was nearer the door out of which Booth ran. you or Snangler? A. I think I was nearest the door, though there was very little difference. Q. Did you see anybody near Spangler at the time? A. Id;dnot. Q. Had you seen him previously during the plav? A. I had; every time the scene was to be manned I saw him at his post; I did not notice him at any other time. Q. What was the conditiou of the passage-way at that time? A. It was clear: it was tbe business of Spangler and myself to keep it clear; perhaps more Spanker's business than mine. Q. Doyou know whether Spangler saw the President when he entered? A. Yes: I was standing opposite bim; I heard the applause, and Spangler applauded with them, both with his hands, and feet; heRoemedrs pleased as anybody to see the President come in. Testimony of F. II. Dooley. By Mr. Doster— Q. State your business in this city A. I keep a drug store on Seventh street, near the ave nue. Q. Examine these articles, both brush and liquorice, taken from Atzeroth, and see if your trade mark is upon either of the articles. A. It is not. Testimony of Iff. Ii. Mndd. By Mr. Ewing— Q. In your cross-examination day before yesterday, you stated that your brother, Dr. Sa muel Mudd, was a tenant of your father; I wish you to stale what you mean by that? A. I was rather con fused at the time, and do not know exactly what I meant: Lsupposethat to he a tenant a man must pay some rent; my brother never paid any rent nor any part ofthe proceeds ofthe farm. Q. How do you know that? A. I know it very well; I kept all my father's accounts; the farm was always treated as my brother's. Cross-examined by Colonel Burnside— CJ. Did not the farm belong to your father? A. I considered that it belonged to ray brother. Q. Has he any title to it? A. No, my father has the titie, but my brother has his word that it belongs to him. Q. Has he any title to it? A. No; my father has the title, but my brother has his word that it belongs to bim. Examination of Dr. Davis. By Mr. Stone.— Q. Where do you reside? A. In this city, near the Navy Yard. Q. Have you ever been in the army? A. I was in the Quartermaster's Department on General Wood's staff during the Mexican war. Q. Do you know the prisoner, Harold? A. I have known him from earlyyouth; part of the time I lived next door to him. though for the last several years I bave lived four or five squares from him. Q. State what is his character. A. I do not know that I can state it in any better terms than that he is a boy: I consider that alt his life there has been very lit tle of the man about hira: from my knowledge ot him I should say that nature has Dot endowed him with as much intelligence as people generally have; I know his family well: I have always known them; Isuppose he »s about 22 years old. Cross-examined by Judge Bingham.— Q. Do you think that Harold has intellect enough to know tbat it is a great crime to commit murder? A. He undoubt edly knows the difference between right and wrong. Testimony of Henry Clay Ford. Bv Mr. Ewing.— Q. What business were you engaged in immediately preceding the'Hthof April last? A.I was treasurer of Ford's Theatre. Q. When was it first known there that the President was coming to the theatre that night? A. It was known to me about half-past eleven o'clock; I had been tobreak.'ast aud came back, and then learned that the President had engaged a box. Q. State whether J. Wilkes Booth was at the theatre after that on that day, and if so. at what time? A. He was there at twelve o'clock; about half an hour after I returned. ... Q. State whetheror not the fact that the President was coming to the theatre that night was communi cated to Booth. A. I do not know; I did not tell him. Q. Did you see anything of Booth afterwards that day? A. Not until evening. CJ. Did vou see him when you were going to tbe theatre that day? A. No: I saw him coming down the street, I think, as I stood in the door of the theatre; he commenced talking to some parties there; one of them went to the office and brought out a letter, which he sat down and read on the steps of the office; this was about twelve o'clock, and he stayed, I should think, about half an hour. Q. State what vou know about the preparations of the theatre for the reception of the President that night? A. When I got to the theatre my brother told me the President was to be there tbat night; it was Mr. Baybold's business to see about tbe decorations of the box, but he had neuralgia in his face that day, andl fixed it up; I found two flags which I looped up aud placed in position, then another flag came down from the Treasury Department, and I attended the putting the new flag in the centre; I had a part of the furni ture changed; a sofa and high-backed chair brought 120 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. from the stage, and a rocking chair brought from my Sleeping-room, up stairs. ¦ Q. Did you receive anv suggestions from anybody as to the preparation of the box? A. Only trom Mr. Ray- bold and from the gentleman who brought the third flag down there. Q. What had Spangler to do with the decoration of the box? A. He took out the partition between the two boxes, leaving tbem both in one. Q. Was it usual to remove the partition on such occa sions? A. Yes. we always removed it when the Presi dent came there. Q. How many times had the President been at your theatre during the winter and spring? A. I suppose about six times. A _ Q. How did Spanerler come to go to the box? A. I suppose Mr. Rayboldsent him. Q. Was Spangler in the box duringtbe timeyou were there decorating it? A. No. he was at work on tie stage at that time: I called for a hammer and nails, which he handed up to me. Q. Do vou know whether he was apprised ofthe fact tbatthe'President was to come there that evening? A. He knew thePresident was coming, for he took out the partition. Q. Doyou know whether there was any penknife used in ihe preparation otthe President's box? A.I used apenkni ein cutting a string by wbich the pic ture was tied: I forgot it and left it there. Q. Had tbe picture been there before? A. No. Q. Why was this chair brought from your sleeping room to the President's box? A. For nothing more than to put it with the other furniture; it was a part or the same set of furniture which was originally placed in the reception room; but the ushers were in the habit of lounging in it, and I took it into my room. Q. D? you know whether Booth was in the habit of engaging any boxes at your theatre? A. Yes sir. Q. What box is it that he was in the habit of en gaging? A. The one he always engaged was number 7, which was part of the box occupied by the President nearest the audience. Q. How often did he occupy that box during the sea son? A. He nrocured a box four or five times; Ido not know whether he ever occupied it or not. Q Doyou know whether Booth's spur caught in one of tbe flags as he leaped irom the box? A I did hear that it caught in tbe blue flag in the centre; I do not know it. Q. Who put that flag there? A. I did; it was the one obtained from the Treasury building. Q. Was there anything special or unusual in the ar rangement of that box? A. Tbe picture had never been placed in front ofthe box be'ore; we mostly used smaller flags, but hs General Grant was to come with the President t hat nisht, we borrowed those flags from tbe Treasury Department. Q. State where you were during the performance of the American Cousin, prior to the assassination. A. In the ticket office. Q. Were you not on the pavement, in front, at ail during the performance. A. I suppose I must have passed in and out two or three times. Q. Did you see anything of the prisoner, Edward Spangler during thattime? A. No sir. Cross-examined by Judge Bingham.— Q. Do you know the fact that the other boxes in the theatre were or were not occupied that night? A. None were oc cupied. I tljtnk; I could tell by looking at the books. CJ. Do not you remember boxes being apnlied for and the answer bef "g given that they were all taken? A. None were applied for to me. Q. Did not you sell all the tickets? A. No; there were lour of us. Q. Do you not know that Booth occupied the other boxes? A. Nosir; from my information hedid not. Q. Or anybody e'se for bim? A. No applications of any kind were made to me for them; there may have been applications made that I know nothing about. Q. State whether there were any mortices in the wall behind the President's box when you was up there decorntingit. A. There were not. Q. You know there was One when the President was murdered; do you know It? A. I have heard so; I have not been in the box since. Q. Was there a bar there for the purpose of fastening the entrance to the door that afternoon? A. I saw none. Q. Was there any such contrivance there before that • dav? A. I never know of any; I know there was not. Q Was there a bole bored through the first door that opened into the President's box before that day? A. I don't know of there being any there. Q. Were the screws to the locks of the doors of the President's box drawn belore tbat day? A. Not to my knowledge; I do not know. Q, Will you swear that they were not drawn when you decorated the box that day? A. It was not drawn In my presence nor to my knowledge; if it had been done I did not notice it. By Mr. Aiken.— Q. When you first saw Booth in the theatre that day how Jong did he remain? A. I sup pose half an hour; I went Into the office and when I came out be was gone, Q. Was the letter Booth had a long or short one? A. It was very long; it was either four or eight pages, I am not certain which. ... „ A1 «.**,„ Q. Had it been published at the time Booth left the theatre that the President would be there that night? A. When I came Into the theatre that morning my brother told me that he would'write a little notice and put it into the evening papers that the President was Q. When could any one have had a knowledge of the fact, unless they came to the theatre? A. Not un less my brotbertold them. ,««.«_ Q. In what direction did Booth go after he left ttio theatre? A. I do not know. Q. Did he seem to be in a hurry to complete the conversation and get away from the theatre? A. No Q. When he learned the fact that the President would be there that evening, did you nonce anypar- ticularchangein his manner or conversation? A. No sir; he sat down on the steps, opened his letter, and oc casionally would look up and laugh. CJ. Do you recollect the name ot the messenger from the White House? No sir. I do not. . CJ. Did this conversation withBooth take place in the theatre? A. No; but on the sidewalk in front of the gallery steps. Q, Where was he when he read the letter? A. He sat In the main entrance door of the theatre. Q. Do you know who was with him from the time he came there, got the letter, and went away? A, There was some young men talking with bim; I recol lect Mr, Gifford. Mr. Evans and Mr. Guerila. Q. Is Mr. Evans an attacheof the theatre? A. Yea, an actor there. By Mr. Ewing— Q. Do you think i f there had been a hole in the wall in thelittle passage between tbe Presi dent's box and the wall, four or five inches one way, and two inches the other, could you have noticed it ? A. If the door had been opened against the wall it would have brought it behind, and I would not have noticed it; if the door had been closed, I certainly would have noticed it. Q. Is not that passage pretty dark even when the door is open ? A. Yes. Q. Did you observe tbe side of the wall ? A. I did not take particular notice of it. Q. If there bad been an augur bole through tbe par- t'tion with the President's box would you have been likely to notice it ? A. I do n it th ink I should. Q. Did you ever seethe prisoner Arnold aboutthe Theatre? No, Ido not knowhim at all. By the Court.— Q. Doyou not know that the intended vis 't of the President was published in tbe morning pa pers? A. It was not. Q. Did vou state in a drinking saloon, near Ford's TlK-a're, "that the President was to be there? A. Nosir, CJ. Was it announced tbat General Grant was to at tend the theatre in company wiih the President? A, It was. Testimony of Wm. .Withers, Jr. By Mr, Ewing.— Q. In your previous examination you were unable to state definitely whether tbe door leading out of the passage where Booth wont was shut or not, can you stale now? A. Yes, the door was shut. Q. Do you recollect that iact distinctly? A. Yes; after he knocked me down, as I stated in my former testimony, he made a p unge for the door, which was shut, but he opened it very easily, rushed out and pulled thedoor alter him. Q. Wereyouatthetheatrethatdayat twelve o'clock? A. I cannot recollect; I think I bad a rehearsal tha£ day at ten o'clock; there was no music in the Ameri can Cousin requiring it; but I think we had a rehearsal of the song I composed. Q. Did you see Booth or not during that day? A. I did not. Testimony of James R. Ford. By Mr. Ewing.— Q, What business were you engaged in aboutthe time ofthe assassiuation of the Presi dent? A, 1 was business manager at Ford's Theatre. Q. State when you were apprised that the President intended to visit the theatre that night? A. At about half-past ten o'clock that day the young man from the President s house, who usually came on such errands, came on that occasion; I do not know his name; he seemedrfo be a runner; he had beeu to the theatre half a dozen times for boxes previously. Q. Had the President been previously invited for that night? A. Nosir. Q. State whether on tbat day, and if so, how soon after you received that iniormation it was communis cated to J.Wilkes Booth? A. I saw him abouthalf-past 12 o'clock, some two hours after I had received the in iormation, on the corner ot Tenth and E streets. .He was going up towards E.eventh street. Ido not know whether he had been at the theatre. Q. Had you any knowledge of the President's intent tion of visiting the theatre that night previous there to receiving this message? A. No s.r. Q. Did you have anything lo do with the decoration of the box the President was to occupy? A. Nothing whatever. Q. Did you procure anything to decorate it with or not? A. I procured a flag from the Treasury Depart- TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 121 ment; I could not obtain the one I wanted; a SG-foot flag. Ci. State whether or not, on any occasion, you had a conversation with Booth as to his turcuase of lands, and i t so, wbei e? Quest-on oojected to by Judge Bingham, as irreva- lent and immaterial. Mr. Ewing stated that in the testimony of the wit ness Weichman a conversation at the National Hotel, between Boom ana the prisoner, Mudd, was intro duced as a circumstance showing Mudd's connection with the conspiracy. The puivosu oi' this evidence waa to show that, if that conversation ever occurred, it proved nothing, inasmucn as conversations on the part of Boo. h with various parties in reference to the purchase oi land in the lower part of Maryland, were Very irequent** Toe objection was sustained by the Court. Ci. Do you knowo. av.sitmadeby Bonn into Charles coun y ia.st lall? A. I don't know exceptfruni wnat he toldnio. Mr: Bingham.— You need not state what he told you. Mr Ewing lns.sted on the question being answered In "ill. o ., *. „ Col. Burnett.— Have you answered that question? Witness.— Itay I have ueverknovvn him togo'there. Q; Have you ever heard him say what his purpose was in tny visit he may have made to Charles county lastiall? . , „,_.., Question objected to by Judge Bingham and objection sustained. . „ , . By Mr. Cox.— Q, Did you send notice of the Presi dent's miended visit to tne Hear that afternoon? A. I did of his in.enl.'un and of tnat oi Geuerai Grant; I sent it about iweiveo clock. . CJ. la wnose handwriting was it? A. In mine; I wrote i .. Q. About what time did the first edition containing that notice ippear? A. About two o'clock, 1 thins. CJ. Had you sent it before you met Bootn coming up the street wit i that letter? A. Yes. CJ. Did you have any conversation with Booth that day? A. No.imereiyspokeioliim. By Mr. Aiken— u. Do you know John H. Surratt. A. CJ. Did you see anv of that description (picture of Surratt shown; about there that day? A. I don't know any such person. Q. Do you know the actor, McCuilough, and if so, do you know wbatume he lefabe ci.y. A. I know him; heleftl bsheve wneu lorrest did, wmc.i I believe was the first of January; he played an engagement with him. Q Did McCuilough return to this city in company with 1-orre.t, oa ihe Hrst of March? A. He d.d. on Forrest s last engagement; 1 do not know what lime that was. CJ. Was it before the 1st of April? A. I think so. Q Do you know ot your own knowledge wuether McCullougn h-d leit the city before the 1st of April? A. Idoiiui; l have no meansof knowing when he leit; 1 could ascertain irom the books of tne theatre when jb'orrest le.t. n „T^ Cross-examine.ibyColonelBurnett.-Q. Where were you when you vvrute that notice lor the atari A. 1 was in tne t.ckei. omce; i.u one was present. CJ Had you hud any conversation with any one about seud.ng that noo.ee? A. lasted Mr. puiUipa, the actor, lo write me o notice, and he said he would alter w.iting lie ie=ulur advertisement. CJ. Didyou spea.t to any oneelse? A. I.spoke to my younger brother about tne propriety of writing it; I did not speak to any one else. ,u„, „„n™, CJ. Had you seen Bootn prior to writing that notice? Q. Howdidyousendit away? A. I sent oneto the Star and cairied the other to tne ofhee oithe .tfepuMi- can myself. Testimony of J. Boney. Q. Where were you on the night ofthe 14th of April? A At 1 ore's Tneaire. Q Wnat was your business there? A. I was playing what iscalled "responsible utility." x>»„n,i. oVSia.ewhemer you knew anything of Booth's having rode up to ihe alley door and ca.led ior bpan- Ser» A lie Cai.ed ior me first; 1 dou't know whether Became on a horse .or not. but he told me to ask Spangler to come aud hold his horse; I didnt see the horse; iwas on the opposite side, and I said -Booth wants you to hold his hurse;" he went; Booth came inside, and said he, "can I go across the stage;" said 1, J'no.tue dairy scene bob;" Spang er then called me, and told me to call • Peal-Jut John," to hold the ha- e, saying that Uiiiord was away and the responsibility of tue°scene wasail ou him. Q Did you see slangier any more that evening? A. I did: three or lour times. Q. Where? A. On the stage. _Mrf, <5 Was he in his proper position? A. Yes sir. S Did vou see him about the time the shot was flred? A Aboutt«vominutcsbefore. q. where was he then? A. On the same side of the FQS1Didyou(see him after the shot waa fired? A. I saw him live or six minutes alter. Q. Where was he then? A. On the stage with a crowd of people. Q. Wnat was he doing there? A. I tcok no notice of him at a. I. Q. Did you see Booth as he left? A. I saw him as he made his ex. tat the hrst leit hand entrance; he had a long duuble-ed^ed knile that looked like a new one. (J. D.d you see anybody folluw him? A. 1 did not see any man get on the stage until he had made ins exit. cj. How long after did you see a man get on the stage? A. 'i wo or turee seconds. Ci. SVhogotoiitheslagehrstafterBooth? A. A tall, stout genUeman with grey clothes; 1 mink he had a moustache. CJ. Wuatdid hedo? A. He madehisexil thesamo way that Booth did. Testimony of J. J. Giflbrd. Q. Did you know anything of a horse and buggy be longing to Bojih being sold a week or so before tne as* sa^s.nation? A. 1 heard Booth tell Spangler losend the hoise and buggy lo Tattersall's andseil it, one week before me i.ssasoiuut.on. CJ. Do you know Mr. Jacob Witherspough? A. I knew a man who worked in the theatre by mat name; he was there two or three weeks. CJ. btae whetner or not, since he was released from Carroll Hall, or just previous to his release, he told you at the prison of the ussussiuation of thePresident, not to say wnich way lie went, meaning Eootn; and did he sny tnat Spangler hit him ou the lace with the back ot h s hand? A, No sir; he said he had been down and had nottolu a.i he knew and wanted to know ir he could maice another statement; Hold him certainly, und i hat he ought to be very particular and state the wnole truth. Q. State whether yoffknow anything of the accused, Spangler,' being in the custom of craDbing and other fishing. A. Yts, I know he would go ou Saturday nigbtand stay l.il Sunday morning; I have never seen him fisning myself. CJ. State whether his rope could be used for that pur pose. A. Yessir; but they tie another small line out of the end. Testimony of Dr. McKinn. CJ. Where do you reside? A. In Washington, in the eastern part of the city. CJ. Do you know Harold? A. yessir. CJ. How long have you known him? A. I don't know; when I have not known him ior the last two years; I have known him very well lor the last six years. Q. State his cuaracter. A. He was a light, unre- liaole, trivial boy. and is in mind about eleven years of age: I never would allow him to put up a prescrip tion ofrnine, if I could go elsewhere, believing that he would tamper with it it be thought, he could play a joke uron anybody by it. Tho Court here adjourned until ten o'clock on Fri day morning. Washington, June 2.— After the reading ofthe re cord, the examination of witnesses for the defense was resumed. Testimony of Charles Bnlger. By Mr. Ewing.— Thesubstanceoftbetestimonyofthia witness was as follows:— Witness knew the prisoner, Edward Spangler, having boarded at a house at which the prisoner boarded for five or 3ix months; alter the assassination the accused remained at tbe house for several days. Testimony of John Gnnther. By Mr Ewing.— The testimony of this witness waa substantially the same as that or the previous wit ness He testified to having boarded lor several years at the house at which the prisoner stopped for six or seven months, and was certain of bavins seen him about tbe boarding house some two or three daysal ter the assassination. Witness never saw him wear a "cross-examined by Judge Advocate Bingham.-Saw the prisoner generally in the morning or evening; the accused did not sleepat the boarding-house. Testimony of Thomas J. Key bold. Bv Mr. Ewing.-CJ. State how long you have been in Washington, and what has been your occupation here? A I have not lived permanently in Washington, only since the last Monday of December one year ago. at which time I came to Washington lor Mr. Ford ; l was employed at tbat gentleman's theatre to take charge or the house; to see to the front ot tbe house, and pur chase everything that was to be purchased ior the bouse; any repairs to the house were done through my orders- that was my business there; in the absence of eithercf tne Messrs. Ford, I went in the box-office and sold the tickets. ... . „i. Q. State whether you know anything as to any of tho locks of tbe private boxes being broken, and if so, what vou know. A. I think it was dnnngMrs. Bowers' engagement, in March, about the 7lh, when being ona 122 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. day at dinner, Mr. Merrick, of the National Hotel, asked me to reserve some seats ior him that evening, three. I think, in the orchestra: I did so; Mr, Merrick had not arrived by the end ofthe first act, and as it was customary for all leserved seats not occupied at the end of the first act to be taken by other persons present wanting seats, those seats were taken shortly after that; Mr. Merrick, accompanied by his wife, Mr. Martin and several ladies came in andl wasin ormed Of their arrival, and asked what I had done with the Beats reserved for them, and I went to see about them, and found that the usher had filled them; I then took them up stairs to Box 6, which was locked and could not be entered; 1 then crossed to Boxes 7 and 8, gene rally termed the President's Box, which were also locked; I endeavored to force it open by applying my shoulder to the door, but failing in that I used my loot and succeeded in kickiDg it open. Q. State whether that tier led into the box which the President occupied at the time of tbe assassination? A. It did, by request; when the President occupied the box we would take the partition out, and the two boxes wou'.d then be occupied as one. CJ, When the two boxes are thrown into one by which door do you enter the President's box? A. The door of Box 8. KJ. Do you know whether that was the door that was csed on the night ot the assassination? A. Yessir.it was; the other one could not be used. Q. Doyou know whether the lock that was burst Open was afterwards repaired? A. I do not; I never examined it afterwards; I suppose it was my place to have reported the fact, and though I frequently passed into the box afterwards I never thought of having the lock fixed. Q. To whom would you have reported for repairs? A. To Mr, Gifford. CJ. But you made no report toghim of it? A. No sir, I never said anything about it; I never thought it worth while to-mention it. CJ. State whether you have any knowledge of Booth occupying either of those two boxes shortly be.'ore the assassination? A. I cannot say precisely the time, but It was about two weeks, 1 think, prior to the J4th that Mr. Booth engaged private box No. 4, and in the even ing of that day came again to the office while I was Bitting in the vestibule, and asked for an exchange of the box ior box No. 7, one of the Presidential boxes, and the one in which a hole wasfuundto have been hored heoccupied that night. either box No. 7 or 8,1 cannot swear positively which box. Q. State whether there were any box tickets sold at the theatre up to the time of the opening. A. To the best of my knowledge there was nt; Isold none; I was not in the othce all the time that day; I was there dur- Ingthe afternoon, andalso in the morning, when the tickets were obtained ior the President by his messen ger; I do not know positively whether there were any sold, or whether there were any applications ior any. CJ. State at what hour the President engaged those seats ? A. Between io and 11 o'clock in the forenoon. Q. Had he been previously invited? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Did you see the messenger? A. I did, and was talking to him. Q. State whether you saw anything of Booth that morning after the President had engaged the box? A. I cannotsay whether it was after or before that time; I saw him that morning; he got a letter irom the office that morning: he generally came there every morn ing; his letters were directed to Mr. Ford's box in the Post Office and were brought to the theatre every morning. Q. Did Booth get more than one letter that morn ing? A. Not to my knowledge. CJ. State if you know any reason why the rocking Chair iu which tbe President is said to have sat that fiight should have been in the position in wbich it was? A. The position in which it was then was the same in which I had placed it myself on two other oc casions when the President occupied that box, and the reason was that it placed in any other position the rockers would be in the way; the removal of the par tition left a triangular corner to the left ofthe balus trade of the box, and the rockers went into the corner and were out ofthe way; that was the only reason why I put it there. CJ, When was that* A. During last winter a year ago. CJ. It bad not been used in the box during this last eeason up to that time? A. The sofa had been used; it had not. Q. State what you saw of Spangler, if anything, after tne assassination. A. I do not recollect seeing him after that; I only knew that he was arrested in the house on the following Saturday morning. Q. Washenotabouttbetheatreafterthat morning? A. I cannot say; in accordance with my usual custom X went to Baltimore on that Saturday night to visit my family, who resided there. CJ. Was thetheatre'dosed until your return? A. It was; I returnedon Monday morning. CJ. Examine that rope (exhibiting rope found in the carpetbag of the prisoner Spangler) and state whether ?ou know of any such rope being used about the thea- re, and whether, from its flexibility, you would judge that it had been used? A. From its appearance I know that tt has been used; if it had not it would be lighter in color; it is like the ropes that are generally- used in the flies for drawing up the scenes; what is called a border rope. Cross-examined by Assistant Judge Advocate Bing ham.— Q. You say that kind of a rope was used in the theatre in fixing up the flies? A. The wings; or, at least, the borders. Q. If tbe rope had been used in the theatre it would have belonged there, would it not ? A. Yes sir. Q. The proper place would not be a carpet-sack half a mile away? A. No sir, I do not think it would. Q. Mr. Spangler would not supply the theatre with a rope at his own expense? A, It is not my opinion that he did. Q. The rope that he used, which you have described, is a permanent fixture, is it not? A. Sometimes we use a great many of these ropes, and then take them. down and they lay up in the loft until we need them again. CJ. Was it the inner or the outer door of the box that you forced ouen? A. It was the inner door. . CJ. Is Box 8 the one nearer the stage? A. It is. Q. Could you. by direct force, have burst open the, doorotthe box, the keeper of which was fastened by screws, so as to have drawn the keeper without split ting the wood? A. I might have started the keeper; ife; would have been according to the length ofthe screws. Q. Is not the fad ug of that door of pine? A. Yes sir; as J ar as I can j udge. CJ. Is it your opinion that the keeper of the lock could have been burst offby force without splitting the wood? A. I think so; itmighthavebeenso. CJ. When were you in the box last? A. The morning after the assassination. CJ. When before the assassination? A. About five minutes that afternoon. CJ, Did you see either a mortice in the wall or a piece of wood to iasten tbe door? A. No sir. Q. Did you see a mortice there the morning after the assassination? A. No sir; my attention was not called to it. CJ. State what you know, if anything, about tbe rock- ingchair in which the Presidentsat being placed in the box? A. I do not know who put it there, but 1 know who was ordered to put it there; I was in the box only about five minutes, when I assisted in fixing the flags; it was then in the corner of Box 7. and sitting in the' position in which thecbair was then placed, the Presi dent would h;ive his back to the audience, and his side partially toward the stage. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Was it after Booth played "Pes cara"' that he occupied tbat box ? A. I could not tell that; he ordered the box on two occasions, but on one occasion did not uje it for he told me in the evening that he would not be able to use that box, as some la dies stopping at the National Hotel had disappointed him. Q. How long was it before the assassination that he used it? A. About two weeks. By the Court.— Q. Do you know of what material ^bat rope is made ? A. I think it is a Manilla rope. By Judge Advocate Holt.— Do you or not know tbat tbecolor of aropedoes not depend on its age or its use? A. I know that water will make the color of a rope darker, but its color, so far as my knowledge ex tends, does depend upon its use. Testimony of Henry E. Merricfc. By Mr. Ewing.— Q. State your business? A. I am clerk ofthe National Hotel. Q. State whether or not some time before the assas- sinationof thePresident you went to Ford's Theatre and Mr. Keybold showed you to a box? A. Yessir; ttwasonihe evening of the 7th of March; I bad my wife and other ladies with me, and we were shown to a box on the right hand side as you pass down the dress circle; it was the box nearest the entrance; I do not know the number. CJ. Are you certain that it was the box furthest from tbestage? A. Yessir. CJ. Do you know any thing about the door being forced open? A. The door was forced open by Mr, Keybold, who was unable to find the key; the keeper, I think was lorced off: at least, the screw that held the upper part of the keeper came out and it whirled around and hung by the lower screw: we then entered the box and remained there during the play. CJ. Do you know when John McCuilough, the actor. was last at the National Hotel? A. Our books show that he left there on the 26th of March: he paid his bill on that day, and since then I have not seen him. CJ. Was he in the habit of stopping at your hotel? A, He was ; I have never known him to stop at any other hotel. CJ. Was he there on the 2d of April? A. Not to my knowledge. Cross-examined by Assistant Judge Advocate Bing>- ham.— CJ. Many persons come into your hotel to visit guests of tbe house and go away again without your knowing it, do they not? A. They might call there on their friends. CJ. On the Dight of which you have spoken as the oc casion of your visit to the theatre you entered the first TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 123 box that you came to In passing down the dress circle? A. Yes sir. Q. The box next the stage you did not enter at all? A. L did not; we entered the first box. Testimony of James I,amb. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. State where and in what capacity you wereern ployed at the tiniecl'the assassination of the President. A/At Mr. Ford's theatre, wliere Ihave been employed ior the last two. seasons, over a year, in thecapacity of scene painter. CJ. Examine that rope (exhibiting to witness the rope found in Spangler's possession), and state whether you have seen any ropes like that used in the theatre. A. Ihave; but all ropes of this description bear some similarity; ropes like that areused in the theatre for suspending borders that hang across the tops of the scenes; they are called border ropes. CJ. What is the length of ropes used for that purpose In the theatre? A. Notless than eighty (80) feet; they areused ior raising and lowering the borders; these bordersare long strips of canvas, which are painted to represent interiors and exteriors; sometimes, when it isnecessary to alter them, they are lowered upon the Btageforthe purpose of being repa.uted; the roped used are about the length of this one. CJ. Examine it carefully, and state whether it has the-appearauce of having been used. A. It has the appearance of having been chafed, and a new rope would be a lit tie stiffer, it strikes me. CJ, Does it look as if it had been used as a border rope? A. I cannot say that there is anything about it tbat would lead me to form an opinion on that point; it is the same kind of a ro e that is used for that pur pose, butit it had been so used, I think tbereVould.be a knot here; one end appears to have been cut; there were about jorty or fifty such ropes employed about the theatre. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham.— CJ. Were you acquainted with John Wilkes Booth? A. I knew him bv sight; I never spoke a word to him. By the Court.— CJ. OF what material is that rope? A. I should say it was hemp. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Have you any reason to believe, from an examination of the rope, that it was not used as a border .rope? A. No sir. CJ. Did you see anything of the prisoner, Edward Spangler, after the assassination? A. I saw him on Saturday, the day after the President was assassinated; Iwas in the theatre loitering about from ten o'clock until the military took possession of the building; my feelings were excited, and Tremainedon the spot the whole day, and saw Spangler several times during the CJ.* Wheie did you see the prisoner, and who were with him? A. I saw him on tbestage; there were seve ral others there; Maddox, a man by the name of Jake, Mr. Gifford, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Car. and. Q. Who were with Spangler? A. There was no com panionship particularly; they all seemed to be loitering CJ What time in the dav was that? A. About twelve or one o'clock; I did not see Spangler since until I saw him this morning. Testimony of William R. Smith. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. State your residence and busi ness. A. I live in Washington, and am Superintend ent of the Botanic Gardens. ..... CJ. Were you in Ford's Theatre at the time of the as sassination? A. Iwas. Q. Did vou see Booth pass off the stage? A. I did. Q. Did you see Mr. Stewart get on the stage? A. Mr. Stewart was about the first that got on the stage; it is my impression that Booth was olr the sta^e belore Mr. Stewart cot on it; I saw Stewart turn around and look up at the box in which the President had been mur dered; I did not watch him any further. CJ. You think that Booth got off the stage before any one got on it? A. Yes sir. Re-Examination of Jacob Ritterspangrn. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. When you were examined for the prosecu tion you.spoke of S pangler havi ng slapped you in the face after your return from following Booth, and of his saying:— "Shut up, don't say which way he went?" A. Yes sir. a_, L J CJ. Did you make the same statement the next day when you were in the theatre to Mr. Lamb, and on the night of the assassination to Mr. Garland when he aroused you from sleep? A. Yes sir; Mr. Carland, when he awakened me, asked me what Ned said to me, andl toldthim that Ned had slapped me in the mouth and said:— "'Don't say which way he went." CJ. Were you not on the stage on the afternoon of the day of the assassination? A. Yes sir. Q, State what you and Spangler saw. A. I saw a man in the dress circle smoking a segar, and I assed Snaneler who he was; he said he did not know; I then said we ought to tell him to go out, and Spang ler said he had a right there; I resumed my work and after awhile looked around again, and saw tbe man sitting in a private box, on the right-hand side ofthe stage: alter that the man went out. CJ Was the man near enough to hear what Spangler said? A. Yea sir. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham.— Q. Doyou know Whatman tnat was? A. Nosir. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. What time in the evening was that? A. About six o'clock in the evening of the day on which the President was assassinated, and just be fore we went to supper. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham.— CJ, Where d d you say that man was ? A. In a private box, one o i the lower boxes in the dress circle on the right hand side ofthe stage. Testimony of Louis J. Carland. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. State whether you are acquainted. with Jacob Bitterspaugh? A. lam. CJ. State whether you saw him in Mr. Gifford's room on the night of tbe assassination alter it had taken place, and what did Bitterspaughsayon-that occasion? A. He was asleep, and on my awakening him he ap peared frightened and thought I was Mr. Booth; I asked him where Spangler was, and he said hedid not know, that when he last saw Spongier he was standing behind the scenes just after Booth ran outthebacic part ofthe theatre, and that hesaid toSnangler, "that waa Mr. Booth," when Spangler slapped him in the mouth ands-iid, "you don'tknow who it was; it nn^ht have been Booth, and it might have been somebodyelse." CJ. Did BitterspauKh tell you that Spangler slapped himvn the face and said, Don't say which way he went? A. Nosir. CJ. Did he ted you anything to that effect? A. No sir. CJ. Are you sure that he did not say it to you? A. I am certain. CJ. Where was Spangler when you first saw him &f- ter tbe assassination? A. In the theatre on the stage: 1 was iu his company till Sunday night, when I went to the Hermann House, and he went to sleep in the theatre; I suppose he left to go there to sleep. Q. Where was he during Saturday and Sunday? A, On the Saturday night alter the murder he was going to sleep in the theatre as usual, but there was some talk about burning the theatre, and. being a heavy sleeper, he was airaid to sleep there, so he came to my room and I let him sleep there all night; on Sunday mording I went to church, and met him again in the street near the theatre; we walked around that after noon and parted i n the evening. CJ. Do you know whether or not, during those two days you were* with Spangler, he had much money? A. He had very little change. Q. State whether Booth often frequented the thea tre and stayed about there a great deal, an-d on what terms was he with the employees? A. On very inti mate terms: he seemed to become familiar witbpeo- p eon a short acquaintance. The rope found in Spangler's carpet-bag was ex hibited to the witness, when he stated that it resem bled one used by Mr. Spangler and Mr. Bitterspaugh, about two weeks before the murder, to carry up some lumber to the fourth story oi the theatre. He thought it had the appearance of having been used and of hay ing lain out of doors. Cross-examined by Assistant Judge Advocate Bing ham.— CJ. Spangler usually slept in the theatre? A. Yea sir. CJ. He did not sleep there on the night of the mur der? A. ISO sir. CJ. Did he sleep there on Sunday night? A. No sir. CJ. Where and at what time did you awaken Bitter- spaugh? A. It wasonthefirst floor.in whatwascalled the manager's oflice, at about twelve o'clock on the night of the murder: I was alone at the time. cj To whom didyou tell what Bitterspaugh said to you? A. TonJbody but Wni. Withers, Jr.; Itold bim on tbe Sunday aiternoon after the assassination. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Was Kitlerspaush fully awake when you had the conversation with him? A. Yes sir. Testimony of James Lyon. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Are you acquainted with Jacob Bitterspaugh. A. Yes. *«.-«•,»* CJ. Did you see him on the day after the President waskilled? A. I did, on Saturday. Q. Did he say anything to you about a conversation he had had with Spangler directly after the assassina tion? A. Yes; he was grumbling and saying.it waa well for Ned that he had not sometlfing inhis hand at the time; witness asked why: said he, "Ned struck medast night a very hard blow, and said shut up," at tho same time, "you know nothing about it. ' CJ. In what connection did he s;iy tnat happened? A. He said he was acquaintad with Booth, and re marked to Spangler as Booth ran out, "I know who that was; that was Booth who ran out;" then Ned said "Shut up; keep quiet; what do you know about it." CJ When did he say that was? A. That was while the party. Booth or whoever it might be, was leaving the stage, that is, making his escape: this'man Jake then rushed up and was making this explanation, "I know him- that was Booth;*' Ned then turned around and struck bim with the back of his hand and said, "shut up; you know nothing about it; what do you know aboutit; keep»quiet." Q Did or did not Jacob Bitterspaugh say that Spang ler said to him "do not say which way he went." or any words to that effect? A. He did not, I am sure-. 124 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Cross-examined by Judge Bingham.— CJ. State now exactly what Jake said to you on that occasion. A. He said "I Jollowed out the party and was close at his heel« I said to Spangler, I know him," or words to that effect. CJ. He said he was right at Booth's heels, did he? A. No. net that, he said be was nearly. CJ. Did not you say he followed the party close at his heels? A. Well, I say he did. and received a blow from Spangler and that shut him up. Testimony of J. W. Bunker. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. What is your occupation? A. I am clerk at the National Hotel in this city. CJ. Slate whether or not alter the.assassination ofthe President you Jound any articles in Booth's room at the hotel. A. I packed up Booth's luggage and had it removed to our baggage room on the day after the as sassination. CJ. Did vou find any carpenter's tools? A. I found a large-sized gimblet with an iron handle in his trunk; I took it and carried ft to my room; I afterwards gave it to Mr Hall, who was attending lo Ford's business. CJ. Do you know whether John McCuilough, the actor, wasin Washington on the 1st of April? A. I have examined our buoka thoroughly and find that thelast time McCuilough registered was on the lltli of March; he leit the house on the 26th of that month; his name is not on our hooks after that date. CJ. Where wm hem the habit of stopping when he came to Washington? A. He made h.s i nir.e at the National: I have never known of his stopping at any other place. CJ. Did you see him in the city alter the 26th of March? A. I did not. Testimony of Chas. B. Hall. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Where have you been living for the past two or three months, and what has been your occupation? A. I have been acting as clerk for Mr. Wharton a sutler at Fortress Monroe. Q. Is bis store inside the fortifications or outside? A. It is outside, at what is called Old Point. Q. Are you acquainted with the prisoner, Arnold? A. I got acquainted with him at Mr. Wharton's store: became there in the latter part of March or the 1st of April; I cannot fix the date; it was on aSundav. CJ. State how loug he remained there, and what his business was. A. He was assisting me at book-keep ing: be stayed there two weeks and one day, I think, CJ. Didyou see him there constant y at that time? A. No; I was engaged at another piace part ofthe time: I saw him, however, every day. CJ. State whether or not, and if so, when. Arnold made any app.ication for employment. A. Hedid; I think about the 1st or" March some time. CJ. Do you know what became of Arnold's letter? A. Major .Sievens has it. Q. How many letters did be write applying for a position? A. I only saw one; that I answered myself. CJ. At what time was the answer written? A. I could not teil that; it was about a week beiore Arnold came: I wrote for him to come. CJ, Didyou see Arnold every night during the time of his employment? A. Yes sir; he slept in Mr. Whar ton's store every night. . Testimony of George Craig. By. Mr. Ewing.— CJ. St^Lte where you live, and how ?ou have been employed for the last two months. A. have been at Old Point, and have beeu employed by Mr. Wharton as salesman. CJ. Have you seen the prisoner Samuel Arnold ? A. I saw him about the latter part of March or the first of April, on Sunday, for the first time. Q. What boat did he come on ? A. I cannot tell. CJ. How long did he remain there? A. About two weeks, to the best of my knowledge; he was a clerk in Mr. Wharton's establishment: chief clerk I believe. CJ. How often did you membered nothing distinctly but a struggle, with nb desire to kill, would not that be additional ground for suspicion of insanity? A. I think it would. CJ. What are the qualities of mind or person most needed by a keeper to secure control over madmen? A. Self-control. CJ. Are not madmen usually managed by persons of strong will and resolute character? A. Yes; I think they are. CJ. Are there not instances on record of madmen towards all others, and yet who towards their keeper!? are as docile and obedient as dogs towards their masters? A. Not that servile obedience which a dog exhibits towards his master; it is true that the insane are comparatively mild and obedient to certain per sons, while they are more or less violent towards cer tain other persons. CJ. Would it not be possible for such a keeper, who could exercise such control over a madman, to direct him to commit a crime, and secure its commission? A. I should say it would be very difficult unless it was done in a few minutes after the plan was laid and the directions given. CJ. Isuotthe influence of some persons over mad men so great that their will seems to take the place of the madman's? A. There is a great difference in the control different individuals have over insane per sons, but I think it rare that the control reaches the extent you have described, or the extent, I may add, tbat is popularly supposed. CJ. Do you recognize or not a distinction between mania and delusion? A. A certain distinc tion, inasmuch as delusion may accompany any and every form of insanity, while the term mania applies to a particular form, which mayor may not accom pany del usiun. CJ. I ask whether Instances of insane delusion are not more frequent during civil war than any other forms of insanity? A. My impression is that they are not as frequent; insanity is of a more general charac ter, so far as mv experience goes during the war, among soldiers than it usually is. CJ. Doesor does notconstantly dwelling on thesame subject lead to insane delusion? A. It frequently does. CJ. For instance, if a body of men who own slaves are constantly hearing speeches and sermons vindi cating tbe divine right of slavery, and when the inr stitution was not threatened at all should finally go to war for its support, would not that be an evidence that these men were deluded? A. I think it would; but it does not follow that the delusion Is not what I would technically denominate an insane delusion arising fiom d seaseof the brain, and for which a man is ir responsible. CJ. Hone of these same men should own slaves and believe in the origin of the institutltn, fight in its de lense, and believe that he had also fbu* ht'ln defense of h s home and fr.euds, should attempt to assassinate the men who were the leaders of those he believed were killing his friends/would not that give rise to the sus picion tbat he was laboring under a fanatical delusion? The question was objected to by Colonel Burnett; if the counsel was about through with his examination, he would not object; otherwise he would object to tha continuance of an examination entirely irrelevant ana foreign to the issue. Mr. Doster replied that he had about a dozen more questions to put; that he had sent for witnesses in Florida, who had not yet arrived, and his examination ot Dr. Nichols was in anticipation of their testimony, and in order to obviate the necessity of recalling him as a witness. TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 121 The objection sustained by the Court. CJ. Is it your opinion that the person I have spoken of in committing tbe crime alleged under the circum stances was conscious that he was acting contrary to law, or whether he was laboring under any and what delusion? Objected to by Judge Bingham, on the ground that the case put was one entirely hypothetical, and as such the witness was not qualified to answer it. Mr. Doster replied that he had not the right to make the application to any particular case: that he had taken the question from tbe books he cited to sustain his position, '-Wheaton on Criminal Law." Colonel Burnett said that the counsel was pro ceeding in an examination based upon a hy pothesis, having no application to any state of facts proved in this case, and there was no law found in any book that would uphold him in suciba course. The Assistant Judge- Advocates had been .n- structed by their chief to allow the utmost liberally to counsel in the defense, but it was their duty to in terpose when counsel were proceeding so far as to ren der the record absurd and contemptible. Mr. Doster replied, that he believed tbe question was strictly legal, but knowing very well the result of the objection in this Court he would waive the question, and put it in this form:—- CJ. Under this state of facts would, or would not, the inference of insanity result therefrom? A. If I may be allowed to make an explanatory answer, I will say that I have thus far given categorical answers to the questions put; I am, as a rule, very much opposed to giving opinions upon hypothetical cases for the best of reasons, as I conceive that I have now; I could give no definite opinion upon the facts implied, therefore, in the questions that have been submitted; every case sf insanity is a case oiitself and has to be examined with all the light that can be thrown on it, and it is impossible for me to give an opinion, therefore, upon a hypothetical case. Testimony of Mr. Bawson. Q. Are you a clerk in the National Hotel in this city? A. Yes sir. CJ. Look at that letter and see if it was ever received In the National Hotel? A. It was found among the initial letters, a counle of days before I was there; I noticed it and the initials struck me as rather pecu liar, CJ. Do you know the exact date when it was read? A. No sir. By Judge Advocate Bingham.— You opened it when you brought it to me; it was not opened before? A. No sir. Mr. Pittman, at the request of the Court, then read the following letter:— South Branch Bridge, April 6, 18G5.— Friend Wilkes:— I received yours of March 12th, and reply as soon as practicable. I saw French Brad and others about the oil speculation. The subscription ot the stock amounts to $8000, and I add $ 1000 myself, which is about all I can stand. Now, when you sink your well go deep enough. Don't fail, Everything depends on you and your helpers. If you can't get through on your trip after you strike He, strike through Thornton's Gap and cross by Caeca pon, Romney, and down the branch, and I can keep you safe from all hardship for a year. I am clear of all surveillance, now that infernal Purdy is beat. I hired that girl to charge him with an outrage, and reported him to old Kelly, which sent him in the shade, but he suspects too much now. Had he better be silenced for good. I send th s up by Tom and if he don't get drunk you will get it by the 9th. At all events it can't be understood if lost. I can't half write. I have been drunk for two days. Don't write so much highfalutiu the next time. No more, only Jake will be at Green's with the funds, Burn this. Truly yours, (Signed* LOU. Sue Guthrie sends much love. (Mailed at Cumberland. Md., MaySth. This letter, according to the post-mark, was mailed at Cumber land, Md., May 8th, although it is dated May 6th.) Q. To whom besides Wilkes Booth, who stopped at your hotel, do the initials belong? A. As far as I re member, I don't know anybody else to my knowledge. Testimony of Mr. ffott. Q. I believe that you were tbe barkeeper or one of tbe attendants at the hotel at Surrattsville. A. Yes sir. CJ. How long was that your employment? A. From January, till I was arrested on the lGth of April; one time I was away a week, and sometimes I would be away a day or two. CJ. I desire to ask you what your attitude has been toward the Government since the war? A Ihave never done anything against it. Q. Or said anything against it? A. No sir. CJ. Nor against tbe Union party in Maryland? A. No sir. __ CJ. Do you know Mr. Smooth? A. Yes sir. CJ. What is bis first name? A. Edward. Q. Do you recollect having any conversation with him on the 14th of April? A. I do not, sir. CJ. Do yon recollect his saying to you that it was supposed John H. Surratt was one of the murderers? A, Nosir. CJ. Doyou recollect telling him that Surratt was un doubtedly in New York ? A. No sir; I may or I may not, but Ido notrecollect. CJ. Did you say to him that " John knows all about that matter, and that you could have told him all about it, and it would haveoccurred, six months ago?" A. No sir. CJ. Did you at that time tell him not to mention the conversation you had with him? A. No sir; I don't think I could have said such a thing. CJ. You have never been unfriendly to the Govern ment? A. Nosir. CJ. You have never taken sides with the Rebels? A. No sir. By Major-General Hunter.— Q. Where were you at the time ofthe first battlo of Bull Run? A. I have not had any particular home since the death of my wife; I think I wasin Hill's place. CJ. Did you rejoice at the success of the Rebels? A. No sir, I guess I did not. CJ. Don't you know that you did? A. No sir, I know nothing ofthe kind. CJ. What Church do you belong to? A. The Catholic Church.when I belong to any at all. Q. That'll do, sir; I have no more questions to ask you. By Colonel Burnett— CJ. How long since you belonged to that Church? A. Not for seven years, sir. CJ. You only occasionally belonged to the church, eh? Well, that's all. Testimony of Mr. Keybold. CJ. Have you visited Ford's theatre since you were upon the stand? A. Yes sir, T have. Q. Have you examined the keepers of the locks of boxes 7 and 8 ? A. Yes sir. CJ. State the condition in which you found them. A. Box 8 had been forced and the wood was split; box 7 was also forced, you could pull the screws in and out; box 8 the keeper is forced aside. Q, State whether or not it was done by any instru ment. A. I think not; it was done by force applied to the inside ofthe door. Testimony of Mr. Plant. Q. What is your residence and occupation? A. I am a dealer in furniture at present; my residence is No. 350 G. street, between Ninth and Tenth, Washington city. CJ. Have you ever been engaged at any time in cabi net work? A. For the last fourteen years, more or less. CJ. Have you visited Ford's Theatre to-day? A. I have. CJ. State whether you examined tbe keeper on the private boxes; and, if so. what boxes? A. Yes, I did, boxes 7 and 8, and to all appearauce they had both beenforced open; No. 7 Icould pull tbe screws out and push them in with my thumb and fingers; in box 4, di rectly under, the keeper is gone entirely. CJ. State whether or not, according to your profes sional opinion, the keeper of boxes seven (7) and eight (8) were made loose by an instrument or by force applied from the outside, A. I should judge, sir, by force from the outside. CJ. state whether you noticed a hole In the wall in thepassage which leads into the boxes. A. Yes sir. CJ. State whether it had the appearance of having been covered. A. Yes sir; it has been, but I could not say with what, there being no remnant left. CJ. Did you notice a hole in cither ot the doors of the boxes? Yes; in the door of box No. 7. CJ. What size? A, Not more than a quarter of an inch in diameter; it is larger on the outside than on the inside: a sort of wedge shaped. A. Could you tell how that was made? A. I should judge with some instrument; one part felt as if it was made with a knife at the right hand side and the bot tom of the hole, and another part looked as if made with a gimlet; one part feels rough, as if made by the withdrawing of tbe gimlet after the hole was bored. CJ. Do you think that a gimlet was used in making the hole? A. Yes sir, something of that sort, but a might have been donewith a knife. Testimony of William Smootb. (Witness for the prosecution.)— CJ. State where yon reside. A. In Prince George county. CJ. How near Surrattsville? A. About one mile. CJ. Are you acquainted with a man named Jenkins, a brother of Mrs. Surratt? A. Yes sir; I know two of her brothers, (J. Do you know the one who has testified in this case, J. B. Jenkins? A* Yes sir. Q. State what position he has occupied towards this tovernment during the Rebellion. A. During the rst year he was looked upon as aUnion man; after that he was looked upon as a Secesh sympathizer. CJ. Do you know Mr. Nott? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did you have any conversation with him on the Saturday succeeding the murder? A. I had. CJ. State what it was. A. I met two young men con nected with General Augur's head-quarters, and one of them told me Surratt was supposed to be the man who cut Mr. Seward, and I asked Mr. Nott if he could tell me where Sur- 128 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. ratt was; he said he reckoned he was in New York by that time: I asked him why that was, and he said, "My God, John Surratt knows all about this, and do you suppose he is going to stay in Washington and let them catch him; I could have told you this thing was going to happen six months ago;" then said hei "Keep that in your skin, for if you would mention it it would ruin me." CJ. What was Nott's attitude to the Government? A. I have heard him speak against the Government, and denounce the Administration in every manner and form, and heard him say tbat if the South didn't suc ceed he didn't wantto live another day. In a long cross-examination the witness simply re peated his testimony in chief. Testimony of Mr. Roby. Q. State where you reside. A. In Prince George county. CJ. How far from Surrattsville? A, Three or four hundred yards. .,,„,. ¦, ¦ « . -»r CJ. Are you acquainted with J. G. Jenkins? A. Yes sir. CJ. How long have you known him. A. Since 1861. CJ. State to the Court whether you held any position under the Government. A. I was appointed; an en rolling officer on the 12th of June, 1863. CJ. State to the Court what the reputation of Jenkins Is or has been since 1861 with reference to loyalty. A. I never heard but one opinion, and that is thatin 1861 bewaslooked upon asa Union man, and after that time as a sympathizer with the South. CJ, Has he been in the attitude of a talker agamstthe Government? A. Yessir, since 1862. Cross-examination. ~CJ. Were you a member of Cowan's Companyin 1861? A. No sir; I was a member of another company. CJ. You state that up to 1862 Jenkins was regarded as a' Union man? A. Yes sir; I saw him once between the 9th of April, 1861 , and the 19tb of July: he was beg- eingmoney foraUnion man's family who bad been killed; the next time I saw him was at my house, and he was then opposed to the nominees of the Union party. CJ. What have you heard of Jenkins since 1862? A. I have been living near Surrattsville since September, 1863, and have seen Jenkins nearly every day: he was then a talking against the Government, and at the election at which we voted for the new Constitution, he said he bad been offered office under the "damn Government," but would not hold office under such a "God-damned Government" CJ. WbatGovernment? A. The Government of the United States. CJ. What do you mean by the Government ? A. The laws, the Constitution, and the enforcement thereof. The Court here adjourned till 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. Ttie Name of Payne Said to be Powell. Washington, June 3.— After the reading of the re cord of yesterday the trial was proceeded with. Testimony of Ex-Governor Farwell of Wisconsin. By Mr. Doster.— CJ. State whether on the evening of the 14th of April last you went from Ford's Theatre to the room of Vice President Johnson. A. Between ten and half-past ten o'clock on that evening I went di rectly from the theatre to the Vice President's room. CJ, State whether you found the door of the room locked or open. A. It was locked, I think; I am not certain. CJ. Did you find anybody apparently lying in wait about the room? A. I did not discover any one. CJ. If anybody had been lying in wait about the room would you have been able to see them? A. I did not look at anything but the door, and did notsee any one at the door. CJ. What did you do after you got to the door? A. I rapped, but received no answer; I rapped again, and said, in a loud voice, "Governor Johnson, if you are in the room I must see you." CJ, Did you enter the Vice President's room? A. I did, and remained there half an bour. CJ. While you were there was the room visited by any strangers? A. A number of persons came to the door; after I got inside I locked and bolted the door, and did not allow any person to come in without it was Borne one personally known to the Vice-President or myself; I also rang thebell torthe servants. CJ. State whether you ever saw the prisoner Atzeroth before? A. Not to my knowledge. CJ. Do you take your meals at tbe Kirkwood House? A. I do. CJ. Have you not observed persons asking to see the Vice-President while he would be taking his meals? A. No sir, only when, as I have been at the table, some gentleman would ask me casually whether the Vice- President was in. Testimony of John B. Hubbard. By Mr. Doster.— CJ. State whether at times you are in charge ofthe prisoner, Payne? A. I am. CJ. Have you at any time during his confinement had an v conversation with him? A. I have. CJ. State what was the substance of that conversa- As'sistant Judge Bingham objected to the question, on the ground that the declarations of the prisoner were not admissible. _ . a Judge Advocate Holt stated that as a confession of tbe prisoner.it would not be admissible, but itmerely designated to show his condition of mind, it might be considered. ^ The question was then answered, as follows:— A. I was taking him out ofthe court room the other day when hesaid he wished they would make haste and hang him, tbat he was tired of life; and that he would rather be hanged than come back here. CJ. Did heiever have any conversation with you in reference to the subject of his constipation? A. Yea sir; about a week ago. CJ. What did he say ? A. He said that he had been so ever since he had been here. CJ. Whathadbeenso? A. That he had been consti pated. CJ. Have you any personal knowledge as to the truth of that? A. I have not. CJ. To whom did you tell what the prisoner said to you ? A. To Colonels McCall and Dart. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham.— CJ. What else did the prisoner say to you ? A. That was ah he said. Testimony of Colonel W. H. Iff. M'Call. By Mr. Doster.— CJ. Have you at any time had charge ofthe prisoner Payne? A. Ihave. CJ. Are you alone in charge of him? A. No sir; Colonel Frederick, Colonel Dart ahd myself have charge of him. CJ.Howis ihe duty divided between you? A. We have each eight hours out oi the twenty-four. CJ. Does your duty lead you to be cognizant of the conduct ofthe prisoner in his cell? A. Yes«sir. CJ. Do you know anything with reference to the constipation of the prisoner? A. To the best of my knowledge, until last evening, he had no relief since the 29th of April. CJ. Have you ever had any conversation with the prisoneron thesubjectof hisown death? A. Nosir. Testimony of Jonn E. Roberts. By Mr. Doster— CJ. Is it apart of your duty to take charge of tbe prisoner Payne? A. I have not had spe cial charge of the prisoner; my duties are general. Q. Have you at any time had a conversation with him? A. Yes sir. Q. Have you ever spoken to him On the subject of his own death? A. On the day that Major Seward was examined.bere, and tbe prisoner was dressed in a coat and hat, as I was putting the irons on bim again he told me that they were tracing him pretty close and he wanted to die. Q. Did be say that he was tired of life? A. Ihave told you all th^t he said. CJ. You never bad any further conversation with him? A. Not at all; not on the subject of death; words passed between us nowand then on the stairway. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham— CJ. Did he say that he was tired of life and he wanted to die? A. Yes sir. Q. He coupled with that the remark that they were tracing him pretty close; in other words finding him out? A. Those were his words. Testimony of ffjient. John W. Dempsey. CJ. State where you are on duty? A. At No. 541 H street, in command of the guard having charge of thehouse of Mrs. Surratt. CJ, State whether you were with the party tbat made an examination of the house at the time tbe house was searched? A. I was with the party tbat came to the houseon the 19th or 20th of April;" t he house was searched before that; I was not in command of the guard tbat first went to thehouse. [A photograph of J. Wilkes Booth was here shown to the witness, and identified by him as the one which he had found behind a picture of Morning and Evening. The back of the photograph bore the name of J. Wilkes Booth in pencil marks.] Testimony of James Iff. ©'lirien. By Mr. Ewing— CJ. State where you were employed on tbe 14th of April and for some months preceding tbat day. A. In the Quartermaster-General's office. CJ. Had you any engagement with Mr. Ford? A, Yes sir; I was usher at the theatre during the evening performances. CJ. .Do you know anything as to tbe condition of tbe keepers ofthe locks of boxes 7 and 8? A. The keeper of box 8 was wrenched off or broken in someway; I do not know how; I was absent one evening at home sick, and I afterwards found it broken off. CJ. When did you notice that the keeper of the dbor of box 8 had been broken? A. I noticed it the first time afterwards that I went into the box; that was TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 129 isometime before the assassination; I could not say how 1 long before. , Q. Do you know whether the door could be fastened afterwards by locking? A. It might be locked, but I imagine that if shoved it would come open; It would always shut tight, and I had no occasion to lock it. CJ. How was the keeper of thedoor of box 7. A. It appeared to be all right; I always locked tbat box. Cj. Which door was used when the Presidential party occupied the two boxes? A. The door of box 8. Q. How was it generally left after the party entered? A. Always left open. CJ. Do you know whether the door leading into the passage which separates the two boxes from, the wall had a lock upon it? A. No sir; it had no lock. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham,— CJ. The outer door had a latch, bad it not? A. Nosir; it was not fastened at all. CJ. Box eight Is nearest the stage, is it not? A, Yes air. Testimony of Dr. Bianford. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. State whetheryouare acquainted with the country alongthe routes from hereto Surratts ville and Bryantown and through Surrattsville to Port Tobacco ? A. As far as Bryantown and Port Tobacco I am acquainted with it, but not further. CJ. Are you acquainted with thelocality of Dr. Mudd's house? A. I am. (A map of tbe locality referred to, showing the different roads leading from Washington to Bryantown and vicinity, was shown to the witness; also a plot drawn by himself, giving the different lo calities in the neighborhood of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd's house, both of which he testified were accurately drawn.) The hour of one o'clock having arrived, the Commis sion took a recess, as usual, until two, at which hour the body reassembled. Examination of Susan Stewart. (Colored). By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. State where you reside? A. At Mr. John Miller's, about a mile from Bryantown. CJ. How near do you live to the house ofthe colored man John Boose? A. Only a short distance. CJ. You both lived on tne little cut-off road leading through the farm? A. Yes sir. CJ. State whether you know Dr. Samunl A. Mudd the prisoner. A. Ido. CJ. State whether you saw him on the day after the President's assassination, and where? A. I saw Dr. Mudd on Easter Saturday between three and four o'clock in the evening; I saw him out by the corner of the barn near Mr. Murray's house, riding along slowly by himself. CJ. At tbe time you saw Dr. Mudd, could you see the main road from where you were standing? A. I did not take any notice of the main road; some one said "here comes a gentleman," and I went to the door and saw it was Dr. Mudd. CJ. How much of the main road could you see from where you were standing? A. About a quarter of a mile or more. CJ, Did you see anybody on tbe main road? A. I did not; if there had been anybody with him I could easily have seen the person. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingh am.— CJ. This was on Easter Saturday afternoon? A. Yes sir. CJ. Dr. Mudd was coming apparently from Bryan town? A. Yes sir. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. Did you see which way he was coming, whether he was coming trom Bryantown or not? A. No sir. Testimony of Primas Johnson (colored). CJ, Do you know the prisoner, Dr. Mudd? A. Yes sir. Ci. State when you saw him after the President's assassination? A. I saw him on the Saturday after noon afterwards, about three or halt-past three o'clock. CJ. Did you see him as he was going to Bryantown that day? A. Yes sir. CJ. Did you see anything of a man riding along with him as he was going to Bryantown? A. No sir; Master Sam. Mudd was by himself; there was a man went alongafter he had gone on. CJ, Did you see anything of that man who followed Master Sam. Mudd coming back? A. Yes sir; the same man that went in towards Bryantown came back by himself about an hour and a half, I reckon, before Master Sam. Mudd. CJ. Where is Mr. Boose's house? A. I suppose it Is a couple ofmlles this side of Bryantown. on the road be tween Bryantown and Dr. Sam. Mudd's. Testimony of Cbarles Bloyce. By Mr. Ewing— CJ. Do you know the prisoner. Dr. Samuel A. Mudd? A. Yes sir. Q. Were yomabouthis house lastyear, and if so, how often? A. I went there on the 12th day after the Christmas before last, and was about the house every Saturday and Sunday, except between the 10th of April and the 20th of May, when I was hauling seine. CJ. Are you the husband of one of his servants, who has been here as a witness? A. Yes sir. CJ. Have you ever seen Ben. Gwynn or Andrew Gwinn? A. Yes sir, about tbur years ago, when the war first commenced, they passed along by Mr. Dyer's. CJ. Did you see either of them about Dr. Mudd's house lastyear? A. Nosir. CJ. Didyou see or hear anything of Watt Bowie, John H. Surratt, Capt. White, of Tennessee, Lieut. Perry, or J. Wilkes Booth? A. Nosir. Q. Neither saw nor heard of any of them about Dr. Mudd's house last year? A. Nosir. CJ. Did you know of any Confederate officers or any men in uniform being about there fast year? N. No, sir. Q. Do you know Mary Simms? A. Yes sir. Q. Do you know what the colored folks about there thinkofherasatruth-telJer? A. The folks there said she wasnotmuchota truth-teller; that she told such lies they could not believe her. CJ. What didthey think about Mylo Simms? A. They thought the same about him; I used to think myself that he was a liar, because he used to tell me liessome- times. Q. What was Dr. Mudd's character as a master of his servants? A. Iwould call him a first-rate man; I never heard of him whipping or saying anything to them: they did pretty much as they pleased. CJ. Didyou ever hear him threaten to send any of his servants to Bichmond? A. No indeed, I never heard one of them sayaword about it. By Assistant Judge Advocate Eiugham.— CJ. Did you ever hear anything about his shooting any ot his ser vants? A. I did hear that. CJ. You thought that was first-rate fun? A. I don't know about that. (Laughter.) Testimony of Marcus P. Norton. Colonel Burnett stated that in the discretion of the Court this witness had been called to give testimony bearing more or less directly upon the prisoners, Dr. Mudd, Atzeroth and O'Laughlin. It was the practice in Military Courts, even after the testimony had been closed on both sides, for the Court to call and examine further witnesses if in their judgment necessary. If, however, tbe counsel for the defense wish to interpose an objection, now was the proper time for them to do so. Mr. Cox stated that he should object, for the reason that it had once been distinctly announced that all evi dence on the part of the Gowrnment, except that strictly rebutting in its nature, was closed only so tar asshould relate to the general subject ofthe conspi racy, and not affecting directly the case ofanyoneof the prisoners. Mr. Ewing said that so far as he was concerned he was willing that any further evidence should be intro duced, provided time was given for the defense to meet it. Colonet Burnett replied that it was for that very pur pose he had called the witness now. The Court decided to receive the proposed evidence. By Colonel Burnett.— CJ. Wheredo you reside? A. In the city of Troy, N. Y. CJ. State where you were during the latter part of the winter and the spring ot this year. A. I was at the National Hotel, in this city, from about the 10th of January until the 10th or middle of March. CJ. Wnile there did you become acquainted with J. Wilkes Booth? A. Not personally acquainted; I knew him by sight; I had seen bim act several times in the CJ. While at the hotel state whether you saw any one with him? A. There are those that I recognize as hav ing seen during tbat time in company with J. Wilkes Booth; rather, Ishould say I saw those two men with him. (Atzeroth and O'Laughlin). CJ. At what time? A. I do not remember the exact day; it was near to tbe inauguration of President Lin- coin; Atzeroth I saw twice, and the other one I sup pose four or five times. CJ. State whether at any time you accidentally over heard any conversation between Booth or either of these parties, and if so, what it was? A. I did with Atzeroth; I can't give the precise language, but the substance of it was that if the matter succeeded as well with Johnson as it did with Buchanan, they would get terriblv sold. , m, CJ, Didyou hear any other conversation^ A. There was something said that the testimony of witnesses would be of that character that very little could be proved by them; Booth's statements I heard in the same conversation on the evening of either the 2d or 3d of March last; I did not know what was referred to. CJ. State now wbich ofthe other prisoners you have seen before, and uuder what circumstances. A. I saw that one (Dr. Mudd) once, while I was at the National Hotel; he came to my room on the morning of the 3d of March, entered hastily, and appeared to be some what excited; he said he had made a mistake, that he wanted to see Booth; I told him Booth's room waa perhaps on the floor above; I did not know the num ber; from the apparently excited manner of the per son entering my room I leit my writing and w'entout into the hall and followed him; he went down stairs, and as he reached the story below he turned and looked at me. ^ _ . . ,. CJ. Did or did not you, when you first entered the room this morning, recognize the prisoner, Mudd, as the person you met on that occasion? A. I pointed him out to H. Jones this morning, the prisoner I now 130 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. see was the one. or it was a person exactly like him; I am satisfied be was the man. CJ. Did you ever see him afterwards? A. Not before to-day. CJ. State what circumstances enable you to fix the date. A. I fix jc from tbe fact of its proximltvto the in auguration; I think it was about ten or eleven o'clock on fhe morning before. CJ. Might it not have been in the previous month of February? A. I think the day I have named was the date. CJ. Are you as certain about that as you are ofthe identity of the prisoner? A. I am. Cross-examinpd by Mr. Cox.— CJ. Can youfixthedate of the conversation O'Laughlin had with Booth? A. I cannot.CJ. Was any person in company with them, while they were conversing? A. Nosir. CJ- Did you overhear anything said in any of these conversations? A. No, I wasnot near enough. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. How do you fix the third of March as the day Dr. Mudd entered your room? A. Only from the fact of the inauguration: I did not make any memorandum of it, or charge my mind particularly with the date; I recollect the morning Dr. Mudd en tered my room I had a motion pending in the Supreme Court of the United States for that day, and I was pre paring my papers. CJ. when did you argue the motion ? A. On that day. Q. What was the motion? A. It was to dismiss a certain patent case from the Court for want of jurisdic tion, in a case originating in the Northern District of New York. CJ. How was he dressed? A. That I could notsay; his garments were black, and he had ahatinhisband; I do not know a.^ I can give any name to the hat; it had a high crown. CJ. Can you describe any other article of dress?' A. No, it was a hasty glance coming in and going out. CJ. Doyou recognizethe prisoner Mudd with as much certainty in your own mind as you do the others? A. In my own mind Ihave no doubt as to either ofthe three. CJ. Do you recognize any of tbe other prisoners at the bar? A. I do not know that I ever saw any ofthe others before. By Mr. Doster.— CJ. State if you can the precise date of the conversation between Atzeroth and Booth? A. I cannot; the place was in the office of the hotel and the time was early in the evening. CJ. How did you happen to hear them? A. I was sit ting in a seat near them: in a hrtel. we sometimes overhear parties, even when talking with others. CJ. Were they talking in a loud or low tone of voice? A. They were not talking in a very loud tone of voice. CJ. How near were you to them? A. Within two or three feet. CJ, Was the prisoner dressed then as he is now? A. I should think not; I did.not take particular notice, how ever; I passed it as 1 do a thousand other things. CJ. You do not recognize him, then, by his dress ? A No; by his appearance; I do not know as he had so much of a scowl upon his face then as now. Q. Was he as fleshy then as now? A. I could not say as to that; I did not take his dimensions as to his avoirdupois weight. CJ. You say you have not seen Atzeroth since then until to-day; about two months ago? A. About that. CJ. Have you repeated that conversation from that time until to-day? A. I spoke to Mr. King about it once. CJ. Are you in the habit of remembering conversa tions you overhear casually for two months? A. I remember some things a long time. CJ. Are you in the habit of remembering faces for that time? A, I do sometimes. CJ. And you can swear to that precise conversation? A. I have only undertaken to repeat the substance of it. CJ, Are you a lawyer? A. I am. CJ. And have you read the testimony In this case? A. Not generally at all; I have read the examination of two or three witnesses. By Mr. Coxe.— Q. Were the conversations you saw between Booth and O'Laughlin in the public hall? A. They were; I heard none of them. By the Court,— CJ. What is tbe character of your eye sight? A. I am somewhat near-sighted; I always wear glasses. Q. Doyou have perfect confidence in recognizing people's countenances? A. I would at the distance I saw these men. CJ. What was the impression created by this man who came Into your room that led you to follow him? A. It was his hasty entrance and hasty exit. Q. Did he seem embarrassed or mistaken when he entered the room? A. He seemed somewhat excited, and apologized by saying he had made a mistake. CJ. Had you occupied that room previous to that day? A. I had been changed into that room perhaps ten days previously. Cross-examination of Ii. S. Rol>y. By Mr. Ewing.— Q. State where you live. A. In Charles county, Maryland. CJ. Were you in Bryantown on the day after the assassination ofthe President? A. I was on the even ing of that day ; I arrived there at three o'clock, I guess. CJ. State what you heard about tbe assassination of thePresident. A. We heard before getting there of the fact, but I did not believe it: when we got near there, however, I found soldiers stationed along the road, and I inquired of them and they said it was a fact; I made inquiry as to who was tbe perpetrator; they said it was somebody who belonged to the theatre; they did not give the name, and spoke as'though they did not know; I had conversation with several; there was a greatdeal of confusion, but before I leit I heard it was Booth, from Dr. George Mudd. CJ. Were you about Bean's store during the time you was there ? A. I passed it. but did not go iu. Q. State whether you are acquainted with D. J. Thomas, who has been a witness for the prosecution ? A. I am. Q. Do you know bis reputation m the neighborhood in which he lives, for veracity ? A. It is bad. CJ. Prom vour knowledge of his reputation for ve racity would you believe him under oath? A. I do not believe I would. Cross-examined by Colonel Burnett.— CJ. How near do you live to Mr.' Thomas? A. Within four or five miles. CJ. How intimately have you known him for the last four or five years? A. I have known him quite inti mately. CJ. State what your own attitude has been toward the Governmentsince tbe Bebellion? A. It is my belief I have been a loyal citizen; I have done no overtactin any shape or manner. CJ. Have you said anything against the Government or triven any counsel or assistance to the Rebels? A. No; tberearesomeactsoMhe Administration thatl have not spoken pleasantly about ; nothing else. CJ. Haveyousaidanythingagainst any of the speci fications of the Government in seeking to put down this Rebellion? A. I do not think Ihave. CJ. Have you maintained the attitude of a friend of the Government or of a friend to the South during the Bebellion? A. Shortly after the war broke out I took an oath of fealty to the Government, and have strongly adhered to it, neither turning to the left nor to the right. CJ. What acts of the Administration have you talked against? A. Arbitrary arrests. CJ. Arbitrary arrests of Rebels? A. No, of citizens. Q. Were they not Rebels? A. No, they professed to be loyal citizens; I do not recollect who they were. CJ. Do you recollect a man by the name of Joyle? A. Ido. CJ. Do you know bim as the man who murdered Captain Watkins? A. I have only seen him once since that time. Q. Did you not harbor him and feed him after the murder? A. No sir; he came to my house on the morning after the general election; I live not far from the road: he only stayed a short time; the only time I haveseen him since the murder was once on the road. By Mr.Ewing.— CJ. In your statement in regard to the veracityof Mr. Thomas as a witness did you refer to his reputation before or since the war? A. All the time; he seems io be a kind of man who will imagine things that are not true, and get to believe they are facts, and stick to tbem all the time. By Judge Bingham.— CJ. You do not mean to say that he would tell what he did not believe to be true? A, No, but he would tell thiugs not true, although he believed them himself to be true. Testimony of E. D. K. Bean. By Mr. Ewing.— CJ. State your occupation? A. lam a merchant atBryantown. CJ. State whether the prisoner, Dr. Mudd, made any purchases.of you the day after the assassination ofthe President? A. I think I sold him some calico; I only remember the day from some circumstances that fixed it in my mind. CJ. State what you heard that dav in Bryantown as to the assassination of the President? A. I heard that day that the President was assassinated; I asked by whom, and I understood it to be a man of tbe name of Boyle, who was said to have murdered Captain Watkins. Q. Did you on that day hear that it was Booth who assassinated the President? A. I cannot particularly say; my impression is that I did not on that day. CJ, Were there soldiers in and out of your store that day, and citizens? A. Yes, and tbe subject of the as sassination was the general topic of conversation. CJ. State whether you had any conversation with the prisoner, Dr. Mudd, about the assassination? A. The day I sold him the calico I had some discussion with him on that subject; I remarked to him it was bad news. Judge Bingham— It is not competent for the witness to state that conversation. Mr. Ewing said he was aware that similar questions hadbeen overruled, butstill.believingthequesLion waa a proper one, he desired to have it entered and the de cision of the Court upon ii . Tbe objection was sustained by the Court. CJ, Xc was the conversation you had with Dr. Mudd TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 131 that enabled you to fix the date whenyou sold the cali co, was it? A. Yes sir. Cross-examined by Judge Bingham.— Q. When did you learn that Booth, was the man who had murdered President Lincoln? A. Really I do not remember the day. CJ. Then you do notknow that it was not on Easter Saturday, do you? A. I do not. CJ. Did you hear, at the same time, that the man who had murdered tbe President had been traced to within three miles of Bryantown? A. I do notknow whether itwasatthesametime;Iheardsome time that he was traced to within three or three and a half miles of that place. CJ. Can you tell how you heard it? A. I do not know; it was in general conversation. CJ. Did you connect thesale of the calico with that feet, as well as the killing of the President by Booth? A. I did not; I think I did not hear of that fact. CJ. How do you know it was on Monday? A. I do notknow. 1 CJ. And you cannot positively state that it was not on Saturday? A. No sir. By Mr. Ewing.— Q. But your impression is that you did not hear it on Saturday? A. My impression is that I did not. Testimony of John R. Giles. ' By Mr. Cox.— CJ, Where do you reside? A. AtRull- tuan's Hotel, Pennsylvania avenue, Washington. Q. Do you know the accused, Michael O'Laughlin? A. Yes, I have known him personally for about four months. CJ, Did you see him on tbe Thursday before the as sassination ofthe President? A. I saw him in the evening: he was with a Mr. Murphy, with Lieutenant' Henderson, Purdy and several others. CJ. Where was it? A. It was at our place, two doors from t,he- After further argument, the commission decided not to sustain the motion of Mr. E»ving. Testimony of Miss Minnie Pole. By Mr. Ewing.— I am acquainted with the prisoner Arnold; saw him on the 20th of March, in an omnibus going to Hookstown, and the 27th at his uncle's on the occasion ot a party there; saw him again on the 23th at witness' house, near Hookstown Judge Advocate Holt stated that having learned that tne defense would notcall any furmer witnesses | with a v^ew to impeach the character of the witness TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 147 for the prosecution, Lewis J, Weichman, he would now call several witnesses for the prosecution. Testimony of John Ryan. By Judge Advocate Holt.— Have been acquainted with Lewis J. Weichman for nearly a year, though not intimately, merely having occasional conversa tions with him as I met him on the street; bis repu tation for veracity and uprightness has always been food; from my knowledge of his character I would elieve him under oath, or if not under oath; do not believe he would tell a falsehood; I recollect a con versation which took place between him and myself about the time of the evacuation of Bichmond; my Impression is that during the conversation he re- iolced at the prospect of a restoration ofthe Union; lave no recollection that he ever expressed any Other than loyal sentiments. Cross-examined by Mr. Eakin.— Cannot remember any conversation with Weichman on political sub jects prior to the evacuation of Bichmond, other tban that of which I have spoken; do not recollect ever having heard him express any other tban Union sen timents; he never represented to me that his relation with the War Department was of a confidential nature; never heard anytning said against his character for honesty and veracity. Examination of Frank Statt. By Judge Holt.— I have known Lewis J. Weichman about sixteen months; his reputation as an honest, truth-telling man is very good indeed, as far as Iknow it; we were both in the public service in thesame Office; he bore an excellent reputation for loyalty there: he was always outspoken and frank in bis friendship lor the Government, as far as I knew; he was connected witb a military volunteer organization for the defense of Washington. Cross-examined by Mr. Aiken.— I made my ac quaintance with Mr. Weichman as a clerk in the War Department; my relations with him were rot very in timate; I never heard of his being a detective. in the War Department, the military organization of which I speak was composed exclusively of clerks iu the De partment; it was considered at the time the organiza tion was formed equivalent to dismissal from office not to join it. Testimony of James IP. Yon.ig;. By Judge Holt.— I am clerk in General Meigs' office; Ihave known the witness Weichman since 1856; his reputation has been that of an honest, truth-telling man, without any reproach whatever; I was a college classmate with him in the Central High School of Philadelphia, in tbe summer of 1856; be remained In that college two or throe years; I met him in Wash ington about eighteen months ago, and have since been verjT intimate with him; I have bad many con versations with him on the subject of the country, and I regard hiraas an entirely loyal man; I may state that be was a member of the Union League; he has at all times been frank and unhesitating in his expres sions of loyalty. Cross-examined by Mr. Aiken.— The Central High School of Philadelphia is both a college and a school for boys; we entered Divisions n, G and P. which cor responds with the " freshmen class" in college; I never heard Weichman declare his intention to become a minister; I could not state whether or no his inten tion to join the military organisation to which he be longed was an equivalent to his dismissal from office or not; I don't know when be joined the Union League; I am also a member, and I know tbat he is by unmistakable signs; Mr. Weichman gave the signs by which members know each other. CJ. What signs did he give you? A. He gave me signs which are peculiar to the Union League. Q. What are these signs? The question was objected to by Judge Bingham as wholly Immaterial. General Poster— I object to the counsel taking up the time of the Court by asking any such questions. Mr. Aiken— My object is to show that the witness does not know that he is a member of the Union League, the only competent evidence being his signa ture to its Constitution. But I withdraw the question. Testimony of P. T. Ransford. P. T. Bansford was called, and gave the same testi mony as the last two witnesses in respect to Weich- man's loyalty. Testimony of Jonn T. Uollahan. By Colonel Burnett. — I have resided in Washington all *ny Ui'&\ commenced boarding at Mrs. Surratt's house, on H street, the first week in February, and con tinued till the Saturday night after the assassination; saw Atzeroth there several times at meals,"but did not know him by name; I saw Payne there once, at break fast, under the name of Wood; Atzeroth was with John Surratt and two or three friends, all together at the table; heard none but general conversation; did not know of Mrs. Surratt's defective eye-sight; I was al- wp.vs recognized by her; I have seen Booth there fre quently in Ihe parlor, with Mrs .Surratt aud the young ladies; I never saw Harold at that house: I saw Mrs. Slater there: I was dressing myself one morning about ha'f-past seven o'clock, and saw Mrs. Slater getting into an open carriage; Mrs. Surratt was on tbe pavementat the time, talking to th.s lady; I am not positive whether she gave this lady any assistance or not; this was ebout two weeks previous to the assassi nation; 1 saw John H. Surratt ior ihe last time on the • 8d of April; I didn't know then where he bad returned from; I lcarned.it after the assassination, from Weich man; the last time I saw John H. Surratt previous to the 3d of April he was getting into a buggy with this lady; he rapped at my room door about iu o'clock On tbe night of the 3d of April, the day the news was re ceived; of the evacuation of llichmond; I gave him sixty dollars, in payment of forty in gold he exchanged with me; hesaid he wanted to go to New York, and could not get it discounted in time for the early train. Cross-examined by Mr. Aiken.— I dont know who Atzeroth came there to visit: I don't know anything of the displeasure of ihe family .at Atzeroth beingthere, except from what I have heard them say; they sometimes made fun of him, while he was there; I was not at the house often at night, and don't know whether Mrs. Surratt was able to read and sew by gas-light or not. Q, Can you state whether Weichman gave himself upaltertheassassination.or whetherhewas arrested and taken to the police office. Question objected to by Colonel Burnett as not legiti mate to cross-examination, Q. Did you accompany Weichman to Canada. Question objected to by Colonel Burnett ior thesame reason as above. Q. Who were the first parties who entered Mrs. Sur ratt's house the night after tbe assassination. Colonel Burnett. You need not state that. Q. State if yOu have any knowledge of John H. Sur ratt being in this city since the 3d of April? A. None, Q. Did you see Weichman at three o'clock Saturday m rnlig, April 15th? A. I did. Q. wnere was he?' Colonel Burnett— All this is outside a proper exami nation. Mr. Aiken stated that the counsel for the defense had not objected to any testimony» legal or illegal, sought to be introduced by the Government, and they claimed the same liberality in introducing testimony tending to shield the accused Irom the crimes with wfcwch tbey were charged. Colonel Burnett replied that the rebutting evidence, as to this point, was commenced by the Government upon the statement of the counsel for Mrs. Surratt tnat bis evidence for Impeaching the character of Weichman was closed; he denied that the Govern ment had introduced any evidence not legal or legiti mate. Mr, Ewing said that with the consent of the Judge Advocate, he proposed to put some questions to this witness, as awitness for the delense. Colonel Burnett assented, and the examination was continued by Mr. Ewing: I know a Mr. Jarboe: I do not know whether his name is Judsonornot; I never saw him at Mrs. Sur ratt's house or heard of his being thefe; I never knew ti:e prisoner, Dr. Mudd, to go there or heard ofhis being at the house. Q. state whether Weichman gave himself up after tbe assassination of the President. Questim ol jected to by Colonel Burnett. Mr. Aiken had been excluded from asking the question because he had stated that he hud close his evidence upon this po.nt and he desired now to see whether the Court would allow the same list of questions to be turned over to the counsel for another prisoner and in no way afl* cted by the testimony and put to the witness. Mr. Ewing declared the reprimand as unnecessary and exceedingly out of place. It was net the business ot the C urt to know where he" got his questions, and the Assistant Judge- Advocate had stepped beyond the proprieties of his position when he undertookto get that iniormution. He would, however, state that the questions were written by himself originally and handed by him to Mr. Aiken, who was examining the witness. Col. Burnett said that Mr. Ewing was only permitted to make the witness his own by his courtesy, and he now withdrew his consent. Judge Holt remarked that the witness had been placed in the hands of Mr. Ewing as his own witness, and he doubted the right now to withdraw his con sent. Judge Bingham made the further objection of the incompetency ofthe testimony, till the foundation had b^en laid, of asking the question first of Mr. Weich man himself. The objection was sustained by the Court, Q. Did you go with Weichman to Canada and back? A. I did; he appeared to be a good deal excited; he was much excited tbe morning after the murder; the first persons who entered Mrs. Surratt's house on the Saturday after the murder were McDevitt, Clark and others, of tbe Metropolitan Police; It was about two o'clock in the morning; I think'Weichman opened the door to let the men in; I did not see whether he was dressed or not; 1 took Weichman down myself 148 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. to Superintendent Richardson the morning after; he did not express himself as wishing to be delivered up. Testimony of Jas. McDevitt. By Col. Burnett. —I went to Mrs. Surratt's house with other officers, about 2 o'clock the night after tne mur der; a lady put her head out of one of the upper win dows and asked who was there; we asked it Mrs. Sur ratt lived there, and she said-shedid; Weichman then came down and opened thedoor; be appeared as if he had just gotten out of bed; he wasin bis shirt, pants and stockings; he went to Canada in my charge for the purpose of identifying John H. Surratt: he had abun dant opportunity to escape while in Canada, and, in fact, I le.t him in dnadaand returned to New York. Cross-examined by Mr. Aiken.— Weichman did not makeany coniessionsin regard to himself; when. I leit him in Montreal he was iu company with officer Beg- ley, but he could have escaped, ior he went out once with a citizen of Montreal, accompanied by au officer, to identuy some parties at St. Lawrence Hall. Judge Bingham objected io the testimony as imma terial. Everybody knew that when Weichman was taken within a foreign jurisdiction he was free. Witness.— I did not find John H. Surratt at St. Law rence Hall; his name was registered on the 6th of April, and again on tne 18th; he le.t the hotel tbe day we arrived in Canada, which was oh tbe 20ih of April; I got the first information that I would be likely to find Surratt in Montreal, and that is tbe reason why I topk Weichman there; Mrs. Surratt stated to me when I called there that sue had received a letter that day from John, dated in Canada; we were inquiring for the son; she said she had not seen him for two weeks, but had received a letter from him that day: I asked her where it was, she said, ''somewhere about the house:" 1 could not find the letter; I didn't ask Mrs. Surratt to find it. Testimony of J. Z. Jenkins. By Colonel Burnett.— The witness detailed the par ticulars of assembling a party of Union men in the early part ot the war, and watching a flag lora night and a day to prevent Secession sympathizers from hauling it down. The witness was, at that time, the onty man of any. means not a Democrat in his district. He made great ehorts and expended money needed for bis family in getting Union voters. He had al ways been a loyal man, and voted for Charles B. Cal vert in li(j2, but in the last election voted ior Harris, Democrat, the first time in his life he had ever voted the Democratic ticket. Hehadnot lost any property in consequence of the war, except his negroes, and never made any complaints of tuat. Testimony of Andrew Collenback. By Colonel Burnett.— I met J. Q. Jenkins on the night of the 17 m ox May, at .Floyd's Hotel, in Surratts ville: hesaid he understood! had been telling lie3 on bim, and if ho found it to be the truth, he wuuidgive me the whipping I ever had: after that he said if I test.fied against him, or any one connected with him, he would give me a whipping; that was in the presence Oi Mr. Cottingham and Mr. Floyd; he did not mention Mrs. Surratt's name; I have known him about ten years, and never heard him express any disloyal sentiments; I did not consider him on that oc casion very drunk, but he had been drinking. Cross-examined by Mr. Aiken.— I did not take any son of mine to Alexandria and put him in the Bebel army; he went there by his own consent, ana without mine; I did not place any restrictions in the way of his going; Mrj. fcurratt has not given my family very much inthe wiiyoc'lood and ciothes; she has not been a friend any more than one neighbor would be to anothei; my son returned from the .Rebel army about three weeks ago; 1 have been a Democrat in politics during the war: I do not recollect that I baveotten said l wished the South to succeed or expressed disloyal senti ments. Testimony of Jiulson Jarbol. By Mr. Ewing.— I live in Prince George county; I do not know of any other Judson Jarbol living m that county; I never saw the prisoner. Dr. Mudd, before his arrest, and d.d not meet him la?t winter on H street, or anv other time; I saw Mrs. burratt in April; I had not seen her lorthree years before; I have notseeu the Kev. Mr. Evans, who used to live i n our neighborhood, for several years until recently; I met him some three weeics ago on the street; I was standing on tbe corner ol Gaud Seventh street, and he walked past me; he used to attend the Methodist church in my neighbor hood. Cross-examined by Judge Bingham.— I know John H. Surratt; have not met him very often; I met him on seventh street some time early in March, at a res taurant oppo-ite Odd Pel. ows' Hall; several persons were with uim; I cannot state who; I only just spoke to him; I did know J. Wilkes Booth; I know Harold; he was not with Surratt when I met him on Seventh Street; I do not think I knew any of the other persons except Mrs. Surratt; I met her at the Carroll Fr son 1 was unfortunately there myself: my daughter wasin a room with her, and I went to tue room to see my daughter; I did not talk to her about John o/about Harold; Ido not know that Igpt into any part cular trouble witn the Government; I was arrested on tne road on tne loth of April; I do not know rWhy, there is no charge against me that I know of; I would like to know if f am here as a witness or on trial. Judge Bingham.-You have the right to decline on the ground mat the answer will criminate you. lwaut to know whether you were not accused of offences against tbe Government in Maryland? A. I do not mink I was; I do not know what I was anested lor; J. have not heard of a soldier being killed lately down m my neighborhood; they asked me something about a man named Boyle, if I knew him. and it I had not harbored him; i told thein I had not; they said he was charged With the murder ot a man by the name or Watkins; I knew Boyle when he was a boy, but 1 have not seen bim for lour years; Ido notknow when the murder was committed; Captain Watkins lived a long ways from me; I do not think 1 have joined in any jol lification in honor ox" Bebel victories; I comd not ex pect the success of the Bebellion. . Mr. lowing said this was a species of inquisition of a witness not olten indulged in. J udge Bingham stated that the witness must answer, unless on tne ground that ids answer would criminate himself. The examination was a proper oue. Tue witness resumed.— I hardly know what will cri minate ine here. (Laughter.) q. Is it'your opinion that tnese Confederates down here are criminals at all? A. Ido not know much about it. q. Have you not expressed an opinion that the Con federacy was all right? A. I dj not think I have. Q. Do you not tmnk that way? A. I think a good many things. Q. State whether you made an assault upon a man on election day, about lour years ago, and what you did to him. A. Are you going to try me for that, be cause 1 have been tried iorthattwice. (.Laughter.) U,. fcj..ate whether you attacked a man down there about four years ago, and kiiled him.. A. There was a pretty smart attacK. made on me; I understand the man was killed, but I do not know who did it; I have answered these questions be/ore, and I do not know whether I ought to answer tnem again; I could not tell whetner somebody killed him or not. U. Didyou bavea hand in it? >No answer. <4. What was the man's name mat was killed? No answer. Mr. Ewing to witness.— If you have any statement you widii to make 01 the circumstances or' the case you can maue it. Witness.— I do not know whether the Judge wants to know ail the particulars about it or not. I have been tried by our court and acquitted. Ly Mr. Ewing.— H. In wnat court were you tried? A. j.11 our cuuuty Court. Q,. Were you, during last spring, winter or fall in any house on II street, in Washington? A. I do not Uunk I was; I do not think I have any acquaintances living on H street; I do not know in whatp^rtof the city iurs. turratt lives; I never saw her house in my h.e, and do notknow anyming about her residence at all. By Judge Bingham.— Q. You say you were tried in your county court; what vvde you tried for? A. Isup- pu.elwus tried for what you said awhiie ago; you said 1 killed a man; 1 was tried in that case. U. Were you tried ior me murder of a Union man? A. 1 do notknow whether he was a Union man or not. Mr. Tnompson and Dr. B.amord were called by Mr. Aiuen, and testified to me loyalty of me witness, J.Z. J eni^ins. Reexamination of Miss Anna Surratt. By Mr. Aiken.— Q. State whetheryou recognize that picture. (Picture containing the motto, "Tnus will it e^erbe with tyrants: Virginia the mighty; Sic semper tyruunis,") A. "Yes; it was given to me by a lady about two and a half years ago; jl asked her ior it; she at first re. ustd 10 give it tome; I put it in my portfolio, and it hasl-iin there ever since; x have scarcely seen it. By Mr. Ewing.— Q. How long have your lamily been living at the house they now occupy on H street, be tween sixth and Seventh sireeis? A. Since the first of October last. (4. Have they occupied any other house in Washing ton? A. Nosir. Q. Have you seen Judson Jarboe at your house? A. JNo; he never visited there and 1 never saw him there* ihave seen him pass, when! wasin the country, in a buggy, but have never spoken to him; I was not ac quainted with him. U. Are ypu the only daughter of Mrs. Surratt? A. Yes. I amber only daughter. U. Did you ever see or hear of Dr. Samuel Mudd being at your house? A. No sir. *«.¦«*<• The Court then adjourned. TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 149 THURSDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. Washington, June 8.— The record ofthe previous day was read. Mr. Ewing. with the consent of the Judge Advocate, filed in evidence Order No. 26. dated February 2-1, 1863, defining the boundaries of the Military Department of Washington, together with a map, identified by a witness, Dr. Blandford, as correct, showing the roads and localities in the neighborhood of the house of the prisoner. Dr. Mudd. Judge Advocate Holt filed in evidence, without ob jection. Order No. 141, certified by the Secretary of War, promulgating tbe proclamation of the President of the United States, and dated Sept. 24, 18J2, suspend ing the writ of habeas corpus, and providing ior the trial by military authority of all disloyal persons, and aiders and abettors of tbe Rebellion, &c. The Secre tary of War certifies that the order is a true copy, and that the same is in mil force and not revoked. Mr. Aiken asked permission to offer in evidence, on the part of Mrs. Surratt, the mllowing paper;— St. Lawrence Hall, Montreal. June3, 1865.— I am an ac< or by profession, at present fiJUng an engage ment at Mr. Buckland's Theatre in this city; I arrived here on the 12:h of May; Iperformed two engagements at Ford's Theatre in Washington during the past win ter, the last one closing on Saturday evening, 25th of March; Heft Washington on Sunday evening, 2fith of March, and have not been there since; I have no recol lection of meeting any person bv tbe nameof Weich man. JOHN McCULLOUGH. SWornto and subscribed beore me, at the United States Consulate General in Montreal, this third (3d) day of June, A. D. 1865. G. H. PO WE US. Vice Consul -General. Judge Bingham objected to the reception of the paper on the ground that it was wholly Immaterial whether Mr. McCuilough ever met the witness Weich man or not. Weichman, when on the stand, had been asked by the other side whether he saw McCuilough, and it was not competent now to attempt to impeach him oh that issue, as it was not material whether he d.d or not see McCuilough. Mr. Eakin said the paper furnished a complete refu tation of a statement made by Weichman, so far as concerned the fact of his having seen McCuilough. and this was material i'i so farasit contradicted one item ofthe statement of that witness. JudgeAdvocate Holtread from several authorities insupportof the position assumed by the prosecution. Theobjectionof the Judge Advocate was sustained and the paper ruled out. Testimony of Colonel J. C. Holland. By Mr. Ewing. —I am Provost Marshal for the Fifth Congressional District ot Maryland; I am acquainted witn Daniel J. T nomas; I did not at any time during last spring or winter receive a letter from, him to the eflect that Dr. S. A. Mudd had said to him that Presi dent Lincoln, bis whole Cabinet and every Union man in the State of Maryland would be killed within six or seven weeks: I never received from Thomas any let ter in which the name of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd was mentioned; I did receive a letter from him, dated February 4Kb, 18U5: Mr. Thomas was what was called an independent detective, that is he was not commis sioned under the Government, but by me specially to arrest deserters and drafted men who failed to report, forwhich his compensation w-is tbe reward allowed by law for such arrests; such commissions were given to all who applied for them. m, , By Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett.— Tbe letter which I read from Thomas had some reference to Dr. Geo. Mudd, with whom I am acquainted. The hour of one o'clock having arrived, the Commis sion took a recess until two o'clock, at which time the body reassembled. Testimony of Alex. Browner. By Mr. Doster.— I live in Port Tobacco; I have known the prisoner Atzeroth lor the last six or eight years; Atzeroth was at Port Tobacco several time3 during the spring; at one time, about the latter part ot February, I was going to the country, and he went with me: I think on that occasion be had come from Bryantown, and was riding aisorrel horse; I never considered the prisoner a courageous man; be is gene rally known as being a coward; as an instance of his want of courage, Ihave seen him make pretty good timein getting out ofthe way when a pistol was fired during a melee or anything of that kind. Testimony of John S. Baden. By Mr. Ewing.— I liye in Prince George county, Maryland. I am acquainted with Daniel J. Thomas. He is generally known as a very untruthful man. From my knowledge of his character I do not think I would believe him unuer oath. Cross-examined by Judge Advocate Holt.— I never knew Thomas to swear falsely. I do not hold that be cause a man speaks an untruth he will necessarily swear falsely. Mr. Ewingstated that there remained to be called eight witnesses in the case of Mudd, whom he desired to question, with a view to an impeachment ofthe wltness'Ttioma;, but they were not present. One of th? witnesses was expected to testify in regard to the whereabouts of Mudd on the 23d of December last. Mr, Doster stated that, in the case of Payne, he de sired to ca 1 six additional witnesses, for tne purpose of showing the antecedents of tbe prisoner, and the predisposition of his whole family to insanity. The precipes. for subpa^neasln the ca^es of these witnesses were filed at least ten days ago, and they should either now appear or some cause be shown for their conti nued absence. Iu the case of Atzeroth three wit nesses remained to be called, by whom It was ex pected to impeach a witness called for the prosecution. These three witnesses, the speaker stated, had ac knowledged to bim the fact that they had baeu sum moned, and yet, notwithstanding that, they had not appeared. J udge Advocate Holt inquired the names of the wit nesses not in attendance who did acknowledge to have been summoned. Mr. Dos. er gave their names as follows:— Associate Justice Olin, of the District of Columbia, Marcus P. Norton and Henry Burden. Jud^eHolt stated to the Commission that tbe wit nesses named had failed to anpear after having been duly summoned as stated by tne counsel and suggested the propriety tT using compulsory measures to secure their attendance. Mr. Doster said that he did not wish to beunderstood as asking for the arrest of the witnesses; tnat be would nesitate long beiore askiug for tbe arrest of a J udge of the Supreme Court. J udge Dolt remarked tbat those who administered the law ought certainly to show obedience to it. Ho had u.ider.-tood that Judge OAa had adjourned his Court to-day in consequence of the military review which was takingplaeein Washington, and if the Com mission so ordered, be would take measures to compel theattendanceot' that gentleman beiore the body as soon as pj^sible. Mr. Doster said that the testimony proposed to bo taken in Payne s case was very material, inasmuch as the question of insanity could not be passed upon by Dr. Mitchell, whom tbe Court had permitted to see the prisoner, until Payne's antecedents were proven, and this could not be done except by those absen t w 1 tnesses. Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett then prepared an order, which was indorsed hy tlie commission, di recting General Hurtranft, Provost Marshal of the court-room, to arrest and bring before the court, the witnesses named above who had failed to obey the process. Testimony of Francis R. Farrell, (Called for the Government). Q. Where did you re side? A. In Chanes county, Maryland, near Bryan town; I fell in with Dr. Mudd, the uuy following tho assassination; he came to my house on Easter Satur day, between 4 and 5 o'clock; he came down the new roLidwh.ch leads to Bryantown, and went back the same way; my house and Dr. Mudd's are about half way from Bryantown. Q. When Dr. Mudd was at your house was the assas sination ofthe President the subject or' conversation? Mr. Ewing oojeeted to the question on the ground that it was not rebutting evidence. Judge Holt said he could oiler it as an expression on the part ofthe prisoner, and on that ground alone. The Court voted that the question should be an swered. The witness answered.— I wasin my house wbenMr. Hardy, who was at the yard gate witn Dr. Mudd, hal loed to me that the President was assassinated, and Seward and son injured; I asked the Doctor about it and hesaid it was so: I asked him who assassinated the President, and tue Doctor replied a man named Booth: Mr. Hardy then asked him whether it was the Booth who was down here last fall; the Doctor said he did notknow whether it was so or not, as there we*e three or Jour by the name of Booth; it t hut was theonebe knew him; the Doctor said he was very sorry the t=»i ng had occurred. Q. How long did Dr. Mudd remain at your house? A. JSTot more than fifteen minutes; be did not give the particulars of the assassination. Cross-examined by Mr. Ewing.— Dr. Mudd said it was the worst thing which could have happened; it made it a great deal worse for the country than while the war was going on; Dr. Mudd seemed to be entirely in earnest; Dr. Mudd cametosee Mr. Hardy about some rail timber, and Hardy told him where he could get some, but Dr. Mudd said it was too lar to haul. Testimony of Edward Frazer. By Mr. Doster.— I baveknown theprlsoner, Atzeroth, for about ten years; during the latter part of February or earlv in March last he was at Port Tobacco ior a day ortwo; he may have stayed there longer tban that; among those who know bim be has the name of being a pretty good natured fellow, but lacking cVmrage; I have known him on several occasions ro act cowardly 150 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Testimony of Lewis Harkins. By Judge Advocate Holt.— Q. State where you re side? A. 1 reside in St. Louis, and have resided there for eight or nine years. Q. You may remember tbat within the last year or two there bave been extensive burnings of steam- boatson Western and Southern waters. State to the Court any knowledge you may have concerning agents ofthe Confederate Government who were engaged in that business, and who tbey were? A. A man by the name of Tucker was one, Minor Mayers was another. Q. Is he a Missourian? A. Yes sir. Q. Was be in the service of the Confederates? A. Yes sir; Thomas L. Clark was another; a man by the name of Barrett was another. Q. They were all agents of the Confederate Govern ment, so called? A. Yessir. Q. State in what business tbey were engaged. A. Bnrning steamboats on the Mississippi, Ohio and other rivers. Q. Was the man Barrett of whom you speak a law yer, or had he ever been a member of Congress? A, I could not say; I have heard him called Colonel Bar rett. Q. State how these men were associated together and what were their operations. A. Their operations consisted in burningsteamboats carryingGovernment freight, boats that were used as army transports and some that were not so used. Q. Do you know by means of what combustible ma terials these steamboats were burned? A. No sir; I suppose it was done by matches. Q. Will you enumerate the boats that were burned by the operations oftheseparti.es? A. Tbe steamboats Imperial and Kobert Campbell, the-steamer Jjimiel D. Taylor and others were burned at Louisvirie; there were boats burned at New Orleans, but I do not recollect their names. Q. Were they large vessels? A. Some were large and some small; they were owned by private parties. . Q. Was tnere any loss of life connected with the destruction of those vessels? A. There was on the Babtrt Campbell. Q. Weretnevourned in the stream or while lying near theshore"? A. TneHo'oert Campbell was burned in the stream while under way. (J. Was it understood that the agent was on board, Or tbat he had merely deposited combustible matter in tbe vessel? A. He was on board. Q. Where was that vessel burned? A. At Milliken's Bend, twenty-five miles above Vicksburg. Q. Was thereconsiderablelossot' life? A.Yessir. Q. State whether the plan of operations embraced the destruction of the Government hospitals and storehouses? A. It embraced anything pertaining to the army. Q. Do you know anything of the burning of a hos pital at Nashville? A. I do not; all that I know is that a certain man claimed compensation ior it. Q. Do you. know the man who claimed compensa tion from tbe Confederate Government for that ser vice? A. His name was Dillingham. Q. Whatamountdid he claim? A. He did not put any amount; he just put in a statement. Q. To Bichmond? A. Yes sir. Q. Atwhattime was that hospital burned? A. In June or July, 1804; the fire occurred at night; I did not bear of anybody being burned. Q. Stale whether or not you have been at Bichmond. A. I have. Q. Did you while there have an interview with Jef fer»on Davis, the so-calloa President of the Confede racy, and Benjamin, the Secretary of State? A. Iwas in Bichmond from the 2uth to the 25th day of August, 1864, and then had an interview with the Secretary or War, Secretary of State and Jefferson Davis. Q. State what occured at that interview, A. Mr. Thomas L. Clark, Dillingham and myself went there in connection with boat burning, and put in claims to Mr. James A. Seddon. to wuom Iwas introduced by Mr. Clark; Seddon said he had thrown up tli at busi ness; tbat it was now in the hands of Mr. Benjamin; we went to Mr. Benjamin and presented our papers to him; he looked at the papers and asked me whether I was in St. Louis; I told him I was; he asked me whether I knew anything about the papers; I told him I did: that I be lieved they were right; he then asked Mr. Clark if he knew me to be right; Mr. Clark said that I had been represented to him by Mr, Magers as being "all right:" he told me to call again the next day with Mr. Clark and Mr. Dillingham; that he had shown the papers I had left to Jetferson Davis, and he wanted to fcnow whether we would not take thirty thousand dollars and sign a receipt in full; we told him we would not do it; well, hesaid, then if Mr. Dillingham was to claim this thing at Louisville, he wanted a statethent of that thing; we went back to the hotel andl wrote out a statement myself; it read tbat Mr. Dillingham had been hired by General Blsbop Polk and sent to Louis, ville expressly to do that wurk. Q. To tyjru the hospitals? A. Yes sir, and I signed Mr. Dillingham's name to it; that was given to Mr. Clark; Mr. Clark took it over to Mr. Benjamin, and madea settlement with him for fifty thousand dollars; thirty-five thousand dollars down in gold, and hi teen thousand on deposit, to bepaid him four months after wards, provided those claims proved correct; be gave usa draiton Columbia, S.C., for thirty-iour thousand eight hundred dollars and two hundred dollars in gold, inB'Chmond; the draft we got cashed iu Columbia and brought the money along with us. n . „ Q. You received tbe gold on tbat, didyou? A. Yes sir; while there Mr. Benjamin said that Mr. Davis wanted to see me; I went in, and Mr. Davis, Mr. Ben jamin and myself sat there and talked; the conversa tion-turned on a bridge between Nashville and Chat tanooga; the long bridge thev called it: Mr. Benjamin mentioned it first! believe; Mr. Davis asked me if I knew where it was: I told him I did, but I did not; I, had never been there; he said he wan ted to know what I thought about destroying that bridge; that they had been thinking about havingitdestroyed: ItO;d himl did notknow what to think about it; he said I bad bet ter sindv it over; £ finally toid himl thought it could be done,' and Mr. Benjamin (I think it was Mr. Benja min) made the remark that hewouldgive four hun dred thousand dollars if that bridge was de stroyed, and wanted to know if I would not take charge of the matter; I told him I would not have anything to do with it unless the papers were taken away from those meu down there, and that no body should be allowed to come up any more; they said it should be done; then the conversation turned on the burning of steamboats; I told Mr. Davis that I did nut think it was any use to burn steamboats, and he said ho. he was going to have that stopped; I then told him that the best way to stop that, would be to take the papers away from those men he had there im mediately; that there were men lying around theSouth whose papers, would run out, aud they would come back to get them renewed, and tbatltwouid not be done; he said that what I had suggested .should be done; I saw the uext day a published order revoking those papers. Q. These papers were permits or authority to do this1 work, were they? A. Yes sir. Q. He knew that you had received this pay for the work done? A. I presume he did; he knew that I had received i he money. Q. The statements you made out were statements of the service done and the amount claimed? A. Y'essir. Q. What was thesum originally demanded? A. Fifty thousand dollars; he wanted to pay us at first thirty thousand in-greenbacks. Q. You expressed theopinion to Davis that no good was to be accomplished by burning those boats in thai manner? A. I did. - Q. Andhesaidhe was going to abandon that policy? A. He did. . Q. He did not condemn what had been done? A. He did not condemn wnat had been done. Q,. He knew what had been done? A. He appeared to know. Q. Did you come to any understanding about rates in regard to the destruction ofthe bridge? A. We came to an understanding that we were to receive four hun dred thousand dollars for doing it; I asked Mr. Davis whether it made any difference as to where the work was done: he said it did not, that Illinoia would do; that it would include anything pertaining Lo Quarter master's stores f^rthe army, and that it ought to be as near Sherman's base as possible; thatSherm.au was the man who was doing them more harm than anyone else at that lime. Q. These men whom you have named Barrett, and others, were they in the Coniederate service? A. Yes. Q. Doyou know where Minor Majers is now? A. I bave every reason to believe that he was in Canada, and that he leit there and went to Bermuda Hundred; that was thelaso I heard from him. Q. Do you know whether all these men are mem bers of any secret organization? A. They principally all belonged to a secret organization. Q, What was the name of tbat organization? A. It goes by the name ct the O. A. K. organization. Q. Tne Order of American Knights? A. Yessir. Q. Will you say whether you were a member of the order? No answer. Q. You need not answer if by so doing you will crimi nate yourself. The witness made no reply. Q. You say you are not able to state decidedly the process by which these boats were burned. Were any combustibles besides matches used ? A. I do not think there were. Q. Do you remember the position which Barrett held in the association? A. I understood be held the position of Adjutant-General of the State of Illinois Q,. The Adjutant-General of the O. A. K's *> A I could not say whether of the O. A. K's. or of the Sons of Liberty. . Q. Doyou know whether Magers and Barrett were in July last at Chicago ? A. Mr. Magers left St. Louis either last June or July to go to Canada, and I presume he went then by way of Chicago. By the Court.— y. Was the steamer Hiawatha one of the number of those burned? A. She was. TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 151 Q. Do you recollect tbe number of lives that were lost then? A. I do not. Q. Do you recollect the number of lives lost on tbe Imperial^ A. I do not think there were any lost on the Imperial. Q. Khe was one ofthe finest and largest on the West ern waters, was she not? A. She was. Q. Are you a steamboat man? A. Yes sir. Q. What steamboats have you been running on? A. I was on the Von Phut last, Captain Vaughn. Testimony of John F. Hardy. I am acquainted with the prisoner, Dr. Samuel A. Mudd; my residence is in the same neighborhood witb thatof the prisoner. On the day after the Presidents assassination I methim about two hundred yards from my house, when he said to me that there was terrible news; that the President had beenkilled, and tbat Mr Seward and his son bad been assassinated by a man named Boyle. Booth's name was mentioned some how, and he said tbat he did not know which of the brothers it was; that there were several. This conver sation took place shortly alter sundown of theiGth. He said nothing about two men having been at his house. I bad seen Booth at the church there last fall and asked his name, when I was told that it was Booth; and at tbe time of the conversation with thn:prisoner, t I asked him when Booth's name was mentioned whether it was the same Booth who had been down there before, and he said he did not know. Cross-examined by Mr. Ewing.— Tbe conversation I have mentioned was commenced by the prisoner; he said he had got tbe news from Bryantown, where he had been; he seemed to feel all the sorrow be ex pressed in regard to the assassination: the object of tbe prisoner visiting me at the time was in regard to some rail timber; when I first saw Booth down there I think it was some time in November, and that it was about a month alter when I saw him a second time! I did not see or hear of any one'having been with the prisoner when I met him. By Judge Bingham.— The prisoner did not tell me from whom he had received the news of the Presi dent's assassination, and nothing more than he had heard it from Bryantown. Testimony of Eli K. Watson. By Mr. Ewing.— I reside near Horsehead. Prince George county; I have been acquainted with Daniel J.Thomas since he was a boy; his reputation in the neighborhood in which he lived for veracity is bad: from my knowledge of his general reputation I would not be.ieve him under oath; I saw Thomas in my field on the 1st day of June: be then told me that he was a witness aeainst Dr. Mudd, and that Joshua S. Naylor had sworn to put down bis oath, but that if his oath stood he would get a portion ofthe reward offered for Booth. Cross-examined by Assistant Judge Advocate Bing ham.— The conversation in the field was begun by Thomas; he said he was going around to summon people as to his character, and that he was going to have me summoned as one. Cross-examination of Marcos P. Norton. I saw Booth play in Washington, and in thocityof New York, and also in Boston;! cannot tell now many times I saw him play; I cannot remember any parti cular fact connected with Booth's representations on the stage, because I never made any memoranda of Buch things, but frequently attended plays when away from home; was not personally acquainted with Booth; during my stay at tbe National Hotel I saw bim in conversation with others besides the p isoners. The cross-examination of this witness was continued further, but failed to bring out any new points. Testimony of Henry Burden. I live in Trov. and know the witness Norton who has just testified; his reputation for veracity is bad; I would not believe him on oath. Cross-examined by Judge- Advocate Holt— Ihave been Interested in a patent concerning horse shoes; Mr. Norton was eugaged as counsel on the opposite side; I cannot say that there was much ill-feeling oc casioned by that controversy: I did not form any opinion ot Mr. Norton's character because of that controversy; Iwas not acquainted with him at that time; my acquaintance with his character is based upon what I have known of him since; my relations with him have not been either of a particularly friendly or unfriendly character; when I declare to the Court that he is not to be believed on oath I am giving expression to the opinion of the mass ot tbe people of Troy who know him; my opinion is arrived at from the testimony by which he was impeached. The Court then adjourned. Washington, June 9,— Tbe reading of the previous day's record occupied until about 12 o'clock. Testimony of Judgre Abram EI. Olin. By Mr. Doster.— I have resided in Troy, New York, about twenty years; I know Marcus P. Norton, a law yer, who resided there; I know his reputation for ve racity to be bad; ifhis prejudices or passions were ex cited I would not believe him on oath. Cross-examined by Judge Holt.— I never had any private relations with Mr. Norton; in stating an opinion of his character for veracity I am also giving expression to the opinion of the peo ple of Troy; I have known him to be engaged in controversies concerning patents; I have known instances in which much feeling has been shown in such controversies; I knew Henry Burden, a citizen of Troy: Mr. Burden has had several suits and coutro versies with respect to inventions, in which suitsMr, Norton was interested as counsel; the conversations of a man of Mr. Burden's inftoence and position, with those of his friends, continued as they were, through a series of years, under the excitement of legal con troversies, may to some extent afford an explana tion ofthe repute in which Mr. Norton is held, among those who know bim; though his reputation was ques tionable belore, so far as the witness was aware. Testimony of Miss Mary Mudsl. By Mr. Ewing.— I am asisterof theprlsoner, Samuel A. Mudd; during the month of March last I saw him on the 2d, 3d, 4tli,5th,och and 7th; I remember the fact because on the 1st I was taken sick, and on each of those days-he was at thehouse where I resided; about this time a colored woman in the neighborhood was taken sick, and he attended her up to the 23d of March; be frequently called at our house to inquhe after my mother; on the 3d pf March be came there; I know he came twice from the fact that the first time he came hehad nomedicinewithhim.and went to get it; my father is very feeble and not able to travel; he is Con fined to his bed; on the 23d of March, the prisoner, my brother, came to Washington, in company with Mr. Llewellyn Gardner; during January he went to an'even- iugpartyat Mr. Harry Gardner's; he didnotowna' buggy ofany description; I never knew bim. to wear a black hat; he usually wore a drab cqlored slouch hat; I have not known of Andrew Gwynn being about my brother's house since lStil: I have beard since that he was in the Coniederate service; I know nothing of Coniederate officers or sol diers having ever stopped at my brother's bouse; I saw Booth at the church in that neighborhood on one occasion, at which time he purchased a horse from Mr. Gardner: Booth was»m Dr. Queen's pew at church when I saw bim; I never saw him but once: in 1849, 3850 and l8J)l„my brother was at college; he was not at home on holidays; I know nothing of Booth's having been lodged at my brother's house. Testimony of Jfohn 5*. Turner. By Mr. Ewing.— I live in the lower part of Prince Georges county; I am acquainted with Daniel J. Tho mas; his general reputation in the community in which he lives is not as good as 'it ought to be: the people do not think him a truthful man; I do not think I could believe him on oath; the reputation of Dr. Mudd as to loyalty has been verv good during the whole war; I have alwavs been loyal to the Govern ment; I voted for Mr. McClellan at tbe last election, because he said he was as good a Union man as Mr. Lincoln: otherwise, I have always supported the Administration; I have been acquainted witn the prisoner, Mudd, since be was aboy: I always considered him a loyal man, and I never knew or heard of his doing anything in support of tho Bebellion. Testimony of Folk Beak ins. By Mr. Ewing.— I live in Charles county, Maryland; have known Daniel J. Thomas, a witness for th© prosecution, as long as I can remember; his reputa tion in the community is very bad; from my know ledge of his reputation ior veracity. I would not be lieve him under oath, if he had any inducement to swear falsely; in 1861, 1 think it was, he told me be was going over to Virginia, and asked me to go. Cross-examined by Assistant Judge Advocate Bing ham.— Iwas persuaded to go to "Virginia, but did not go. ¦»* Several other witnesses were called whose testimony coincided with that already taken in impeachingthe veracity ot Daniel J. Thomas, and others, who have been called for the prosecution. The witnesses also testified to the loyalty of Dr. George Mudd. _ The usual recess of an hour was then taken, after which the following witnesses were called:— Re-examination of Miss N. Fitzpatriclc. By Mr. Aiken.— I was present when Payne was ar rested at Mrs. Surratt's house, but did not recognize him at the time, nor until the shirt sleeve was re moved from bis head at Gen. Augur's office; when Payne came to Mrs. Surratt's, before tbe assassination, he passed by the name of Wood; I have often threaded a needle In thedaytimefor Mrs. Surratt; I have known bereyesight tobe poor. By Mr. Ewing.— I know Judson Jarboe; I never saw him at Mrs. Surratt's. or heard of him being there; never knew ofthe prisoner, Dr. Mudd, being there, 152 TRIAL OF TnE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. By Judge Advocate Burnett.— Mrs. Surratt, her daughter and myseff were in the room with Payne at General Augur's office; Mrs. Surratt, in speaking of Payne, said tbat that was not John Surratt, but I never heard her say tbat she bad never seen Payne; I did not bear what passed when Mrs. Surratt was called out into tbe ball of her bouse to see Payne on the night of the arrest; I only heard Mrs. Surratt say that hewasnot JohnSurratt, and that whoever called that ugly man her brother was no gentleman. Testimony of Mrs. Nelson. I am the sister ofthe prisoner, Harold; never heard him speak of the accused. Dr. Samuel Mudd; I never heard the name of Mudd mentioned in the family. Testimony of Wan. J. Watson. By Mr. Ewing.— I live in Prince George county:' I am not very intimately acquainted with Darnel J. Thomas; saw bim on the 1st of June, when he said that if Dr. Mudd was convicted on his testimony.it would hecon- clusive evidence that he (Thomas) had given informa tion which led to the arrest of one of the conspirators; be asked metogive hiin a certificate that he was enti tled to the reward of ten thousand dollars. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham.— I told Thomas I would not give bim the certificate, and asked him whether, in his conscience, he believed himself entitled to the reward. •-. I would believe Thomas on oath, though his reputation is not as good as that of others. His general reputation for truth is not good, but I. think he lies moreinseif-praise than in any other manner. By Mr. Ewing.— Mr. Thomas was represented not to be a loyal man in the beginning of the war. At the last Presidential. election he electioneered for George B. McClellan. Re-exaanination of John T. Ford. By Mr. Ewing.— I have known the accused, Edward Spangler, nearly four years; his character for peace and kindness was well known, thoa^h he was dis posed todrink at times, which would not make him vicious, but would unfit himfor work; I never knew him to be involved in more than one quarrel while he was in my employ, and that was through drink; he was notaman who was likely to be intrusted with the confidence of others, not having much sell-respect; I never heard him express a political sentiment. A number of witnesses were then called , on the part of the prosecution, in regard to the character for veracity and integrity of Mr. L. F. Bates, a witness for tbe Government, who had testified that on the 19th of April last, Jefferson Davis stopped at nishoune in Charlotte, N. (M that he there made a speech, during wbich he received a telegram from John C. Brecken- ridge, announcing thedoath of President Lincoln, when bemade the remark, "If it were to be done, 'twere better it were well done." &c. All of tbe witnesses testified that they bad known Mr. Bates for years, and never knew or heard of his character being questioned. Examination of Wm. Wheeler. Bv Judge Advocate Holt.— I have been intimately acquainted with Marcus P. Norton from twelve to fit- teen years; I knew him first at school, in Vermont. subsequently at Troy. N. Y., where he now resides; I reside, when at home, at Lansingburg, three miles above Troy, of which place I was formerly a resident; from my personal knowledge of his reputation for truth and integrity, it is good; I would have no hesita tion in believing Mr. Norton under oath. Cross-examined by Mr. Doster.— I have been living In Washington since the 15th of April last: I have heard of cases of attempted impeachment of Mr. Nor ton, but I know nothing about them, except by general remark, that they were failures; one ortwo suchcases, I have understood, have essentially failed; when at school, which was from 1S50 to 1853, Mr. Norton was an active, persevering scholar; my relations with him have never been ot a particularly friendly character; he is engaged by first-class houses in Troy; I have not lived in Troy for filteen or twenty years. By Judge Advocate Burnett.— Mr. Norton has fre quently visited the county in which I live; I have also frequently met him inTroy; lam wellacquaintedwith the people there: about two years ago I was called on to give testimony in a case in which Mr. Norton was employed as counsel by a very reputable and wealthy firm. Testimony of Silas H. Hodges. I reside at present in Washington; hold the position of Examiner-in-Chlef of the Patent Ofiice; I have re sided in Rutland, Vermont, for over twenty years; I have been Intimately acquainted with Marcus P. Nor ton for eleven years; he is well known in the vicinity of Rutland; I never heard anything said againsthis re putation until within the last two or three years; any thing that I have ever heard against his reputation has grown out of previous litigation, in which he was con nected: outside of those cases, in which much angry feeling was exhibited, I never heard Mr. Norton's re putation questioned, and never heard of any attempt to impeach him before that litigation. Mr. Ewing stated to the court, as a means of saving time, the following proposition had been agreed to by the Judge Advocate. The three witnesses named had been sent for but had not arrived, and tbe counsel had not seen them. The proposition was as follows:— It is admitted bv the prosscution that John F. Watson, John Richardson and Thomas B. Smith, loyal citizens, will testify that they are acquainted with the reputa tion of Daniel J. Thomas, where be Hvps, and that it is bad, and that irom thev knowledge of it tbey would notbelievebim on oath: and further, that John A. Richardson, above named, will testify tbat Daniel J. Thomas, a witness for the prosecution, made the state- mentouthelstof Junelast. as sworn to by William Watson, before the court this day; and the prosecu tion agree that this statement be put on record and re ceived and weighed by the court, as though the said witness had actually testified before it. After some time spent in consultation with tbe coun sel for the prisoner. Dr. Mudd, Judge Advocate Holt stated tbat being disposed to allow the accused at the bar the benefit of all the evidence that could be ad duced in their favor, he had consented that the decla rations of Mudd concerning two suspicious men at bis house, previously ruled out by the Court, shouldbe taken for what they were worth. Re-examination of Benj. Gardner and S>r. George A. Mudd. Benjamin Gardner and Dr. Georee A. Mudd being then recalled for the defense, testified that Dr. Mudd stated on the Sunday morning after the assassination, that "we ought immediately to raise a borne guard and hunt up ail suspicious persons passing throueh out section of country, and arrest them, unless tbey can show that they are actually traveling under proper authority, for tbere were two suspicious persons at my house yesterday morning." To Dr. George A. Mudd the prisoner said, on Sunday morning that "he regretted the assassination, as It was a most damnable act;" he also narrated the particulars of the visit of two suspicious looking men to his house on the morning of the previous day, stating that they seemed to be laboring under some degree of excite ment more so than would be supposed to accompany themere.breakingof the leg of one of the men: that they stated thatthey had come from Bryantown, and inquired the way to Parson Wilmers; that whilst there one of them called for a razor and shaved off either his whiskers or moustache: that be in company with the smaller of the two went down tbe road towards Bryantown in search of a vehicle to take them away from his house, and that they finally left his house on horseback, going in the direction oi Parson Wilmer's; when about parting with each other the prisoner requested tbe witness, Dr. George D. Mudd, to communicate the fact of the presence of these suspicious men to tbe military au thorities at Bryantown, and that if called upon he wouldgive every information in his power relative to the matter, but he did not desire it to be publicly known that he had divulged tbe visit of these men, for fear of being assassinated by the guerrillas. Re-examination of Hon C. A. Dana. Tbe Hon. C. A. Dana was then recalled for the pro secution, and identified certain letters as having been received by bim when Assistant Secretary of War from Major-General Dix. One of these letters bearing date November^ 7, 1861, was signed by General DU.and was explanatory of tbe other, which has already been pub lished; being theone found in a Third avenue railway car of New York city, and commencing as follows:— '¦St. Louis, October 31, 1K61,— Dearest Husband. Why do you not enme home? you left me for two days only, and you have now been away from home more than two weeks, andin that long time only wrote me one short note— a tew cold words with a check for money which I did not require," etc. The witness stated, further, that unon receiving the lettersin question he took tbem to President Lincoln who looked at them without making any particular remark, as this was only one instance among many in which such communications had been received' the President, however, attached more importance to these communications than to others, as the witness subsequently found them in an envelope, which was marked, in the President's hand-writing, '-assassina- tion." Mr. Ewing then stated to the Court tbat the Judee Advocate-General had agreed to admit that D E Monroe, a witness for the defense, who was still ab sent, would testify that he beard at the church which pr. Mudd, the prisoner, attended on Sunday. April 16 from Mrs Moore, who had just come from Brvan- town, that it was Edwin Boo'h who was implicated in tbe assassination. * *'"*l'cl* A" A discussion arose among the members of the Court as to tbe-propriety of entering upon the record an v- tbing which was not sworn to as evidence After some time spent in this discussion the Court directed General Hartranft as Provost Marshal to send for and compel the attendance of D. E. Monroe, the absent witness. ' ° The Court then adjourned. TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 153 Washington, July 10.— The record of the previous day was read, and the examination of witnesses con tinued as follows:— Testimony of Daniel E. Morris. By Mr. Ewing.— I live in Charles county, Maryland; on the Sunday after the assassination of the President I heard from Mr. Moore, who came from Bryantown that morning, that it was Edwin Booth who assassi nated the President; know the reputation of the wit ness, Daniel J. Thomas, to be not very good; the peo ple consider him untruthful, and would not believe him under oath in tbe community in wbich be lived; Mr. Thomas would not believe be believed an oath; in the efforts of tbeGovernment to suppress the Rebellion E have sympathized with tbe Government, but did not approve ofthe abolition of slavery. The cross-examination of the witness developed no new facts. Testimony of I*. A. Gobrisrht. (Called for tbe defense.)— I am a Journalistic agent and telegrapbjteporter for the Associated Press; I was at Ford's Theatre on the night ofthe assassination, having reached there five minutes to 11 o'clock; there was ad ifference of opinion among persons at the theatre as to whether Booth was the assassin or not; during the short time I remained there, I was not at that time satisfied that Booth was the assassin. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham.— Q. But yon became satisfied during the night that it was Booth, and telegraphed that iact? A. I did not so telegraph that night. Q. You became satisfied, the next day, that Booth was the assassin? A. It was so announced the next morning in the official Bulletin. The counsel for the prisoners, Mudd, Spangler and Arnold. Mr. Ewing, announced to the Court that the case bad now been closed fOr the defense, so far as these prisoners were concerned. Mr. Doster, on behalf of the prisoner Payne, stated that Dr. Nichols, who had been permitted to examine the question ofthe prisoner's alleged insanity , was not yet prepared to report, and thatseveral witnesses who were expected to testify on that question, had not yet appeared, one of them being theprisouers lather, Rev. Mr. Powell, of Florida?" The President of tbe Court General Hunter, re marked that he had understood that Dr. Nichols could not give any report on the question of insanity until the prisoner's antecedents wereshown. and that, there fore, the Court would be asked to wait for the prisoner's father, who lived in Florida. Mr. Doster said that in the State of Maine it was cus tomary, when a plea of insanity was introduced in be half of the prisoner, to hand him over to aphysician for a proper determination of the question. He thought it not more than just that on a trial for his life, the prisoner should have the benefit of whatever evidence could be adduced in his favor; tbat wbile it might cost the Court a delay of six or eight days in awaiting the arrival of the witness summoned from Florida, the absence of tbe testimony ot that witness might cost tbe prisoner his life. He asked that the prisoner be per mitted either to bring his friends here orto be allowed a regular scientific investigation of his case. ¦ Judge Advocate Bingham stated that the prisoners . counsel had had forty days in which to procure the attendance of all witnesses, and that every application on the part of the delense for witnesses had been granted as soon as made. ^ , Judge Advocate Holt then called several additional witnesses for the prosecution. Examiaiation of Henry G. Edson. By Judge Advocate Holt.— I reside at St. Albans, Vermont; my profession is that of an attorney and counsellor at law; I was engaged as counsel du -ing the judicial investigation which occurred in Canada in connection with what was known as the St. Albans raid; while at St. Johns, Canada, I heard George N. Sanders say, in speaking of the St. Albans raid, that he was ignorant of it before it occurred, but was then sa tisfied with it; that it was not the last of the kind that would occur, but tbat it would be followed up by the depleting of many other banks and the burning of many other towns on the frontier, and tbat many a "Yankee" (using a coarse and vulgar expression) would be killed: he said that there were organizations of men ready to burn and sack Buffalo and other places, and that the Yankees woulu soon see these plans fully executed; that any preparations made by the Government to prevent them would not prevent, though they might defer them; Sanders at that time was acting as counsel for tbe prisoners. Testimony of John Ii. Ripple. By Judge-Advocate Holt.— I am a First Lieutenant of the Thirty-ninth Illinois Regiment, and entered the service as a private in 1861; was a prisoner of war, and Swas confined for six months at Andersonville, Ga.; while there I heard a Rebel officer, Quartermaster Huhn, state that if Abe Lincoln was re-elected he would not live to be inaugurated; that was before the Presidential election: be also stated tbat they had a partv in the North who would, attend to the President and Mr. Seward; I beard the Lieutenant in charge-of the guard say that they had friends who would see that Lincoln was not reinaugurated; that was, I think, after the Presidential election; tbe character of the food furnished to the prisoners at Andersonville was poor, both In quantity and quality; the prisoners died in large numbers, and I have no doubt that in many cases the deaths of the prisoners were brought about by starvation and the horrible treatment to which they were subjected; I beard the Rebel officers say in answer to tbe remonstrances of the prison ers that the1 treatment was good enough for them; theyshonid.eveiy one die; Ineard a certain Captain wilkes, woo had charge of theprisouers, say that on the first of July the location or tbe place in which the prisoners were confined, and everything connected with it, seemed to look to the creation of disease, and the infliction on the part of the Confederate authori ties of every possible suffering short of death; that Libby treatment, was notsobad; packs of blood- hounds were kept lying around the camp at Andersonville. There being no further witnesses present, Judge Ad vocate Holt gave notice that the Court could not wait much longer for the' witnesses in the case of Payne, who had failed to appear. The President of the Court stated that the Court would wait until Monday morning, at 11 o'clock, to hear the report of Dr. Nicholson the alleged insanity of Payne. Tbe Court then adjourned to the hour stated. Washington, June 12.— Tbe reading of the record of Saturday having been concluded, the following wit nesses were examined;— Testimony of Mrs. 1L. Grant. By Mr. Doster.— I reside in Warreuton, Va.; I re cognize the prisoner Payne as a man whom I saw on the road in front of my house, having three Union soldiers in his charge; an attempt was made to kill the prisoners, and the man called Powell (meaning Payne) tried to prevent it, and I heard him say that he was a gentleman- and wished to be treated as such; that if they attempted to kill tbe man he bad captured he would defend his' prisoner at the peril of his Hie; one of the prisoners was killed, when the party left the road, and I did not see them afterwards; the affair oc curred last Christmas. Cross-examined by Judge Advocate Holt.— I was speaking of the affair to a citizen, and telling him this man tried to save the Union soldiers, when I was in formed tbat his name was Powell; I bad not seen him before, nor have I seen him since until to-day, but I am certain he is the man. By the Court.— He was dressed as a Confederate, and I thought tbey called bim lieutenant; there were the marks of an officer upon him; he looked more genteel than the common soldiers. Testimony of John Grant. By Mr. Doster.— I am the husband of the witness who has just left the stand; at the time the affray oc curred in front of my house, about Christmas last, I was returning home and was within three hundred yards of my house, when the firing on the roads com menced; all I heard was that the prisoner at the bar, who went by the name of Powell, had tried to save the lives of two Union soldiers; the prisoner was not an officer, so far as I am aware. Testimony of J. P. Patterson. By Mr. Cox,— I am an ensign in the navy: I have known the prisoner, Michael O'Loughlin, about six years; on the afternoon of Thursday, the 13th of April, we came together from Baltimore to Washington, reaching here between five and six o'clock; we came up the avenue and stopped at Rullman's Hotel; I then went into a barber shop to get shaved, and the prisoner proceeded up the street, but rejoined me be fore I had been shaved; he was not out of my com pany at any other time that evening; I went up the avenue with him to look at the illumination, but did not go farther tban Seventh street; we went to the Canterbury about nine o'clock, and stayed there about three-quarters of an hour, after which we returned to Rullman's Hotel, getting there between ten and eleven o'clock; we remained there about half 154 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. an hour, and then went out again; the avenue was so crowded during the evening that it was almost im possible to get along; I can state positively that tbe prisoner was not near the house of tbe Secretary of War on Franklin Square at any time on Thursday evening; we retired between one and two o'clock on Friday morning; the prisoner was at his room when I called next morning; he was not with me on Friday afternoon; on Friday evening I met him at Rullman's Hotel; he was there .with me uutil ten o'clock, and then went out iu company with a man by the name of Fuller; that was after the assassination: we had arranged to return to Baltimore on Friday morning; andl proposed to stay until evening, which we did. Cross-examined by Judge Advocate Holt.— It was impossible for the prisoner to have been at the bouse ofthe Secretary of War before ten or eleven o'clock on the evening of the 13th of April, as I did not part with him at any time; when he rejoined me at the barber shop, after leaving me on Thursday afternoon, he told me he had been to see Booth; that was be tween 5 and 6 o'clock; the next morning he was to go to see Booth, and I called for bim at the National Hotel, but he was not there; I then went to his room and saw him there; he said he had been to see Booth, but did not see him: that Booth was out; he did not State bis object in endeavoring to see Booth. By Mr. Cox.— He did not say anything about Booth owing him money: he merely said that he had been to seeBoothon Friday morning; he told me he had xtot seen Booth. By Judge Advocate Holt. —I had no particular rea- son'ibr staying in town until Friday evening: I sug- f;ested to the party in whose company I was, O'Lough- in among tbe number, tbat we should remain until Friday evening; I had no special reasons for so doing: O'Loughlin did not make any suggestions of that kind; the arrangements for our visit to Washington we de termined on Monday in Baltimore, Thursday being theday fixed; I suggested the day; the party done a freat deal of drinking while in Washington; it would e impossible for me to say how many times we drank: Ido not think it could have been more than ten; one of the party, Mr. Early, was not sober. Testimony of Iff. 11, Sweeney. By Mr. Aiken.— I am acquainted with John M. Floyd; I met bim on the 14th of April last at Marlboro, and rode with him a portion of the way from Marlboro to wards his home: beseemed to be considerably under the influence of liquor; be drank, or attempted to drink on the road, at least -to put the bottle to his lips: the bottle contained liquor. Cross-examined by Judge Advocate Holt.— I drank with him; I could not tell who drank the most; both drank from thesame bottle; heseemedtobe consider ably excited which I attributed to the influence of drink; he was alone in his buggy; I was on horseback; be was excited in conversation and general deport ment; I do-not think I was excited myself; I suppose he knew what he was doing, and where he was going at least; I thoughthe was able to take care of himself. By llr. Clampitt.— I have known J. Z. Jenkins, a brother of Mrs, Surratt, for sixteen years: I have heard it said ot him that he was a zealous Union man: on one occasion a Union flag was raised within a hun dred yards of thehouse in which I boarded, and there being a rumor that an attempt would bemade to cut it down, Mr. Jenkins formed one of a party who stood guard around it all night; I heard that he came to Washington to get votes for the Union ticket in Mary land, but I do not know anything of that; I believe him to be to-day a consistently loyal man. By Judge Advocate Holt.— I have never acted against theGovernment that I know of: I was strictly neutral in my conduct and feelings In regard to the Rebellion: I was perfectly indifferent as to whether tbe Rebellion failed or succeeded. By the Couri.— I parted with Mr. Floyd, on the occa sion of which I have spoken, about six miles from Surrattsville; I did not take more than one drink out of the bottle from which Mr Floyd drank. Mr. Aiken, counsel tor Mrs. Surratt, stated that when, on Friday last, he announced that he would not delay the court after the other counsel for the accused had closed their deience, be had not Jearnedsome im portant facts since communicated to him. On Friday afternoon last be visited Surrattsville and Marlbo rough, and while on that visit acquired some lacts which he believed to be of material importance in the case of the accused, Mrs. Surratt. He therefore asked the privilege of introducing that testimony. The wit nesses would probably he present to-morrow, and their examination might occupy not more than a couple of hours, and would not be likely to affect materially any rebutting testimony which the Government mignt have to offer. Judge Advocate Holt stated that, Inasmuch as some Important testimony for tbe Government still re mained to be taken, and the witnesses might 'not ar rive to-day, but would be present to-morrow, there would be no loss of time. He was therefore disposed tp grant tbe request of counsel. Testimony of Assistant Adjutant-General E. 1>. Townsend. By Judge Advocate Holt.-Q. State whether or not you are acquained with G. J. Rains, a Brigadier-Gene ral in the Bebel military service. A. I was very well acquainted with G. J. Rains, who *n l$el r^£"ed bia commission as a Lieutenant-Colonel of tbe Fifth regu lar United States infantry. Q. Were you acquainted with his handwriting? A, Yessir. , ,_ ,. Q. Look at that Indorsement and state whetberyou believeittobein his handwriting (exhibiting apaper to witness). A. To the best of my knowledge and be nefit is. . The paper referred to was given in evidence without objection ; ft is dated Richmond, Decem ber 16, 1864, and is addressed to Captain S. McDaniel, commanding torpedo company, signed by John Max well. It sets forth in substance thatin obedience to the order ofthe person to whom it, is addressed, and with the means and equipment furnished by bim, the writer left Richmond on the26th of July, 18(^, for the lineof the James River, to operate with the hprological tor pedo against the enemy's vessels navigating that river; the writer was accompanied by Mr. R. K. Dil- lard, whose services were engaged for the expedition; after sundry adventures the two men reached City Point before daybreak on the 9th of August last and the writer .gives the result of his operations as follows:— Requesting my companion to remain behind about half a mile. I cautiously approached the wharf with my machine and powder, covered by a small box; finding the captain had come ashore Irom a barge then at the wharf, I seized the occasion to hurry forward with my box; being halted by one of the wharf sentinels I .succeeded in passing him by repre senting that the captain had ordered me to convey the box on board; nailing a man irom the barge I put the machine in motion and gave it in bis charge. He carried It aboard, the magazine con- tainedahout twelve pounds of powder; rejoining my command we retired to a safe distance to witness the effect of our effort. In about an hour the explosion occurred. Its effect was- WTb:;t\\as the reason ior omitting the signature of this letter? A. That was (or my safety principally, and so that it might not be used as evidence against the writer; both reasons were given to me by Mr. Clay? Q. Doyou know at what time Clement C.Clay left Canada? A. About the 1st ot January, I think. The letterwasahen read. bearing date St. Catharine's, C.W., Nov. l, 1864. and addressed to Hon. J. P. Benja min, Secretary of State, Bichmond, Va. It gives a de tailed account of the circumstances connected with the St. Albans raid, the writer stating tnat Lieutenant Bennett II. Young who led the raiders, was well kuown to bim as one whose heart was with the South In their struggle, and thatinthis attempt to burn the town of St. Albans and rob the banks he acted ac cording to tbe writer's instructions, and urging tbe ConederateGovernment to assume theresponsibility in the premises, The letter also speaks of a Captain Charles H.Cole, an escaped prisonerof war in the Kebel Forrest's com mand, who was capturedon board theUnitedStates warsteamer Michigan, on .Lake" Erie, while engaged in an atrempt to capture the vessel and liberate the Bebel prisoners on Johnson's Island. Tne writer pro tests against Colebeing treated as aspy, and gives vari ous reasons why he should be regarded as a prisoner of war, and concludes with a statement that "all that a large portion of the Northern people, especially inthe Northwest, want, in order to resist the oppression of the despotism at Washington, is a leader. -They are ripe for resistance, and it may come soon after the Presidential election." The letter was not signed, the reason given being that no signature was necessary, as tne messenger presenting it and the person to whom it was addressed could identhy ihe author. Messrs. Jacob Shaver and Willis Huniston, citizens ct'Troy.N Y.,beiugcalled for the prosecution, testified tbat they had been intimately acquainted with Marcus P. Norton; a witness in this case for the prosecution. for a number of years; thatintbe city of 'iroy, where he is well known, his reputation for veracity and in tegrity is very goud; thatthey would believe him on oath or otherwise; that they knew him to be a lawyer in good practice, and that an attempt which had been made io impeach his character had proved unsuc cessful. Testimony of Horatio K-aift-. By Judge Advocate Holt.— I livein Washington City; I have held the positions or Assistant Postmaster- General and Postmaster-General of the United wtates; I made ihe acquaintance while here of Marcus P. Norton, a lawyer, of Troy, N.Y.; Ihaveknown him quite intimately ior eight or ten years; I have always regarded him as being scrupulously honest and from my k"'>w:edge ot'his character 1 wouid unhesitatingly believe him under oath. Bv Mr. Doster.— I have never lived In Troy; I do not know what Mr. Norton's reputation is in that city; I have had some connection with him in a patent; I never beard any one in Washington speak otherwise than favorably of him: I never heard of auy attempt to impeach bis veracity . Bv Judge Advocate Holt.— During March last I saw Mr.* Norton in this city, and had irequent conversa tions with him; in one of these conversations he men tioned to me the circumstance oi a person having abruptly entered his room in tbe National Hotel; Ido not remember lor whomhesa.d the person inquired. By Mr. Doster.— Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Norton say that he had overheard a conversation between Booth and tho prisoner, Atzeroth, at tbe National Hotel. A. He made some allusion to it; I think it was about the 15th of Mav, which was, I think, thedateofhis letter. Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett handed to the witness a letter, which was identified by him as one he had received from Mr. Norton about tne 17th ot May, from which he read as follows:— "I believe Johnson was poisoned on the evening of March 3d, or the morning of March last; I knew of something which took place at tbe National Hotel last winter, between Booth and strangers tome, which, since the death of our good President, have thrown me into alarm and suspicion, and about which I will talk with you when I see you." Testimony of William Iff. Roherer. William H. Boherer being called for tbe prosecution, testified to his knowledge of the handwriting or Clement C. Clay, of Alabama, and identified tbe fetter given above as having been written by that person. There being no further witnesses, the Court ad journed. Washington, June 13.— Mr. Cox called the attention of the Court to thefollowiogitemin the Evening Star ot yesterday. copiedXrom a Maryland newspaper:— "A Mysterious Letter.— On the 4th instant, two men named trench and Mc.Ueer, of Souih Branch, "Virginia, were arrested by Major Meyers, and brought to -tn is cuy.and lodged in the guard-house, on ihe charge of -writing a mysterious letter addressed to J. WilKes Booth, and which was submitted in evidence be ore tbe assassination court at Washtngton. It turns out now that the letter was a fraud, perpetrated by.a person named Purdy. wbo'is said to be a Government Detective, and who, entertain ng a bitter., hatred- to wards the parties arrested, availed himself of this mode ot wreaking revenge. Prencb and McAleer have been released and Purdy has since been arrested and placed in close confinement, on the charge ofcom- mitting the alleged fraud."— Cumberland {Maryland) Union. Mr. Cox said if this letter was a fraud the defense ought to have the benefit of it. He had not been able to find it {.the letter in question), but supposed it re ferred to the letter addressed to J. W. B., at the Na tional Hotel. Judge Bingham said it bore date April 6th, 1865. The matter should not go on record. If the parties want Purdy let him be brought here, but he objected to in troducing newspaper paragraphs for which nobody was responsible. The letteiVel'erred to as a fraud bears evideuce'upon tbe lace of it as having been written by one concerned in the murder of President Lincoln. Though it never reached the person to whom it was addressed, yet the writer was none the less guilty. Judge Hoit said the matter was now undergoing in vestigation, and there would certainly be no conceal ment made of the result. It shouldgo on the record. Mr. Ewing sa,d a great deal looser papers than this had been placed on the record, aud he instanced the letter found floating in the Boanoke at MoreheadCity, N. C. The Court took a recess till two P. M., in order for a medical survey as to Payne's insanity. At two P. M. the Commission reassembled. Testimony of I>r. James Chall, By Mr. Doster.— Witness testified that he had ex amined the prisoner, Payne; first, in regard to his phy sical condition, bis eye nad a p^r. eel y natural look, except tnat it bad no intellectual expression, though capaole of evincing a great deal of passion and feeling; tbe shape of his head was not symmetrical, the left side being much better developed than the right; tbe pulse was about tmrty strokes above the natural ave rage; in other respects, with the exception of a matter in regard to whicn the Court had been informed, his healtn seemed to be good; upon questioning him in regard to his memory, the prisoner answered all ques tions put t:> him willingly.but his mind appeared to be very inert; his intellect was of a very low order, and dull and feeble. Witness described to the prisoner a supposed case, in which a person had committed the crime with which he was charged, and asked him whether he thought a person who committed. such an act wouid be justified, and be said he thought tbey would. Upon inqu.ring his reason ior this opinion, his answer amounted to this— that he thought in war a person was entitled to take.li.e. Q. From your whole examination of the prisoner are you of the opiniou that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is Insane? A. I should say that there were; it seems tome that no man who was perfectly sane could exhibit tbe same utter iu- sensiDility which the prisoner manifests; there was no attempt at deception: he answered my questions, so far as his mind would permit him, without any appa rent intent to deceive or mislead me; I could not give 156 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. a positive opinion as to whether be was laboring un der either m rat or mental insanity. - By J udge- Advocate Holt.— Q. I understand you to say that what you have discovered as peculiar in the condition ot Payne is not insanity, but extreme insen sibility? A. I cannot discover any positive signs of mental insanity, but of a very feeble, inert mind; a de ficiency iat. itT than a derangement of mind; a very low order or' intellect Q. From the wbole examination you have made do you regard the prisoner, Payne, as sufficiently sane to be responsib.e iur his acts? A. Ihave not aftugetber madeupmy mind upou tbat; Ido not think that the single examination 1 have made would suffice to de cide the question, but I believe that there is enough to warrant a suspicion tbat he may not be a periectly sane and responsible man; I cannot give any positive opinion upon tbat point. Q. The substance then of your opinion is tbat there are grounds for suspicion, but you do not express any positive opinion. A. Yes sir; I do not express any opinion that he is either mentally or morally insane, butthat there are grounds to justify a suspicion of his insanity: I attached some importance to his physical condition: it is generally known that persons insane have, with lew exceptions, an unusual frequency of pulse; the prisoner's pufse was thirty odd'strokes above tbe ordinary standard, Q. Was he laboring under any excitement? A. Not ,the least; he was per.ectiy ca m; his memory was very slow, aud at times it appeared very diificuit for him to answer a simple questiuu; be couid not remember the maiden name of his mother. Ci. J.o you think that wassincereoranaffectation? A. I think it was sincere; his memoiy is very deficient. Q. Didyou ever before meet with a man who was • known in the community as a sane and a responsible man who did not know the name of h.s mother? A. Yes, sir; I have known of persons who forgot their own names. Q. Then you do not consider the forgetfulness of names an evidence ot insanity? A. No, sir. Mr. Dobter asii.ed that tbe witness be permitted to continue his examination into the alleged insanity of the prisoner. The request was acceded to, and Dr. Stevens, Sur geon -O en eial Barnes and Surgeon Moms were ap pointed by the Court to assist Dr. Hall in the examina tion. Testimony or John T. Hoxten. By Mr. Aiken.— I reside in Prince George county and have resided tbero about jortyyears; my residence is at Surrattsville: I have known the prisoner, Mrs. Surratt, ior many years; her reputation among those who know her tuere as a truth, ui, kind and good Christian lady is very good; I have irequently met her since tne commencement ofthe war, but never had any conversation wivh her on po.itical subjects. Witness was acquainted with J. Z. Jenkins. His im pression was ihac he was a good Union man. I am acquainted wiJi the He v. Wrn. A. Evans; I know that he kept a store in the neighborhood in which I lived some ten years ago: 1 know nothing oi his pres- ent*repuiation ior trutn and veracity. By Mr. Clampitt — Uannot say that Mr. Jenkins is now aconsiste.it Union man; he was two years ago; the report in the neighborhood now is that he is not loyal; never knew him to commit any disloyal act. Testimony of Wm. W. Iffoxten, By Mr. Aiken.— I reside near Surrattsville, and have known the pr^oner, Mrs. surratt, for about twelve years; she has always been looked upou in our neigh borhood es a very good, kind, Christian Jady, and a churcn-going woman; have met her frequently of late years, and never heard her express a disloyal senti ment: I knew J. Z. Jenkins at tbe commencement of the war; he was known as a very strong Union man, and bore that reputation until he lost his negroes; I never knew of his expressing any sentiments opposed to the Government. Testimony of Henry Hawkins (Colored). By Mr. Aiken.— I have lived at Surrattsville about ele* en years; was formerly a slave ot Mrs. Surratt; she always tiea.ed me kindly: remember that on one occa sion some Government hoises broke away from Gies boro' and came to Mrs. surratt's stable, thev were fed and taken care of at her expense; never heaid any po litical expressions irom Mrs. Surratt; she irequently fed Union soldiers passing her house, and gave them the best she had; do not think she took any pay tor it; I sometimes heard that Mra. Surratt could not see very wed; have seen her wear spectacles. Testimony of RaclaacI Senilis, (Colored ) I lived with Mrs. Surratt for six years; was hired by her; I never had any reason to complain ot hard treat ment while witn her; she frequently had Union sol diers, and always tried to do the best she could for them, giving them the best in the house, and very often giving them all in tbe house; I recollect that one time she cut up the last ham for a party ot Union sol diers; never knew her to take pay from the so:diers; have seen them come there andget refreshments and not pay; never knew her to say anything in favor of the South; knew her eyesight to be failing; have fre quently threaded a needle ior her. Re-cross-examination of John M. Floyd, ByMr.Aiken.— When thecarbines were firstbrought to my bouse they were taken up stairs by John H. Sur ratt and myself, and put between the joists, where they remained uutil Mrs. Surratt called to give directions in regard to them, which was Friday, tbe 14th of April; in accordance with her directions I took tbem out from where they bad been secreted, aud kept them ready for whoever would call lor them; that u.ghc I also pre pared two bottles of whisky (a bottle was exhibited to the witness, which he stated to be like those used in his bar-room, but was not one of the two of which he h^d spoken). . „ 'Ihe witness continued.— It was here Harold, not Booth, who said to me on the night of the murder:— "Ployd, make haste and get those things." Re-examination of Mrs. OJfntt. By Mr. Aiken.— Saw Mr. Ployd on the evening of April 14th; he was very much under the influence of liquor, more so than 1 had seen him ltr some time past; ior some four or five months he has drank freely; I did not hear the fail confession of Ployd to Captain Cottingham, but heard some remarks: I did not near him say '"ibat vile woman, she has ruined me." Mr. Aiken stated to the Court that when on the stand De ore, tiie wituess had not recovered from a spell of sickness, and havng previously taken laud >num, her mind was confused in giving her testimony, and that she now oesired to correct a portion of tnat testi mony. After consultation between the counsel for Mrs, Surratt and Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham the witness was directed to make any statement she desired. She then said, "when previously I was on the stand, I was asked if Mrs. Surratt handed me a pack age, and I said no: but she did hand me a package, and said she was requested to leave it there; that was be tween five and six o'clock. There-examination of the witness was then resumed as follows i— Witness had-noknowledge-ot the contents of thatpackage; sawsomething in Mr. Floyd's hands after he came in thehouse, when Mrs. Surratt left; but could not say that it was-the package; saw him have the package after be came in, but not while he was coming in; never heard Mrs. Surratt utter any disloyal expressions; remember instances of defective eyesight on the part of Mrs. Surratt; on one occasion she told witness that her eyesight was failing very fast. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham.— Witness stated be. ore that Mrs. Surratt and John M. Floyd had a conversation outside thehouse on the afternoon of Mrs. Surratt's visit; did not see the package after it was brought in the house; do not know whether Mrs. Surratt did or did not hand a package to Mr. Floyd. Re-Examination of Major Eckert. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham.— Witness stated that the day on which General B. F. Butler was ordered to leave New York, after the last Presidential election, was the llth of November, and that General Butler made application to be allowed to remain until the loilowing Monday, the 19th of November, which application was granted. Re-examinataonof Richard Montgomery. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham.— Witness stated that the hour for the departure of the train which left Montreal, Canada, to connect with the through trains ior Washington was three o'clock P. M.; tnat the distance between Montreal and Washington was usually traveled in thirty-six to thirty-eighthours; that a person leaving Montreal at tbree o'clock on the afternoon oi themh of April would reach Washington before daylight on the morn ingot" the 14tb. Cross-examined by Mr. Aiken.— A person leaving Montreal on the afternoon of the 12th would arrive in thecity of New York, at the furthest, at eleven o'clock in theiorenoonof thei4th; leaving New York at six or seven in the evening, one would arrive at Washington iu ten or eleven hours. Re-Cross-Ex&inination of J. S. Debonay. By Mr. Ewing.— At tbe time the pistol was fired on the evening oi the assassination witness was on the stage of Ford'sTbeatre, leaning against the cornefrof a sceue, on the left-hand side; when I first saw the priso ner, Spangler, after the escape of Booth, he was shut ting the scene back, so as to allow the peoole to get upon the stage: that was about a minute and a half a.ter Booth ran across the stage, followed bv Mr. Stewart; spangler then ran to the green-room to eet some water for the persons in the President's box; I saw Spangler go to thedoor when Booth called him. previous to tbe assassination; did not hear any conver sation between _ Spangler and Booth; witness was on the pavement in Jront of the theatre about fiv* min utes beiore the assassination; did not see Scantier thereat any time; never knew Spangler to wear a heavy moustache. John Pile and Andrew Collenback were then called for the delense. tJie lormer sustaining the character of one oi the witnesses ior the deiense, J. Z. Jenkins and the laUer testiiyiug in regard to the remark made by Mr. John M.Floyd, that he had beeni nnocentiy per- TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 157 Buaded into the matter, referring to the custody of the skooting-irons by Mrs. Surratt or Mrs. Surratt's fami.y. The counsel for the prisoners, exnept in thecase of the prisoner Payne, whose alleged insanity is yet to be reported upon, severally stated that their deiense had closed. There being no further witnesses present, the Com mission adjourned till to-morrow at 12 o'clock M. Washington, June 14.— Tbe previous day's record was read, when the Commission took a recess until two o'clock, In order to allow an examination of the pri soner Payne by the commission appointed for that purpose, The Commission reassembled at two o'clock, when Mr. Doster stated that he had closed the defense in the case of the prisoner Payne, and did not propose to call as witnesses the medical gentlemen who bad been ap pointed to investigate the condition of Payne as to his insanity. Judge Holt then stated that these gentlemen would be called for the Government. Re-examination of E>r. James C. Hall. By Judge Holt.— Tbe witness had examined the pri soner, Pavne, this morning, and was assisted by Drs. Norris and Porter, and, subsequently. Burgeon-General Barnes joined in the examinarion. The prisoner was asked almost the same questions that were put to him yesterday, for the purpose of ascertaining whether his answers would be similar; he answered wMi rather more promptness than before, and his answers were much tho same. Q. Are you now prepared to express an opinion whe ther or not, iu your judgment, the prisoner is a sane and responsible man? A. I am now prepared to say there is no evidence of mental insauity; the prisoner's mind is feeble and uncultivated, but I cannot discover sufficient evidence of mental incanacity. Cross-examined hy Mr. Duiter.— Q. What are you prepared to state as to bis moral insanity? A. We asked him tbe question to day whether he believed in a God ; be said ihat h e did, and that he was a just God; he also acknowledged tome tbat atone lime he had been a member ofthe Baptist Cuurch; I asked him the question whether he thought lhatthe assassination of an enemv in time of war was justifiable and after some little nesitation he said he believed it was. Testimony of E>a\ Norris. The witness, in company witn Surgeon-General Barnes, and other medical gentlemen, madeauex- amiuadon this morning of the prisoner Payne, and arrived attbe conclusion that he was asaneman. There was nothing in the prisoner's looks, speech, or conduct to indicate that he was of unsound mind; on the contrary, his reasoning faculties appeared to be good, as al.o his judgment. Cross-examined by Mr. Doster.— I am not familiar with cases of insanity; I do uot think tbe conduct of the prisoner during the ex: mination could have been that cf a madman: tbe priboner might be a monoma niac, but if such was the case, the witness would pro bably have had his suspiciors aroused, as such persons almost invariably, in conversation with strange per sons, r.?ier to the subject of tLeir insanity. Testimony of Snrgreon-General Barnes. By Judge Advocate Holt.— The prisoner, Payne, was examined by the witness and other medical gen tlemen, but no evidence of insanity was discovered; the coherent manner in which he narrated his story of himself, givingthe places at wbich he bad been. and his occupation, and. more important than all, his reiteration o/tliestatemems m tde by hmi oj yester day, were proofs of his saneness. Testimony of i>r. Porter. By Judge-Advocate Holt. -Having been present this morning at the examination of the prisoner. Payne, tbe witness believed that he was a sane man. The prisoner had been under the witness' care since his confinement in the Arsenal, and from the inspections which be had made, witness arrived at the conclusion that he was a sane and responsible man. _ The cross-examination of this witness was mainly witb reference to what constituted mental or moral insanity, and was terminated by the President ot the Court objecting to the course of examination as im proper Assistant Judge-Advocate Bingham entered upon the record several papers, among which were a certified copy of the resolution of tbe Senate of the United States consenting to and ordering the appointment of William H. Seward as Secretary of State of the united States, and the qualification of Andrew Johnson, on the 15th of April. 18R5, as President of the United States. Judge Holt said tbat some additional testimony, re lating exclusively to the general conspiracy and not al'ccting either ofthe prisoners particularly, would be offered on behalf of the Government. Haying under stood that one of the arguments lor the deiense had been fully prepared, he desired the Court to hear it, with the understanding that it should not preclude the offering ofthls testimony. Mr. Aiken said it was the wish of the counsel that an the testimony which the Government bad should be handed in be ore that argument was presented to the Court. It had been thought possible thai Mr. Johnson himself would be oresent to-morrow to defiver the argument in uerson. If he was not present, Mr. Clam pitt, by agreement among the counsel, would present the argument lo the Court. Judge Holt inquired as to which of the prisoners the argument was intended to apply. Mr. Aiken said it was an argument relative to the jurisdiction of the Court which was prepared by Mr. Johnson and in which all the counsel concurred. It was Intended ior all the prisoners. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham said that Mr. Johnson was not counsel for all tbe prisoners. General Wallace said that if the argument on the jurisdiction of the Court was ready it would not be im- praner for the Court to bear it, and In order to con sider the question he moved that the Court be cleared. Tbe motion was agreed to, when the Court was cleared. After some ttme the doors were reopened, and it was announced that the Court had adjourned until Friday morning at 11 o'clock. Washington. June 16.— Colonel Tompkins, member of the Court, was not present at the session of the Court to-day, on account of indisposition. Testimony of Robert Purdy. By Judge Advocate Holt.— The witness said he re. sided in Virginia, and bad been in the Government service since 1861; a letter heretofore published, pur porting to have been dated at South Branch Bridge Virginia, April 6tb, 18fi5, addressed to "Friend Wilkes," and referring to certain oil speculations, and suggest ing an escape by way of Thornton's Gap in case the party failed to get through on his trip after striking lie, was shown to the witness, who stated that he had never seen it before; the witness testified that the allu sions to Purdy contained in the letter had reference to himself; that the writer was known to him as a person by the name of Jonas McAleer, and tbat some of the allegations of tbe letter, especially that with reference to a difficulty with the girl spoken of, were untrue. Cross-examined hy Mr. Aiken.— South Branch Bridge is on a branch of the Potomac River, about twenty- two miles from Cumberland; letters are not usually mailed from South Branch Bridge, but from a little" village known as Green Spring Bun, just above it; there is no post office box at South Branch Bridge; there are no oil wells in that vicinity. Testimony of B>. S. Eastwood. By Judge Advocate Holt.-— I live in Montreal, Canada, and am assistant manager of the Montreal branch of the Ontario Bank: I am acquainted with, Jacob Thompson, formerly Secretary of the Interior of the United States, and with the account which he keotin the Ontario Bank; the moneys deposited in that Bank to his credit accrued from the negotiation of bills of exchange drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury of the so-called Confederate Statesupon their agents at Liverpool. Q. State whether or not in the course ofthe disburse ments made by Jacob Thompson of the fund placed to his credit, this requisition was drawn on the bank. (Exhibiting to witness a paper, given below). A. It was, it is in my handwriting. Q,. Please read it to the Court. A. ^Reading the paper.) Montreal, August 10, !Sfi4. Wanted, from the Ontario Bank on New York, in favor of Benjamin Wood, Esq., for 525,000 current funds, $10,000, debit §15 000. The paper shows that the requisition was originally drawn in favor of Benjamin Wood, Esq., and that the name ot D..S. Eastwood was substituted. Q. State the exact condition ot the paper. A. As it reads now it is a draft on New York, payable to the order of D. S. Eastwood, that is, myself. Q State how that change in the requisition occurred. A The name of Benjamin Wood, as it appeared originally, was erased at Mr. Thompson's request, and my name as an officer ot tbebank was substituted. Q. Tnat is the original paper, is it not? A. It is. Q. Now look at this bill of exchange, (exhibiting anotber*paper to witness) and state whether it was drawn upon that reauVAtion. A. It was. Bv request of the Judge Advocate the witness then read the paper to the Court. It is dated Montreal, Au- 158 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. §ust 10, ld64,.and is directed to the Cashier of tbe City lank. New York, the wording being as follows:— "At ttareedays sight please pay to the order of D. S. East wood, in current funds, twenty-five thousand dollars, value received, and charge the same to account-of this branch." Theindorsenrenton thebill directs the pay ment to be made to Hon. Benj. Wood, or order. Signed B. F. Wood. Q. You state that the twenty-five thousand dollars for wbich th s bill was drawn, is tbe same for wbich that requisition was made by Mr. Thompson in the name or Benj. Wood? A; It was. Q. State whether or not the bill of exchange you have iustjead is the original one? A. It is. Q Where did you obtain it? A. I obtained it in New York, from the Cashier of the bank on which it was drawn. Q. Does it bear tbe marks of having been paid? A. I am not acquainted with the usual marks of canceling in New York, but I understood that it was paid. The witnessstated further that he was notacquainted with the Benjamin Wood referred to. but he supposed it tobe'thesame who at the date of that transaction was a member of the Congress ofthe Un ted Stntes. Cross-examined by Mr. Aiken.— Ido not recol ect, of having ever o-'Shed pnv drafts or checks in favor of either Jameswatson Wallace, Richard Montgomery, James B. Merrit or John Wilkes Boo^h. About tbe fir.-t of October last Booth purchased abill on the hank of Montreal witb which witness wascpnnected. Never heard the name of John H. Surratt mentioned before* The Judge Advocate exhibited to the- witness a list of localities upon which drats had' been made by tbe Ontario Bank, and requested him to give the d^tes and amounts of drafts which^as shown by the paper, had been drawn on New York. The witness stated that the following were among the number ol drafts drawn on the 3d of October last:— A draft for $10,000 in gold: on the llth Of October one of §5000 in pold* on Novem ber 3d. 4th and 8th, bills for about £6000 in UnitrdStar^s cufrencv; on the 14th and 21st of March last, small drafts were also drawn. Testimony of George "WUltes. By Judge Advocate .Holt.— T am acquainted with Benjamin Wood, of New York, and know his hand writing. Tbe indorsement of "B. Wood" on tbe back of the bill of exchange given above was exhibited to tbe witness, and the handwriting ident;fied by him as that of Hon. Benjamin Wood, ot New York. The witnesss^ated further that at the time at which the paper appeared to bavebeepn dated Wood was a member of the Congress of the United States, and, he believed, editorand proprietor of the Daily News. Testimony of Sir. Abram I>. Itnssell. Bv Judge Advocate-General Holt.— I am acquainted wirh. Beniamin Wood, of the c ty ol New Ycrk, and know his handwr'ting: the indorsement on thebil»of exchange exhibted to the previous witness was identi fied by th:s witness to be the handwriting of Mr. Wood:' at the time ofthe date o. that bill of excsan^e Mr. Wood wxs a member ofthe Congress of the United States and editor and proprietor of the New York Daily News; the witness had been in the habit cf re ceiving letters from Mr. Wood. Tbe Court then took a recess until two o'clock. Upon reassembling. Judge Advocate Holt suggested that if the argument ofthe counsel fortbe deiense wa/9 now commenced, in the absence of Colonel Tompkins, a member of theCourt. who was indisposed, it would have to be read over to him during a subsequent ses sion of I'.ie Court. HethouTht therewouldbe noloss of timeto theCourt if an adjournment was taken till Monday. Tbe Court adjourned till Monday, at ten o'clock. Washington, June 19.— Mr. Aiken stated to the Court that he should not be prepared until Wednes day to read tbe argument in tho case ot Mrs. Surratt. The delay was attributable to the voluminous evidence previously io be examined by him, Reverdy Johnson's Argument. Mr. Clampitt read the argument addressed to the Presidental d gentlemen oi the < ommission, simed by R. verdy Johnson and co icuiredm by Fn derick A. Aiken and . I o. in W. Clampitt i,s associate counsel for Mrs. Mary E. Surratt. Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Commission:— Hasth' Comiui sionjnri diction tftlie cases be ore It ist le question which I propose tod scuss. That Ques tion, imcll courts, civil, criminal and military, must be con idered and answered affirmauv ly be. ore judg ment cm be i ronounced .And It must be answered correct y, < rtheji dement pronounced is void. Ever an interesting and vital inquiry, it ii ot engocsl^g in terest and of iw ui importance, when error may lead totneui.au hori/,i d lakingof human 11 e. In such a case, thecourt called upon to render, and the officer who is to approve Its judgment and fanve it executed, have a concern peculiar to them-.elvr'S. As to each, a responsibility is involved, wnich, however conscien- t!ously and firmly met, is calculated and cannot fail to awakenagreat solicitude and induce tbe mostmature considerat.on. Tue nuure of the- duty is such that even honest error affords no impunity. The legal personal consequences, even in a case of honest, mis taken judgment, cannot be avoided. That this is no exaggeration, thsCommission WtU.I think, besatisned before I shall have cone uded. I refer to it now and shall a^-in, wuh no view to shake yuur firmness. Such an attempt WLUld be alike discourteous and un profitable. Every member composing the commis sion will, I am sure, meet ail the responsibility tbat belongs to it as becomes gentlemen and soldiers. I therefore repeat, that my sole object in adverting io it is to obtain a well-considered and matured jud.ment. So far, the question of jurisdiction has not been discussed. The pleas which specially present it. as soon as filed, were over ruled. But that will not. because, properly, itthouid notpreventyour cons.ueringit with the delibcation that its grave nature demands. And it is for you to de cide it, and at this time, lur you alone. The commis sion you are ac.ing under ofitself does not and could not decide it.- Ii unauthorized, it is a mere nullity, the usurpation of a power not vested in the Executive, and con.erringno authority whatever upon you. To bold otherwise would be to make the Executive the exclu- slve and cone. usivejudgeot its owu powers, and that would be to make that department omnipotent. The powers of the President under the Constitution are great, and amply sulhcientto give all needed efficiency to the office. Tne Convention that formed the Cunsti- sution. and tbe people who adopted it, considered those powers sufficient, and granted noothers. Intheminds of both (and subsequent history has served to strengthen the impression), danger to liberty is more to be dreaded from the Executive than from any other department oftheGovernment. Solar, therefore, from meaning to extend its-powers beyond what was deemed necessary to the whoiesome operation of the Govern ment, they were studious .to place them beyond the reach of ¦« abuse. Wuh this view, belore entering "on the execution of his office,'' thePresident is required to take an oath "Jaitnfui y'' to discharge its duties/and tothebestof his "abiliiy preserve, protectand defend the constitution of the United States," Hei ;taiso liable to "be removed f. om cm.ee on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." it he violates the Constitution, if he fails to preserve it, and, above all it he usurps powers not granted, he is false to his offi cial oath, and liable to be indicted and convicted, and to be impeached. For such an offense his removal from office is the necessary consequence. In such a contingency ''heRball be removed" is thecommandof the Constitution. Wi:at stronger evidencccou.d there be tbat his powers, all of tbem, in peace and in war, are only such a3 the Constitution confers? But if this was not evident from the instrument itself, the cha racter of the men who composed the Convention, and thetspirit ofthe American people at that.period would proveit. Hatred of a monarchy, made tbemostin- tensebytbe conduct ol tne monarch from whose Go vernment they. had recently separated, and a deep- seated love of constitutional liberty, made the more keen and active'by the sacrifices which bad illustrated their revolutionary career, constituted them a people who could never be induced to delegate any executive authority nofso carefully restricted and guarded as to render its abuse or usurpation almost impossible. If these observations are well founded, and I suppose they will njt be denied, it lollows that an executive act beyond executive authority car? furnish no defense against the legal consequences of what are done under it. I have sa.d that tbe question of jurisdiction is ever open. It may be raised by counsel at any stage of the trial, and if it is not the Court not only may but is bound to notice it. Unless jurisdiction, then.exists, the authority to try does not exist, and whatever is done is "warn non judice " and utterly void. This doc trine is as applijableto military as to other courts. O'Brien tells us that the question mnyba raised by demurrer if the facts charged do not^consiifute an of fense, or if they do, not an offense cognizable by a mili tary court, cr that it maybe-raised by a special plea, oi under the general one of not guilty. (O'Brien, 248.) BeHartsays: "The Curt i.sthe judge of its own com petency at any stage of its proceedings, and is bound to notice questions ot jurisdiction whenever raised." (De- Hart, III.) v The question, then, being always open, and its proper decision essential to the validity of its judgment, the Commissionmust decide be;ore pronouncing such judg ment whether it has jurisdiction over these parties arid the crimes imputed to ihem. That a tribunal like this has nojunsdictionover other than miliiary offenses, is boneved ,io be selMwident. That offenses defined and punished by the civil law, and wliose trial is provided tor by the same law, are not the subjects of military jurisdiction, is. ot course, true. A military, as contra distinguished from a civil offense, must, therefore, be £«??*£ ai^ar,^nd wne-' jt is-u meat also appear that the military law provides for its trial and punish ment by a military tribunal. Ii that law does not furnish a mode of trial, or aPii a punishment, ihe case is unprovided for, and slar TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 159 as the military- power is concerned, is to go unpu nished. But, as either the civil, common or statue law embraces every species of .offense that tbe United States or tbe States have deemed it necessary to pu nish, in all such cases the civil courts are clothed with every necessary jurisdiction. In a military court, if the charge does not state a "crime provided for gene rally or ^pecmcally by any of the articles of war," the prisoner must be discharged. (O'Brien,. p. 235.) Nor is It«sufticient that the charge is of a crime known to the military law. .The off'euder, when he commits it, must be subject to such law or be is not subject to mi litary jurisdiction. The general law has "supreme and undisputed jurisdiction overall. The military law puts forth no such pretension:, it aims solely to enforce on the soldier the additional duties he has assumed. It constitutes tribunals for the trial of breaches of mili tary duty only." (O'Brien, pp. 26, 27.) • "Thcone code (the civil) embraces all citizens, whether soldiers or not; the other (the military) has no jurisdiction over any citizen as such. (lb.) The provisions ofthe Constitution clearly maintain thesame doctrine. The Executive has no authority "to declare war, to raise and support armies, to pro vide and maintain a navy." or to make "rules for the government and regulation" Of either force. These powers are exclusively in Congress. The army cannot be raised or have laws for its government and regula tion except as Congress shall provide. This power-of Congress was granted by the Convention withouuob- Jection. In England the King, as the generalissimo of the whole kingdom, has this sole power, though Parliament has. frequently interposed and regulated ior itself. But with us it was thought safest to gi vert he enlirepowerto Congress, "since otherwise summary and severe punishment might be inflicted at the mere will ofthe Executive." (3, Story's Com., sec. 1192.) No member of the Convention or any commentator on the Constitution since has Intimated that even this Con gressional power could be applied to citizens not be longing to thearmy or navy. In respect, too^ to the latter class, the power was conferred exclusively on Congress to prevent that class being made the objects of abuse by the Executive, to guard them' especially from "summary and severe punishments," inflicted by mere executive will. TheexisteuceofiSuch a power being vital to discipline,it was necessaryto provide for it; but no member suggested that it should be or could be made to apply to citizens not in the military or naval service, or be given to any other department in who'eor in part than Congress. Citizens not belong ing to the army or navy were not made liable to military law, or under any circumstances to be deprived of any of the guaranties ot personal liberty provided by the Constitution. Independent of the considera tion that the very nature of the Government is incon sistent with such a pretension, the power is conferred upon Congress in terms that exclude all who do not belong to the" land and naval forces." It is a rule of interpretation coeval with its existence that the Go vernment in no department of it possesses powers not granted by express delegation, or necessarily to be implied from those that are granted. This would be the rule incident to the very nature of the Consti tution ; but to place it beyond doubt, and to make it anflmperative rule, the tenth amendment declares that " the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, norprohibitedbyit to the States, arere- servedtotce States respectively, or to the people." The power given to Congress is ,rto make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." No artifice of ingenuity can make these words ir elude those who do not belong to the army and navy. Andthey are therefore to be construed to exclude all others as if negative words to that effect had been added. And this is not only the obvious meaning of the terms, considered by themselves, but is demonstrable from other provls onsof the Constitution. Sojealous were our ancestors of ungranted power, and so vigi lant to protect the citizen against it, that they were unwilling to leave him to the safeguards which a pro per construction of the Constitution, as originally adopted, furnished. In this they resolve 1 that nothing should be left in doubt. Tbey determined, thereiore, notonlyto guard him against executive and judici 1, but against.Con ressionalaouse. Witn that view, they adopted the fifth Constitutional amendment which declares that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a pre sentment, or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the mjfitia when in active service in time of war or public danger." This exception Is designed to leave in force, not to enlarge, the power vested in Congress by the original Constitution, "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." "The land or naval forces" are the terms used in both, have thesame meaning, and until lately have beensupposed by every commentator and Judge to exclude from military juris diction offenses committed by citizens not belonging to such forces. Kent, in a note to his 1 Com., p. 341, states, and with accuracy, tbat "miliiary and naval crimes and offenses committed while the party is attached to and under the immediate authority of the army and navy of the United States, and in actual service, are not cogn'zable under the common law jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States." According to this great authority, every other class of persons, and every other species or offense are within the jurisdiction of theclvil Courts, and entitled to th'e protection of the proceeding by presentment or Indictment, and a public trial in such a Court. It tbe Constitutional amendment has not that effect, it it does not secure that protection to all who do notbelong to the army or navy, then the provisions in the sixth amendment are equally inoperative. They, "in all criminal prosecutions." give the accused a right to a speedy and public trial a right to be informed of the nature and cause ot the accusation; to be confronted with tbe witnesses against him; to compulsory process for his witnesses, and the assistance of counsel. The exception In the filth amendment of cases arising in the land or naval forces applies, by necessary implica tion at least, in part to this. To construe this as not containing tbe exception would defeat the purpose of the exception. For the provisions of the sixth amend-* ment. units^ tbey are subject to the exceptions ofthe fifth, would be inconsistent with the fifth. The sixth is, thereiore, to be construedasifitin words contained the exception. . . It jssubmitted that this is evident. The consequence is, that if the exception can be made to include those who, in tbe languageof Kent, are not, when the offense was committed, "aj-tached to and under 'the Immediate authority of,th e army or navy, and in actual service, ' tliesecurit.es designed for other citizensby the sixth article are wholly nugatory; If a Military Commis sion, created by the mere authority of tbe President, can ciepriveac'tizenof ihe benefit of the guaranties secured by the fifth amendment, it can deprive bim of those secured by the sixth. It may deny.him the riKbt to l*a speedy and public trial." information "of the nature and cause ot the accusation," of the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him,*?, of "compu sory process for his witnesses," and ofthe as sistance of emu el for his defense." That this can begone no one has, as yet maintained. No opinion, however latitudinarian, of executive power, of the effect of public necessity in war or in peace, to enlarge its sphere, and authorize a disregard of ils limitations— no one, however convinced he may be of the policy of protecting accusing witnesses trom a public examination under the idea that their testimony cannot otherwise be obtained, and that consequently crime may go unpunished, has to this time been found to go to that extent. Certainly no writer has ever maintained such a doctrine. Argument to refute it is unnecessary. It refutes itself. Por, if sound, the sixth amendment, which our fathers thought so vital to in dividual liberty, when assailed by governmental pro secution, is but a dead letter, totally inefficient for its purpose whenever the Government shall deem it pro per to try a citizen by a military commission. Against such a doctrine the very instincts ot freemen revolt. It has no foundation but in the principle ot unre strained, tyrannic power, and passive obedience. If it be well founded, then are we indeed a nation of slaves and not of freemen. If tbe Executive can legally decide whether a citi zen is to enjoy the guaranties of liberty afforded by the Constitution, what are we butslaves? If thePresident, or any of hi? subordinates, under any pretense what ever, can deprive a citizen of such guaranties, liberty with us, howeverloved, is not enjoyed. But the Con stitution is not so fatally defective. It is subject to no such reproach. In war and in peace it is equally po tential ior the promotion ofthe general welfare, and as involved in and necessaryto such welfare for the protection of the individual citizen. Certainly, until this Bebellion, this has been tbe proud and cherished conviction of the country. And itis to this conviction and the assurance that it could never be shaken that our past prosperity is to be referred. God forbid tnat mere power, dependent for its exercise on Executive will (a condition destructive of political and social happiness), shall ever be subst:tuLed in its place. Should that unfortunately ever occur, unless it was soon corrected by tfie authority of the people, the ob jects or' our Revolutionary struggle, the sacrifices of our ancestors and the design of the Constitution will all have been in vain. I proceed now to examine with somewhat of particu larity the grounds on which 1 am informed your jurisdiction is maintained. I. That it as an incident ofthe war power. That power, whatever be its extent, is exclusively In Congress. War can only be declared by that body. With its origin, tbe Presidentbas no concern what ever. Armies, which are necessary, can onlyberaised by the same body. Not a soldier, without its authority, can be brought into service by the Executive. He is as impotent to that end as a private citizen. And armies, too, when raised by Congressional au thority, can only be governed and regulated by "rules" prescribed by tbe sanicautbority. TheExecutive pos sesses no power over the soldier, except such as Con gress may, by legislation, confer upon him. If.tben.it was true that the creation of a military commission* like the present is incidental to the war power, it must be authorized by the Department to which that power 160 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. belongs, and not by the Executive, to whom no portion belongs. And if it be said to be involved In the power "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces," the result is the same. It must be done by Congress, to whom that power, also, exclusively belongs, and not by the Executive. Has Congress, then, under either pqwer, authorized such a Commission as this to try such cases as these? It is confidently asserted that it has not. If it has, let the statute be produced. It is certainly not done by that ofthelOthot April, 1806, "establishing articles for the government ot tbe armies of the United States." No military courts are there mentioned or provided for but courts-martial and courts of inquiry. And their mode of appointment and organization and of proceeding, and the authority vested in them, are also prescribed. Military Commissions are not only not authorized, but are not even alluded to. And, consequently, the parties, whoever these may be, who, under that act, can be tried by courts-martial or courts of inquiry, are not made subject to trial by a military commission. Nor is such a tribunal mentioned in any prior statute, or in any subseauentone, unLil those df the 17th of July, '62, and of the 3d of March, '03. In t lie 5th section ofthe first, the records of "military commissions" are to be returned for revision to the Judge Advocate-General, whose anpointment it also provides for. But how such commissions are to be constituted, what powers they are to have, how their proceedings are to be conducted, or what cases and parties they are to try, are not provided for. Inthe 38th section of the second, they are mentioned as com petent to try persons "lurking or acting as spies." The same absence in the particulars stated in respect to the first are true of this. And as re ards this act of 1863, this reflection forcibly represents itself. If military commissions can be created, and from their very nature possess jurisdic tion to try all alleged military offenses (the ground on which your jurisdiction is said in part to rest), why was it necessary to give them the power, by express words, to try persons "lurking or acting as spies?" The military character of such an offense could not have been doubted. What reason, then can be sug gested ior conferring the power by express language than tbat without it it would not be possessed? Beibre these statutes were passed a commission called a Mili tary Commission, had been issued by the Executive to Messrs. Davis, Holt and Campbell, to examine into certain military claims against the Western Depart ment, and Congress, by its resolution ot the tltb of March, 1862, (No. 18), provided for the payment of its awards. .Against a commission of that character no objection can be made. It is but auxiliary to the auditing of demands upon the Government, and in no way inte. feres with any constitutional right of tue ci tizen. But, until this Bebellion. a military commis sion like tne present, organized in a loyal State or ter ritory, where the courts are openand their proceedings unobstructed, clothed with tne jurisdiction attempted to be conferred upon you, a jurisdiction involving not only the liberty but tee lives of tbe parties on trial, it is confidently stated is not to be lound sanctioned or the most remotely recognized or even alluded to by any writer on military law in England or the United States, or in any legislation of either countrv. it has its origin in the Bebellion, and, like the dangerous he resy of Secession, out of which that sprung, nothing is more certain, in my opinion, than that, however pure the motives of its origin, it will be an almost equally dangerous heresy to constitutional liberty, and, the Rebellion ended, perish with the other, then and forever. But to proceed. Such commissions were authorized by Lieutenant-General Scott in his Mexican campaign. When he obtained possession of the City of Mexico, he, on the 17th of September, 1847, republished, with additions, his order of tbe 19th of February preceding, declaring martial law. By ibis order he authorized the trial of certain offenses by military commissions, regulated their proceedings, and limited the punish ments they might inflict. From their jurisdiction. however, he excepts cases "clearly cognizable by court-martial," and in words limits the cases tone tried to such as are (I quote) " not provided for in the act of Congress establishing rules and articles for the Government of the armies of the United States " of the 10th of April, 1806. And he further tells us that even this order, so li mited and so called for by the greatest public neces sity, when handed to the then Secretary of War (Mr. Marcy) "for his approval," "astartle at the title (mar- tial-law order) was the onlycomment he then, or ever made on the subject," and that it was "soon silently returned as too explosive for safe handling." "a little later (he adds) the Attorney-General (Mr. Cushins) called and asked for a copy, and the law officer of the Government, whose business it is to speak on all such mattesG, was stricken with legal dumbness.'' (lb.) How much more startled and more paralyzed would these great men have been had they been consulted on such a commission as this ! A Commission not to sit in an other country, and to try offenses not provided for by any law of the United States, civil or military, then in force, but in their own country, and in a part of it where there are laws providing for their trial and punishment, and civil courts clothed with ample pow ers for both, and in the daily and undisturbed exer cise of their jurisdiction; and where, if there should be an attempt at disturbance by a force which they had not the power to control, they could invoke (and it would be his duty to afford it) the President to use the militarv power at bis command, and which every body knows to be ample for the purpose. The second clause of the order mentions, among other offenses to he so tried, "assassination, murder, poisoning," andin the fourth (correctly, as I submit. with all respect for a contrary opinion) he states tnat "the rules and articles of war" do not provide ior. the punishment of any one of the designated offenses, "even when committed by individuals ofthe army upon the persons or property of other individuals ofthe same, except in the very restricted case of the ninth of the articles." The authority for even this restricted commission, Scott, not more eminent as a soldier than civilian, placed entirely upon the ground that the named offenses, if committed in a foreign country by American troops, could not be punished under any law of the United States then in force. "The Constitution of tne United States and the rules and articles of war j" he said, and said correctly, provided no court for then? trial or punishment, "no matter by whom or on whom" committed. (Scott's Autobiography, 392,) If it be suggested that the civil courts and juries for this District could not safely be relied upon tor the trial of these cases, because either of incompetency, disloyalty or corruption, it would be an unjust reflection upon the judges, upon the people, upon the Marshal, an ap pointee or the President, by whom the juries are sum moned, and upon our civil institutions themselves, the very institutions on wuose integrity and intelli gence the saiesty of our property, liberty, and lives our ancestors thought could not only be sately vested, but would be safe nowhere else. If it be suggested that a secret trial, in whole or in part, as the Executive might deem expedient, could not be h^d before any other thau a military tribunal, the answer is that the Constitution, "in all criminal prosecutions," gives the accused the " right" to a "public trial." So abhorrent were private trials to our ancestors, so fatal did they deem them to individual security, that they were de nounced, and as they no doubt thought, so guarded against as in ail future timeto be impossible. If it be suggested that witnesses may be unwilling to testify, the answer is that they may be compelled to appear and made to testify. But tbe suggestion upon another ground is equally without force It rests on the idea that the guilty only- are ever brought to trial; that the only object of tbe Constitution and tho laws in this regard is to afford tbe means to establish the aflegcd guilt. That accusation however made, is to be esteemed prima facia presump tion of guilt, and that the Executive should be armed without other restnction.tnan his own discretion with' all the appliances deemed by him necessaryto make the presumption conclusive. Never was there a more dangerous theory. The peril to the citizen from a pro secution so conducted, as illustrated in all history the very elementary principles of constitutional liberty, the spirit and letter ofthe Constitution itself, repu diate it. * Innocent parties, sometimes by private malice, sometimes for a mere partisan purpose, sometimes from auupposed public policy, have been made the subjects of criminal accusation. History is full of such instances. How are such parties to be protected, if a public trial, at the option of the Executive, can be de nied them, and a secret one, in whole or in part sub stituted? If the names ofthe witnesses and their evi dence are not published, what obstacle does it not in terpose to establish their innocence? The character of the witnesses againsttbem may be all-important to that end. Kept in prison, with no means of consulting the outer world, how can those who may know the witnesses be aole to communicate with them on the subject? A trial so conducted, though it may not, as no doubt is the case in the pre^ sent, be intended to procure the punishment of any but the guilty, it is obvious subjects the innocent to great danger. It partakes more of the character of tho inquisition, which the enlightened civilization of the age has driven almost wholly out of existence than of a tribunal suited to a lree people! In the ft^S^hift? Vr tbat tribunal- kings as well as peopll stood abashed in its presence ana dreaded its power Ihe accused was never informed of the names ofhis accusers. Heresy suspected was ample ground for arrest; accomplices and criminals were received m witnesses, and the whole trial was secret, and LcoS ducted in a chamber almost as silent as the grave It was long since denounced by the civilized world not because it might at times punish the here icTthen m violation of atl rightful buman power deemed a criminal), but because it was as likely to punish tht innocent as the guilLy. A nubile trfflT thiili? u which the name! of witness^sand^ tlsUmonS'are given , even in monarchial and despo tic mvemmwS? IS DOW esf.ppmprl flmnlw «in *„ .JTT . ^ SuvernmeiHS. is now esteemed amply adequate to the punishment of trial, wholly or part^iftlle &ecu£ve so'Ses! TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 161 is all that an American citizen is entitled to? Such a I doctrine, if maintained by an English monarch, would Bhakehis government to its very centre, and If perse vered In would lose him his crown. It will be no an swer to these observations to say that this particular trial haa been only in part a secret one, and that se« crecy will never be resorted to except for purposes of justice. The reply is that the principle iLself is incon sistent with American liberty as recognized and se cured by constitutional guaranties. It cupposes that whether these guaranties are to be enjoyed in tbe par ticular case, and to what extent, is dependent on Executive will. The Constitution in this regard is de signed to secure them in spite of such will. Its patriotic authors intended to place the citizen, in this particular, wholly beyond the power, not only of the Executive, but of every department of theGovern- ment. They deemed the right to a public trial vital to the security of the citizen, and especially and abso lutely necessary to his protection against Executive power. A public trial of all criminalprosecutions they thereiore secured in general and unqualified terms. What would these great men have said had they been asked so to quality the terms as to warrant its refusal under any circumstances, and make it dependent upon Executive discretion ? The member who made the in quiry would have been deemed by them a traitor to liberty or insane. What would they have said if told tbat without such qualification the Executive wouid be able legally to impose it as incidental to Executive power? If not received with derision, it wouid have been indignantly rejected as an imputation upon those who at any time thereafter should legally fill the office. II. Let me present the question in another view. If such a commission as this, for the trial of cases like the present, can be legally constituted, can it be doueby mere Executive authority? 1. You are a court, and, if legally existing, endowed with a momentous power, the highest known to man, that of passing upon the liberty or li.'eof tbe citizen. By the express words ot the Constitution, an armv can only be raised and governed, and regulated by laws passed by Congress. In the exercise of the power to rule and govern it, theact before referred to.ot'the 10th of April, I80(i, establishing the arti ;les of war, was passed. That act provides only for courts-martial and court; of inquiry, and designates the cases to be tried before each, and the laws that are to govern the trial. Military commissions are not mentioned, and, of course, the act contains no provision for their govern ment. Now, it is submitted as perfectly clear that the creation of a court, whether civil or military, 13 an ex clusive legislative function, belonging lo the depart ment upon which the legislative power is conferred. The jurisdiction of such a court, and tbe laws and regulations to p:uide and govern it, is also exclusively legislative. What cases are to be tried by it, how the judges are to be selected, and how qualified, what are to be the rules of evidence, and what punishments are to be inflicted, all solely belong to the same de partment. The very element of constitutional lib erty, recognized by all modern writers on government as essential to its security, and carefully incorporated nto our Constitution, is a separation ot the legislative, udicial and executive powers. That this separation is made In our Constitution no one will deny. Article lstdeclares tbat "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." Article 2d vests "tbe executive power" in a President, and article 3d, "the judicial power in certain desig nated courts, and in courts to be thereafter constituted py Congress." There could not be a more caroful segregation of the three powers. If, then, courts^their laws, modes of proceeding and judgments, belong to legislation (and this, I suppose, will not be questioned}. In the absence of legislation in regard to this court and its jurisdiction to try thepresent cases, it has for that purpose no legal existence or authority. The Execu tive, whose functions are altogether executive, cannot conifer it. The offenses to be tried by it, the laws to govern its proceedings, the punishment it may award, cannot, for the same reason, be prescribed by the Exe cutive. These, as well as the mere constitution of the court, all exclusively belong to Congress. If it he contended that the Executive has tbe powers in question, because by implication they are in vol ved 111 the war power 01* in the President's constitutional func- tion,as Commauder-in-Chiefof the army, then this con sequence would f'otlow, that they would not be subject to Congressional control, as that department has no more right to interfere with the power of the Execu tive than that power has a right to interlere with that ofCongres3. If this be so, if by implication the powers in question belong to the Executive, he may not only constitute and regulate military commissions and prescribe the laws for their government, but all legislation upon tbe subject by Congress would be usur pation. Tbat the proposition leads to this result would seem to be clear, and if it does, that resultitself is so Inconsistent with all previous legislation and all Exe cutive practice, and so repugnant to-every principle of constitutional liberty, tbat it demonstrates its utter unsoundness. Under the power given to Congress *'to make rules for the government and regulation of the land forces," they have, trom time to lime, up to and including the act of the 10th of April, 180G, and .since, enacted such rules as tbey deemed to be necessary, ao well in war as in peace, and their authority to do so ha3 never been denied. This power, too, to govern and regulate, Irom its verynature, is exclusive. Whatever is not done under it is to be considered as purposely omitted. The words used in the delegation ofthe power "govern and regulate," necessarily embrace the entire subject, and exclude all like authority In others. The eudof such a power cannot be attained except through uui.ormity ot government and regulation, and this is not to be attained, if the power is in two hands. To be effective, therefore, it must be in one, and the Constitution gives it to one. to Congress, in express terms, aud nowhere intimates a purpose to bestow it, or any portion of it, upon any other department. In the absence, then, of all mention of military commis sions in the Constitution, and in the presence of the sole authority it comers on Congress by rules of its own enacting, to govern and regulate the' army, and In the absence of all mention of such commissions in the act of the 10th of April, 1800, and of a sm^e word in that act. or in any other, hov£ can the power be considered as in the President? Further, upon what ground, other tban those I have examined, can his authority be placed. It is stated that the constitutional guaranties re ferred to are designed only f'oi\a state of peace. There is not a syllable inthe instrument that justifies, even plausibly, such a .qualification. These are secured by the most general and comprehensive terms, wholly inconsistent with any restriction. Tbey are also not only not confined to a condition of peace, but are more peculiarly necessary to the security of personal liberty in war tban in peace. All history telis us that war, at times, maddens the people, frenzies the Govern ment, and makes both regardless of constitutional limitations ofpower. Individual saiety at such periods is more in peril than at any other. Constitutional limi tations and guaranties are then also absolutely neces sary to theprotection of tbeOovemmentitself: The maxim -'salus poputi suprema est lex" is but fit for a tyrant's use. Under its pretense tbe grossest wrongs have been committed, the most awful crimes perpetrated, and every principle or fioedom violated, until at last, worn down by suffering, the people, in very despair, have acquiesced in a resulting despotism. The safety which liberty needs, aud without which it sickens and dies, Is that which law, and not mere un- licensedhumau will, affords. The Aristotelian maxim, saluspublica suprema est lex," "let tbe public weal be under the protection ofthe law," is the true and only sa.'e maxim. Nature without law would be cbaos, government without law, anarchy, or despotism. Against both, in war and in peace, the Constitution happily protects us. If the power in question is claimed under the autho rity supposed to be given the President iu certain cases to suspend the writ of habeas corpus audio declare martial law, the claim is equally ii not more evidently untenable. Because the first of these powers, if given to the President at all, is given "when in cuses of re bellion or invasion," he deems the public safety re quires it. I think he has this power, but there are great and patriotic names who think otherwise. But if he has it. or if it be iu Congress alone, it is entirely untrue that its exercise works any other result than the sus pension of the writ— the temporary suspension of the right or having the cause of arrest passed upon at once by the civil judges. It in no way impairs or suspends the other rights secured to the accused. In what court he is to be tried, how he is to be tried, what evidence is to be admitted, and what judgment pronounced, are all to be what the Constitution se cures, and tlielaws provided in similar cases, when there i.3 no suspension of the writ. The purpose of tne writ is merely, without delay, to ascertain tne legality ofthe arrest. If adjudged legal, the party 13 detained; if illegal, discharged. But in either contingency, when he is called to answer any criminal accusation, and he is a civilian and not subject to tbe articles of war, con stitutionally enacted byCongress.it must b© done by presentment or indictment, and his trial be bad in a civil court, having, by State or Congressional legisla tion, jurisdiction over the crime, and under laws go verning the tribunal and defining the punishment. The very fact, too, that express power is given in a certain condition of things, to suspend the writ re ferred to, and tbat no power is given to suspend, or deny any of the other securities for personal liberty provided by the Constitution, is conclusive to show that all the latterwere designed to be inforce "in cases of rebellion or invasion," as well as in a state ot perfect pe ce and safety. III. I have already referred to the act of 1806, esta blishing the articles of war, and said, what must be ad mitted, that it provides for no military court like this; but, for argument's sake, let it be admitted. And I then maintain, with becoming confidence and due re spect for a different opinion, that it does not embrace the crimes charged against these parties or the parties themselves. Pirst. The charge is a traitorous conspiracy to take 162 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. the lives of the designated persons, "in aid of the exist ing armed Rebellion." Second. That in the execution of th« conspiracy the actual murder of the late Presi dent and tne attempted murder of the Secretary of State occurred. Throughout the cbargeand its specifi cations the consp.racy and its attempted execution are alleged to have been traitorous. The accusation, thereiore. is not one mereiy of murder, but of murder designed and part accomplished with traitorous pur pose. If the charge is true and the intent (which is made a substantial part of it) be also true, then tbe crime is treason and not simple mnrder. Treason against the United States^ as defined by the Constitution, can '¦cjnsistoniyin levying war against themor in adhering to their enemies, giving them a:d and oom.'bit." (3d article.) This definition not only tells vii what treason is, but that no other crime than the dtr,ned:one should be considered tue offense. And the same section provides that "no person shall be convic ed of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession n open court," and gives to Congress the power to decla-e what its punishment shall be. The offense in the general is thesame as in England. In that country, at no period since its freedom became settled, has any other treason been recogmzed. In tne pendency ol' tbis Rebellion (never be ore) it has been alleged that there exists With us the offense of military treason, punishable by the laws of war. It is so stated in theinstruciions of General Halleck to the then commanding officer in Tennessee, ot the 5th of March, 18(13. (Lawrence's Wheaton, suppt., p. 41.) But Halleck confines it to acts commuted against the army of a belligerent, when occupying the terri tory of the enemy. And be says, wnat is certa'nly true, if such an offense can be committed, that it "is broadly distinguished from the treason defined in the constitutional and statutory laws and made punishable by the civil courts." But the term military treason, is not to be found in any English work or military order, or, before this Rebellion, m any American authority. It has evidently been adopted during the Rebellion as adoctrineof military law, on the authority of conti nental writers in governments less free than those of England and the United States, and in which, because they are less free, treason is not made to consist of specific acts, and no others. But if Halleck is r.ght, and all our prior practice, and that of England, from whom we derive ours, is to be abandoned, the cases beiore you are not cases of "m.litary treason," as he rteGnes it. When the oi- fenses alleged in these cases are stated to have oc curred in this District, tne United States were not and did not claim to b3 in its occupation as a belligerent, nor was it pretended that the" people of this District were, in a bel igerent sense, enemies. On the con trary, they were citizens, entitled to every right of citizenship. Nor were, the parties on trial enemies. Tbey were either citizens of the District or of Mary- laud, and under the protection of the Constitution. The olfense charged, then, being treason, it is treason as known to the Constitution and laws, and can only be tried and punished as iney provide. To consider these parties belligerents, and their al leged offense military treason, is not only unwar ranted by the authority of Halleck, but is ind.rect conflict with the Constitution and laws, which the Pre sident and all of us are bound to support and defend. The offense, then, being t.eason, as known to the Constitution, ita trial by a military court is clearly il- le ral. And this for obvious reasons. Under tne Con stitution no conviction of such an offense can be had "unless on the testimony of two witnesses to ihe overt act, or on confess on in open court." And under the laws the patties am entaled to have "acopy o. the in dictment and aiistol the jury and witnesses, with the names and places of abode of both, at least tbree en tire days be ore the trial." They also have the rig!:t to challenge peremptorily thirty-five of the jury, and to challenge for cause without limitation. And, finally, unless tbe indictment shall be found by a grand jury within three years next alter thetreason done or committed, they shall not be persecuted, tried or punished (actSOthApril, 1790, 1 Stat, at large, rp- 118, 119). Upon whatpossble ground, there'ore, can this Commission possess the jur.sdiction claimed f.r It? It i3 not alleged that it is subject to the provisions stated, and in it3 very nature it is impossible thivt it should be. The very sa ejuards designed by the* on- stitution, if it has such jurisdiction, are wholly unavail ing. Trial by jury in ail cases our English ancestors deemed (as Story correctly tells us) "thegreat bulwark of their civil and political liberties, and watched with an unceasing jealousy and solicitude." It constituted one of the fundamental articles of Magna Charta, i%nullus liber homo capiatur nee imprisonetur out exulet, aut aliquo nodo, d"struatur~ &c, nisi per legale judicium parium suo rum, vel per legem terrm," This great right the American colonist3 brought witb them as their birthright and inheritance. It landed with them at Jamestown and on the rock of Plymouth, and was equally prized by Cavalier and Puritan, and ever since. tp tno breaking out or'the Rebellion, has been enjoyed and esteemed the protection and proud privilege of their posterity. At tim"S during the Rebellion it has been dibregarded and denied. The momentous nature ofthe crisis brought about by that stupendous crime, involving as it did tbe verylne of the nation, has caused tbe people to tolerate such disregard and de nial. But the crisis, thank God! has passed. The au thority ofthe Government throughout our territorial limits is reinstated so firmly that reflecting men here and elsewhere are convinced that the danger has passed never to return. .. , .. The result proves that the principles on which the Government rests have imparted loit a vitality that will cause it to endure for all time, in spite of foreign invasion or domestic insurrection; and one ot those. principles, the choicest one, is the right incases of "criminal prosecutions to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury," and in cases of treason to tbe addi tional securities before adver. ed to. The great purpose of Magna Charta and the Constitution was (to quote Story again) '"to guard against a spirit of oppression aud tyranny on the part of rulers, and against a spirit of violence and vindictivent ss on the part of the ],eople." The appeal for saiety can, under such cir cumstances, scarcely be made by innocence, in any other manner than by the severe control of courts of justice, and bvlbe firm and impartial verdict of ajury sworn to do right, and guided solely by legal evidence and a sense of duty. Insucn a course there is a double security against the prejudices of judges who may par- , take ot the wishes and opinions of the Government, and against tbe passions of the multitude, who may demand their victim with a clamorous precipitancy." And Mr. Justice Blacks tone, with tbe same deep sense of its value, meets the prediction of a foreign writer, "that becauseRome, Sparta, Carthage havelost their liberties, tboseof England iu lime must perish," by reminding him "that Rome, Sparta, and Carthage, at the time when their liberties were lost, were strangers to the trial by jury," (3 Bla.,p. 87U.) That a right so valued and esteemed by our lathers to be necessary to civil liberty, so important to the very existence of a free government, was designed hy them to be made to depend for its enjoyment upon tue war power, or upon any power intrusted to any department ot our Govern ment, is a reflection on tneir intelligence and patri otism. IV. But to proceed. The articles of war, if they pro vided ior the punishment of the enmes on trial, and authorized such a court as this, do not include such parties as are on trial; and, untn tbe Rebellion, I am noiiaware that a different construction was ever inti mated. It is the exclusivefruit ofthe Rebellion. Tne title of tbe act declaring the articles is "an act for establishing rules and artxies for the government o^ the armies of the United States." Tbe first section states that "the following shall be the rules and articles by which the armies of the United States shallbe governed," and every other article, except the 53th and 57th, are in words conhned to persons belonging to tbe army in some capacity or other. I understand it to beheld by so me that because such words are not used in tue two articles referred to, it was the design of Congress io include persons who do not belong to the army. In myjuidgment, this is a wholly untenable construction; bin if it was a correct one. it would not justify the use sought to be made of ft. Itwoufld not bring these parties, for their alleged crimes, before a military cour*. known lothe act, cer tainly not be.ore a military commission, a court un known to the act. The ohense* charged are a traitor ous conspiracy, and murder comm.tted in pursuance of it. Neither offense, if indeed two are charged, is embraced by either tne 5ithor 57th artcles of the statute. The 56th prohibits the relieving the enemy with money, victuals, or ammunition. or knowingly harboring and protecting bim. Sophistry itselt cannot bring the offenses in question under this art.cle. The 57th prohibits only the "hojding correspondence with, or giving intelligence to, the enemy, eitherdirectlv or indirectly." It is equally clear that the offense's hi question are not within this provisiou. But, in tact, the two articles rened upon admitof no such construction as is understood tobeciaimtd. Tbis is thought obvious, not only from the gene at charac ter of the act, and of all tue other articles it contains, but because the one immediate. y preceding like all those preceding and succeeding I., other than thelifty- sixth and fifty-seventh, include only persons belong ing to the "armies ot the UnitedStaies." Its language is, "whosoever belonging to the arm.es of the United States, employed in foreign parts." shall do the act prohibited, shall suffer tbe prescribed punishment. Now, it is a familiar rule of interpretation, perfectly wellsettledinsuchacase, that unless there be some thing in the following sections that clearly shows a purpose to make them morecomprehensive than their immediate predecessors, they are to be construed as subject to thesame limitation. Su far from there beins in this instance any evidence of a different purpose, the declared obiect of the statute, evidenced bvits title, its first section, and its general contents, are all inconsistent with any other construction. And when to this it is considered that the power ex- ercised>by Congress in passing the stature was merely tne constitutional one to make rules for the govern ment and regulation of the army, it is doing great in justice to that department to suppose that, in exercis ing it, they designed to legislate lor any other class, TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 163 The words, therefore, in the 55th article, "belonging to the Urfted States," qualityingtheimmediateprecedlng word, "whosoever," are applicable to the 5atb and 57th, and equaly qualify the same word "whosoever' also used in each ot them. And, finally, upon thjs poind am supported by the authority of .Lieutenant-General Scott. The Commission have seen from my previous reference to bis "Autobiography," that he placed his right to issue his martial-law order, establishing, amongst other things, military commissions to try certain offenses in a lcreign country, upon the ground that otherwise they would, go unpunished, and his army'become demoralized. One of these offenses was murder commitued or attempted, and for such an offense be te1 Is us that the articles of war provided no court for their trial and punishment, -'no matter by whom oron whom committed." AndUhis opinion is repeated in the fourth c',ause-oi his order, as true of all tbe designated offenses, "except in the very restricted caseintheninth or'tiie articles." V. There are other views which I submit to tbe seri ous attention of the Commission:— The mode ol pro ceeding in a courilike this-, and whicb has been pur sued by the prosecution with your approval, because deemed legalby both, is so inconsistent with the pro ceedings of civil courts, as regulated for ares by es tablished law ,'that the fact, I think, demonstrates that persons not belonging to tliearmy cannot bj subjected to such a jurisdiction. 1. The character of the plead ings. Theo^f nsecharged is a conspiracy with poisons not within the-reacli of tue court, and some of them in aioreign country, to commit tha alleged crime. To give you jurisdiction, the design of the accused and their co-conspirators is averred to have been to aidthe Rebellion, and to perfect tnat end, not only by the murder ofthe Presidentand Lieutenant-General Grant, but of the VicePresident and Secretary of State. It is further averred that thePresident being murdered, the "Vice Preside.it becoming thereby President, and as such Commander-in-Chief, the purpose was to murder bim, and, as in the-cjnLin^ency of the dea h of botb, it would be tuedutvof ihe Secretary of State to cause an elect. on to beheld ior President and Vice Pnsideut, ho was to be murdered in order to prevent a *'law.ul election" oi these officers, andthstby all these means "aid and com ort" were to be g.ven "the insurgents engaged inarm^dRebeilion against the United States," and "the subversion and overthrow o. tne Constitution and laws ofthe United States'' thereby effected. Ihat such pleadings as tbis would not be tolerated in aoivilcourt.Isuppose every lawyer will concede. It is argumentative, and even in that character un sound. The continuance of our Government does not depend on the lives of any or all of its public servants. As iact or law, therefore, the plead ing is latally defec tive. TbeGovernmentbas aninherent power to pre serve itself, which no conspiracy to murder or murder can in tbe slightest degree impair. And the result which wehave just witnessed proves this, and shows the folly of the madman and fiend by whose hands our late lamented President Ml. He doubtless thought that he done a deed that wou-d subvert the "Constitu tion and laws." We know that it hud not even a ten dency to tbat result. Not a power of the Government was s-uspended. All progressed as be. ore the dire catastrophe. Acherished andalmost idol. zed citizen was snatched from us by the assassin's arm, but there was no bait in the march of the Government. That continued in all its majesty, who'ly unimpeded. The only effect wasto place the nation in te.irs and drape ' it in mourning, and to awake the sympathy and excite the indignation of the world. But this mode of pleading renders Impossible the rules of evidence known to the civil courts. It justi fies, in the opinion ofthe Judge Advocate and the Court (or what has been wouid not have been done) a latitude that no civil Court would allow, as in the judgment of such a court the accused, however inno cent, could not be supposed able to meet it. Proof has been received not only of distinct offenses from those charged, but of such offenses committed by others than the parties on trial. Even in regard to the party him self, other offenses alleged to have been prev.ously committed bv h.m cannot be proved. Atone time a different practice prevailed in England, and doesinow, it is believed, in some of the Continental Governments. But since the days of .Lord Holt (a name venerated by lawyers and all admirersof enlightened jurisprudence) H has not prevailed in England. In the case ol Har rison, tried before that Judge ior murder, tbe counsel for the Government offered a witness to prove some felonious design ot'the prisoner th ee years before. Holt indignantly exclaimed, "Hold! holdl whatare you doing npw? How can he defend himself from charges of which he has no notice? And how many issues are to be raised to perplex me and the jury? Away ! away ! that ought not to be— that is nothing to tbe matter.*'— [12 State Trials, 883, 874.] I refer to this case hot to assail what has been done in these cases contrarv to this rule, because I am bound to infer that beiore such a commission as thi3 the rule has no legal force. If in a civil court, then, these parties would be entitled to the benefit of th»s rule, one never departed from iu such courts, they would not have had proved with those charged. With the same view, and not de nying the right of the Commission in the particular case lam about to refer to, but to show that t.ie Con stitution could not have designed to subject citizens to the practice, I cite the same judge to prove that in a civil court those parties could not have been legally lettered during their trial. Inthe casRorVanbu.ru, accused as implicated inthe "assassination plot" on trial beiore the same judge, H lfputaneni to what Lord Campbell terms "the ifvolting practice of trying criminals in ft- tte s." Hearing the clank of chains, though no complal-it was made to him, hesaid:— "I should like to know why the prisoner is brought in ironed. Let them bein&iantl/ knocked off Wnen prisoners are tried they should st.ind at their ease." (13 State Trials, 221, ^d Campbell Lives Chief Justices, l^o). finally, I deny the junsuc- tion ofthe Commission, not only because ne ther Con stitution nor laws justify, but on the contrary repu diated, but on the ground that all the experience of tliepa-otis against it. JeJ'erson, ardent in t~e prosecu tion o* Burr, aim solicitous for his conviction, irom a firm belief ot'his guilt, .never suggested that he should be tried be, oro- any ether than a civil court. Andin tnat trial, so ably presided over by Marshall, thes pri soner was allowed to ' stand at his ease,' was granted every Constitutional privilege, and no ev.dence per mitted lo be given against him but suchasacivil court recognizes, and in tbat case as in this, the over throw otthe Government was tbe alleged purpose; and yet it was not intimated in any quarter that he could be tried by a inilit ;ry*tribunal. In England, too, the doctrine on which this prosecu tion is pUced is unknown. Attempts were made to. assassinate George tbe Third and the present Queen, and Blr. Percival, then Prime Minister, was assassina ted a3 he entered the House of Commons. . In the two first instances the design was to murder ihe com mander-in-chief of England's army and navy, In whom, too, the whole war power of the Government was also vested. In the last, a Secretary, clothed with powers as great at least as those that belong to our Secretary ofo. ate. And yet, in each, the parlies ac- oused were tried before a civil court, no one suggest ing any other. And during the period of the French Revolution, when its principles, if principles they can be termed, were being inculcated to an extent tbat alarmed tbeGovernment, and caused it to exert every power it possessed to frustrate their effect, when tho w Tit, of habeas corpus waa suspended, and arrests and prosecutions resorted to almost without limit, no one suggested a trial except in the civil courts. And yet the apprehension of the Government was that the object of the alleged conspirators was to subvert its authority, bring about its overthrow, and tubject tbe kingdom to the horrors of the French Revolution, then shocking the nations ofthe world. Hardy. Foster and others were #icd by civil courts, and their names remembered for the principles of Lreedom that were made triumphant mainly by the efforts of 'that great (in tbe words of a modern Eng lish statesman) genius, Earl Russell, whose sword and buckler protected justice and freedom during the d sastrous period," having "tbe tongue of Cicero and the soul of Hampden, an invincible orator aud an undaunted patriot"'— Erskine. As it was these trials were conducted with so relentless a spirit, and, it was thought, with such disregard ofthe rights oi the subject, that the administration of the day were not able to withstand the torrent of tbe people's indig nation. What would have been the fate, individually as well as politically, ifthecases had been takeu be fore a military comm ission and life taken. . Can it be that an American citizen is not entitled to all the rights tbat belong' to aBniish subject? Can it be that, with us, Executive power at iime3 casts into tbe shade and renders all other power subordinate? An American statesman, witb a world-wide reputa tion, long since gave an answer to these inquiries. In a de tale in the Senate otthe United States, in which he assailed what he deemed an unwarranted assump tion of Executive power, hesaid, "the first object ofa free people is the preservation of their liberties, and liberty is only to be maintained by constitutional re- straintsand just divisions of political power." It doe3 not trust the amiable weaknesses of human nature, and therefore will, not permit power to overatep its prescribed limits, though benevolence, good intent and patriotic intent ** uui~tr uw jji^ « un. _ j.« by others, and having no necessary or legal connection I has never been declared by any competent authority, K4 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. and the civil courts, we know, are in full and undis turbed exercise of all their functions. We learn, and the fact is doubtless true, that one of the parties, the very chief of the alleged conspiracv. has been indicted and is about to be tried before one or those Courts. If this, the alleged head and front of the conspiracy, is to be. and can be so tried, upon what ground of right, of fairness, or of policy, can the parties who are charged to have been his mere instruments, be deprived of the same mode of trial? It may be said that, in auting under this commission, you are but conforming to m order of thePresident, which you are bound to obey. Let me examine this for a moment. If that order merely authorizes you to investigate the cases and re port the facts to him, and not to pronounce a judgment, and U to that extent legal, then it is because the Presi dent has the power himself, without such proceeding, to punish tbe crime, and has only invoked your assist ance to enable him to do it the more justly. Can this be so? Can it be that the life of a citizen, however humble, depends in any case on the mere will of tbe President? And yet it does, if thedoctrine be sound. What more dangerous one can be imagined? Crimeisdefinedby law, and is to be tried and pun ished under tbe law. What is murder, treason or con spiracy, and wbat is admissible evidence to prove either, are all legal questions, and many of tbem oft- times difficult of correct solution. What the facts are may also present difficult inquiries. To pass upon the first the Constitution provides courts, consisting of judges selected for legal knowledge, and made inde- pendentof Executive power. Military judges are not so selected, and, so far from being independent, are ab solutely dependent on such power. To pass upon the latter it provides juries, as not being likely to "par take of the wishes and opinions of tbe Government." But if your function is only to act as aids to the Pre sident, toenable him to exercise his function of pun ishment, and, as be is under no obligation, by any law, to call for such aid, he may try and punish upon his own unassisted judgment, and without even the form of a trial. In conclusion then, gentlemen. I su 'unit that your responsibility, whatever that be, for error, in a proceeding like this, can find no protection in Pre sidential authority. Whatever it be. it grows out ofthe laws and may through the 1 aws be enforced. Isuggested in tbe outset of these remarks Ibatthat responsibility in one contingency may be momentous. 1 recur to it again, disclaiming as I did at first tbe wish or hope that it would cause you to be wanting in a single parti cular of what you mcy believe to be your duty, but to obtain your best and most matured judgment. The wishandhope disclaimed would be alike idle and dis courteous; and I trust the Commission will do me the Justice to believe that I am incapable of falling into either fault. Responsibility to personal danger can never alarm soldiers who have faced, and will ever be willing in their country's defense to face death on the battle field. But there is a responsibility that every gentle man, be he soldier or citizen, will constantly hold be fore him and make him ponder, responsibility to the Constitution and laws of his count! v and an intelligent public opinion, ana prevent his doing anything know ingly that can justly subject him to the censure of either. Ihave said that your responsibility is great. If the commission under wbich you act is void and confers no authority, whatever you do may involve the most serious personal liability. Cases have oc curred that prove this. It is sufficient to refer io one. Joseph Wall, at tbe time ofthe offense charged against him was committed, was Governor and Commander of the garrison of Goree, a dependency of England, in Africa. The indictment was for the murder of Benj. Armstrong, and the trial was had in January, 1802, be fore a special court, consisting ot Sir Archibald McDonald, chief baron of the Exchequer; Lawrence, of tbeKing'sBench; andKooke.of theCommon.Pleas. Tbe prosecution was conducted by Law, then Attorney General, a tcrwards Lord Ellen bo rough. The crime was committed in 1782, and under a military order of the accused and the sentence of regimental court- martial. The defense relied upon was that at the time the garrison was in a state of mutiny, and that the deceased took a prominent part in it. That because of the mutiny the order for the court-martial was made, and that the punishment which was inflicted, and s:ild to have caused the death, was under its sentence. The offense was purely a military one, and belonged to the jurisdiction of a military court, if the facts relied upon by the accused were true, and its judgment constituted a valid defense. The court, however, charged the jury that If they found that there was no mutiny to justify such a court- martial, or its sentence, they were void and fur nish no defense whatever. The jury so finding, found the accused guilty, and he was soon after executed. (28 St. Tr. 51-178). The application of the principle of this case to the question I have considered is obvious. In that instance, want of jurisdiction in the court- martial was held to be fatal to its judgment as a de fense for the death tbaten^ued under it. In this, if the Commission has no jurisdiction, its judgment, for the same reason, will be of no avail, either to Judges, Secretary of War, or President, if either shall he called to a responsibility lor what may be done under it. Again, upon the point of jurisdiction I beg leave to add tbat the opinion I have endeavored to maintain is be lieved to be the almost unanimous opinion ot the pro fession, and certainly is of every judge or court who has expressed anv. , . In Maryland, where such commissions have been and are held, the Judge ofthe Criminal Court ot Bal timore recently made it a matter of special charge to the grand jury. Judge Bond told them:— "It has come to my knowledge that here, where tbe United States Court, presided over by Chief Justice Chase, has al ways been unimpeded, and where the Marshal of the United States, appointed by the President, selects the jurors, irresponsible and unlawfut military commis sions attempt to exercise criminal jurisdiction over ci tizens of this State, not in the military or naval serv.ee ofthe United States, nor in the miiitia, who are charged with offenses either n^t known to tbe law, or with crimes for which the mode of trial and ] umsh- ment are provided by statute in the courts of the land. That it is not done by tbe paramount authority of the United States, your attention is directed to Article V of the Constitution of tbe United states, which says:— 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising iu the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in ac tual service in time of war or public danger. Such persons, exercising such unlawful jurisdiction, are lia ble to indictment bv you as well as responsible in civil actions to the parties." In New York, Judge Peck- man, of the Supreme Courtof that State, and speak ing for tbe whole bench, charged their Grand Jury as follows:— ¦'The Constitution of the United States. Article 5, of the amendments, declares tbat 'no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise in. anions crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public danger.' "Article e declares that In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and pub lic trial." "Article 3, Section 2, declares that (the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.' &c. "These provisions were made for occasions of great excitement, no matter from what cause, when passion rather than reason might prevail. "In ordinary times there would be no occasion for such guards, as there would be no disposition to depart from the usual and established modes of trir.l. *'A great crime has lately been committed, tbat has shocked-i he civilized world. Every right-minded man desires the punishment of thecriminais; but he desires that punishment to be administered according to law, and through the judicial tribunals of the country. No star-chambercourt.no secret inquisition in this nine teenth century, can ever be made acceptable to tbe American mind. "If none but the guilty could be accused, then no trial could be necessary; execution should lollow accusa tion. "It is almost as necessary that the public should have undoubted faith in thepuntyof criminal justice, as it is that justice should in iact be administered with Integrity. "Grave doubts, to say tbe least, exist in tbe minds ofintelligent men as to the constitutional right of the recent military commissions at Washington to sit in judgment upon the persons now on trial ior their lives before that tribunal. Thoughtful men feef aggrieved thatsucha commission should be established in this free country when the war is over, and when t he com mon law courts are open and accessible to administer justice according to luw. without fear or favor. "What remedy exists? None whatever, except through the power of public sentiment. "Ascitizensof t.iis free tountry, having an interest in itsprospe ity and good name, we may, as I desire to do, in all courtesy and kindness, and with all proper rospect, express our disapprobation of this course in our rulers at Washington, '•Tneunanimlty with which the leading press of our land has condemned this mode of trial ought to be gratifying to every patriot. "Every citizen is interested in the preservation, in theirpurity, of the institutions cf his country, and you, gentlemen, msiy make such presentment on this sub ject, Il'any. as your judgment may dictate." The reputation of both of these judges is well and favorably known, and their authority entitled to the greatest de'erence. Even in Prance, during the Consulship of Napoleon. the institution ofa milUary commission for the trial ofthe prisoner, Due d":Engbten, for an alleged conspi racy against his li.e, was, to the irreparable iniury of his reputation, ordered by Napoleon. The trial was I had, and the Prince at once convicted and executed. It brought upon Napoleon the condemnation of tho , world, and is one of theblackest spots in bisoharacter. I The Case ofthe Duke, says the eminent historian of i ; The Consulateand the Empire," furnished Napoleon I ^appy opportunity of saving his ready, and hastened to impart his mysterious pians. The plan was to goti Was linutou, takearide with confederates on horseback to the Soldier's Home, cap ture the President and deliver him tu the Be'iel authorities. On the evening Ot tne Hthof April, at- 8 o'clock. Booth told him the hour had struct*., p aced in his hands tbe knile, tbe re.u v,t and the bosus package oi medicine, and told bim to do his duty, and gave him ahorse, wuh d.rectious to meet him at the Anacosta Bridge; and fie went and did the deed. Said Mr. Doster. — I have asked him why he did it. His only answer is, "because I believed it my duty." ¦ Mr. Doster argued that Payne at the time he com mitted this deed had no will of his own, but had sur rendered his wnl completely to Booih, under that in fluence, that complete supremacy of one mind over anotner. that has gone bv various names amongst various nations, and which we cill '' mesmerism." Booth was a person peculiarly gi.ted with this un accountable influence, and tue prisoner was turthe. held to Booth oy the lies of gratitude, by his oath, by tiesot interest,, and by ties of sympathy in a common cause. Hence the explanation wny, when iniormed ot Bootu's plans, , he did not in.orm the authorities aud breakaway from Booth. Mr. Doster drew a distinc tion between t ie hired assass.n who kills ior gold, and the fanatical assassin who deems it bis duty to otter up his own life in exchange ior the life he believes to be a pub ic enemy, and contended that Payne was of the latter class. The erect bearing, the patience, the smiling self-pos session of the prisoner, were referred to as indi cating the political ianatic, a monomaniac on the subject of nis duty. He urged that tnis man wishes to die in order to gain the full crown ol m .r- tyrdom, and therefore it wegratiiy him he will tri umph over us, but ii we spare him we will triumph over him. Ii suffered to live, he win receive the wor^t punishment, obscurity, and the public will have no thing to admire. He has killed no man, and if he be put to death we shall have the anomaly of the victim surviving the murderer, and, under the laws, he can De puuished only tor assault and battery, with intent to kill, aud therefore imprisonea. Mr. Doster proceeded with other considerations why tbe prisoner's lifesuould be saved, and before cone. udiug spoke ot the many good qualities he had found in the prisoner by his inter course with him, his irank, manly bearing, his disin clination lor notoriety, aud his indisposition to screen himself irom punishment. His only prominent anxiety was lest people should thintc him a hired assassin or a brute, an aversion to being made a pub.ic spectac.e ot, and a desire to be tried at the hauds ot his lellow citizens. Alter an hours recess taken by the Court, Mr. Doster enL'red upon theargumen. onbjhaL ot Atzeroth, com mencing by ottering a statement by his client as lol- Tue prisoner, Atzeroth, submits the following state ment to the Court:— " I am one of a party who agreed to capture the President ot the Uuited States, or any memoer or tue Cabinet, or General Grant, or Vice President Johnson. The first plot, to capture, laiied; tne second, io kilt, I broke away irom the moment I heard ot it. 'ihis is the way it came about. Ou theevenuiiiof ihe 1 4th of April I met Booth and Payne at tne Herndon Hotel, in this city, at 8 o'clock; he (Bootnj saidhehiim>elt would take charged Mr. Lincoln and General Grant, Payne slioulJ take Mr. Seward, and I should tke Mr. Johnson, i told him I wouid not do it; that I iiaJ gone into tuetb.ng to cap ture, but that I was not going to kill. He told me I was a hkJ. that I would be hung any how, that it was death ior every man that backed out, and so we parted. I wandered about the streets until about two o'clock in the morning, and then went to theKim- mell House, and irom mere I procured my pistol at George own, and went to my cousin's house, in Montgomery county, wnere I was arrested the 19th following. After I was arrested 1 told Provost Mar shal Wells and Provost Mnrshal McPhail tno wnote story; I also told it to Captain Monroe, and Colonel Wells told me if I pointed out the way Bootn had gone I would be reprieved, and so I told him I thought he had gone -own Charles county, in order to cross the The arms which were found in my loom at the Kirk wood House audablacii coat, do not belong tome. On the afternoon of tne 14th of April Harold called to see me. and left the coat there. It is bis coat, and ail in it belongs to bim. as you can see by the handker chief marked with his initial and with the name of his sister Mrs Naylor. Now I will state how I passed to" whSU of the evening of the litn of April. In the afternoon, about two o'clock, I went to the livery stable on Eighth street, near D, and hired a dark bay mare, and rcdainto the country for pleasure, and on my re: urn pjther up at JSay.or's stable. The dark bay mare w.ichlhaj ke tat Naylor's belor-. on or about tne od of Ai-rii, belunged to Booth, and, also, the saddle and bridle, and I had charge of her io self her and I do not kjiuw wnat become ut her. At about six intheeveniug i went to Naylor's again and took out the mare, rode out for an hour and re lumed her to Naylor's. It was then nearly e.fht o'ciock, and 1 told mm to keep toe mure rc.dyatten olclocK, m order lo return her to the man I hi.ed her from. Prom there I went to tue • Pit rndou Hoube. Bootn sent a message to Oyster Bay, wnere i was, say ing he wanted to aee me. and I went. Booth wanted me to murder Mr. Johnson. I refused; .1 men went to the Oyster Bay, on the Avenue, above Twelfth street, and whiled away the time until near ten. At tea I got the mare, and having taken a drink wi h the hosier, galloped about town and went to tue Kunmell House; irom there 1 rode down to the depot, and returned with very hard riding up Pennsylvania avenue to Kelcher's. From Keicher's I went down to the Navy Yard to get a room with Wash. Briscoe. He had none, aud by the time Igotback to the Kimemll House it was near two. The man Thomas Was a stranger I met on the street. The next morning, as stated, I went to my cousin Kechler's in Montgomery county. GEORGE A. ATZEROTH. Mr. Doster, proceeding with his argument, quoted the specification uuder-wnicu the priaoutir Atzeroth is charged, as toilows:— "And in further prosecution of said, conspiracy and its traitorous and murderous designs, tne said George A. Atzeroth old, on thenightol thel4th oi April, Anno Domini 18i!o. and about the same hour ot the night aforesaid, witnin the military department aud mili tary lines aioresaid, lie in wait for Andrew Johnson, then "Vice President oi the United States aioresaid, with the intent un.awtully and maliciously to kill and murder the said Andrew Johnson. in support oi this specification the Government has submitted the teitimi.nyot Weichman and MissSur- raLt that he was frequently at Mrs. Surratt's. in com pany with Booth; of Greenwalt. thathebad interviews with Booth at tbe Kimmell House, and tbat he said on tbe 1st ot April, '"Greenwalt, I am pretty near broke, though I have friends enough to give me as much money as will keep me all my life. I am going away one of these days, but will return with as much money as wii I keep me all my lifetime." Of Marcus P. Norton, that he overheard him iu con versation with Booth, in which it was said, about the evening ol this 3d of March, that "if the matter suc ceeded as well with Johnson as it did with o'd Bu chanan, the party would be sold;" and also, "that the character or the witnesses would be such tbat nothing couldbe proved by them." Of Colonel Nevins, that he was asked by the prisoner, between four and five ot the afternoon ofthe 12th of April, at the Kirkwood House, to point out Mr. Johnson while at dinner. Of John F. etcher, that on or about April 3d the prisoner owned a borse and saddle, which he after wards said was sold in Montgomery county, and which was afterwards found near Camp Baring Hos pital on tne night ol" the 14th of April, and also tbat he not a dark bay mare at Naylor's, ont he evening ot the 14th, which he had brought there in tbe morning and rode tier awav at half-past six. Brought her back at eight returned again at ten, ordered his mare, took a drink, said -'if this thing happens to-night you will hear of a present," and said of the mare, "she is good on a retreat." That then he rode to the Kirkwood House, came out again, went along D Street and turned up Tenth. Of Thomas L. Gardner, that the same dark bay one- eved horse iound near Camp Barry was sold by his uncle to George Gardner. Of John Toffey, that the same horse was found at 12'^ A. M., Saturday, 15th of April, near Camp Barry. Of Wash. Briscoe, that on tne night of the 14th of April, between 12 and 12^ o'clock, the prisoner got out of the cars near the Navy Yard and asked him three times to let him sleep in the store; that he was refused and said he would return to the Kimmell House. Of Greenwalt, that he came to the Kimmell House at 2 A. M. with a man named Tho mas and hesitated to register bis nameand wentaway in the morning without paying his bill. Of Lieut. Keim, that he stopped in the same room with the prisoner at the Kimmell House, and when he (witness) spoke of the" assassination Atzeroth said "It was an awfulatfair; ' and that on tbe Sunday beiore he saw a knife in his possession, a large bowie knife inasheath, and that he, Atzeroth, remarked. "If one fails I waut the other" Of Wm. Clendenin, that he found a knife similar to the one seen by Keim, on F, betweenEighth and Ninth streets, on the morning after the assassi nation Of Robert Jones and John Lee, that Atzeroth took a room at the Kirkwood. No. 126, and that in it, on the morning of the 15th, was found a coat contain ing a pistol loaded, and bowie knite, and handkerchief marked with the name of J. Wilkes Booth. Of Pro- vostMarshal McPhail, that Atzeroth confessed to him that he threw his knife away near the Herndon House; that he pawned his pistol at Caldwell's store, in Georgetown, and borrowed ten dollars, and that the goat and arms at the Kirkwood belonged to Harold. no TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Of Sergeant Gemmill, that he denied having left Washington recently, or having anything to do with the assassination. ¦Of Hezekiah Metts, tLaton Sunday followingthemur- der Atzeroth said at his house, "if the man had fol lowed General Grant who was to have followed him, he wouid have been killed." To negative this specifi cation the defense had submitted the testimony of Somerset Leaman that the prisoner said at- Metts' house, when asked if Grant was killed, "no, I do /not suppose he was." If he had beeu killed, it would have been done probably by a man that got on the same train of cars that he did, and that he never used the language imputed to him by Mr. Metts. That he was contused; that the daughter of Metts, to whom he was paying his addresses,- was throwing him the cold shoulder that day. Of James E. Leamen to thesame effect. -Ol James Killiker, that Atzeroth had a dark bay mareat his slable at hall-past two o'clock on the afternoon oi the 14th; wrote his name iu a large hand and willingly gave references, and said he lived in Port Tobacco, and was a coachmaker by trade; of Sa muel Smith, that the mare .was returned about eleven o'clock on the evening of the nth; of" Samuel McAl lister, that Atzeroth rode up to the Kimmell House about ten, and called the black boy to huld his mare; that the knile lound near the Herndon House, and the revolver lound at Caldwell's, had been in Atzeroth's possession, but he could not identify the coat, or its contents, lound at the Kirkwood House; of Provost- Marshal McPhail, going to show that the watch be longed to Harold; 6 t'Mrs/N ay -Ior. that the handkerchief picked up in Atzeroth's room was marked with the name of Harold's sister; of Plartman Richter, that the prisoner came to his house, in Montgomery county. and made no* effort to escape; of Somerset Damon that he is of respectable iamiiy; of Samuel McAllister, that he was generally considered a coward; of Washington Briscoe, that he is a noted coward; of George Farwell, thathe saw no one lying in wait about Vice President Johnson's room at the Kirkwood immediately after the assassination, nor did he see any one attempt to enter for hall an hour: of W. C. Browning, Private Secre tary, that the Vice President wasin his room from 5 o'clock, the balanced the evening; of M. J. Pope, that on the 12th the prisoner was at the stable endeavoring to sell a horse; that he went off with John Barr; of the latter, that the prisoner was at Pope's; of Henry Brau- ner and L. C. Hawkers, that on the 3d of March he was in Port Tobacco; of Judge Olin and Henry Bur den, that they, would not believe Marcus Norton on oath. The prisoner submits that the testimony adduced by the prosecution Jails utterly to support the specifica tion, but corroborates the prisoner's own statement in every particular. The specification charges him with lying in wait for Andrew Johnson, etc., and on this point the evidence is circumstantial. Colonel Nevins says Atzeroth in quired for the President on the afternoon of April 12, between tour and five o'clock, and acknowledges that besaw bim only ior a moment at the time. Pope says that the prisoner came to his stable some day in April to sell ahorse, and this day is fixed by John Barr as the 12th of April, because he made an entry in his book at the time. Colonel Nevins' testimony must, there fore, Jail to the ground, and while it is concluded that some one at the Kirkwood had anked Colonel Nevins this common question, it is certain that Atzeroth is not the man. The second point brought in support of the specifica tions is by Marcus P. Norton, whose declaration is to the effect tbat he saw Atzeroth in company with Booth on the evening ot March 3d, he thinks, and heard it said, "If the matter succeeds as well with Johnson as it did with old Buchanan the party would be sold;" also, the words "the character ol the witnesses would be such that nothing could be proved by them." The prisoner says this >is a deliberate lalsehood, as he proved that he was not in Washington on the 2d and 3d of March by Henry Brauuer, ol Purt Tooacco, and Louis P. HawKins, who testily that about that time he was at home. This wouid be sufficient to disprove Norton's statement, but there is other evidence that he was de iberately making testimony,ifor be says on the same day he saw Dr. Mudd, who was asking for Booth, Dr. Mudd has shown thathe was not at the Kirkwood or in Washington on that day. Th.s ingenious fabricator of testimony chose the 3d of March to give his story probability, and he appears belore he wove this fine perjury in, to have omitted reading the testimony of Conover, who says the name of Andrew Johnson was not joined in the plot until after the inauguration, and that at that time the name ot Mr. Haml n was on the list, and so perpetrated an egregious blunder. How singular that he shou.d re member exact words Ibr three months, and laces when he Is so shortsighted as might be inferred. He is a notable false witness. He takes patent cases, and If he cannot urge by argument, he takes the witness Stand and swears them through. Mr. Henry Burden, a wealthy citizen of Troy, and Judge B. Olin, testify that they would not believe him on his oath. From internal evidence of his testimony, its falsity in the matter of Dr. Mudd, its proven lalsity in the time of Atzeroth's visits to the Kirkwood, and his known reputation as a false witness, leaves no shadow of doubt that his testimony is the offspring of a desire to distinguish himself on the witness stand, and that Atzeroth never met Booth at the National on tne 3d of March, or had the alleged conversation with him. The t.iird strong point ofthe prosecution is that Atzeroth left room No. 126 at the Kirkwood, taking the key with him, and in his room was found a coat, con taining a bowie knile, pistol, handkerchief marked "J. Wildes Booth," together with noteson the Ontario Bank, in the name ox Booth, and memoranda, show ing that tbey once belonged to Booth. The coat and contents were disposed of by the pro secution. McPhail swear.-* that Atieroth told him that the coat and arms belonged to Harold. The clerk swears that some one called to see Atzerot.i inthe afternoon. It was Harold, and he left .his coat in the room. The handkercmef is marked with the uame of Mary E. Navlor. sister oi Harold. Another is marked H, ior Harold. But why did Atzeroth suffer bis coat and arms to be in his room? Because he was in a plot to capture the President, In so far he was the col league of Harold and Booth; no further. Because for this purpose to capture the President, to be used in defense, he carried the knife and pistol, which McAl lister used to keep for him. The same knife he threw away, the same pistol he pawned, and therefore he suffered Harold to leave his armor for the same reason he carried his own. But why did Atzeroth go away with the key and never come back? Becanse he did not want to be arrested; because he'was not guilty of aiding in tne'assassination ol Mr. Lincoln; because he was in tueplot so far as to capture the President, and when he was ordered to kill the Vice President and retused, he wasunable to resolve either to inro'rm the authorities ior lear of Booth, or to do the deed for fear oi be. ng hung, and so just abandoned the room as he abanduned-everytbing connected with the conspiracy. Had he been able to resolve to carry out his allotted duty he would naturally have taken the coat of Ha rold and put it on aud used the arms. Had he been able to resolve to flee at- once be would have removed all traces of his participation. One reason for leaving without paying Wash was because he had -no money, and the reason fbr leaving the coat was because they did not belong to him; butth© main reason was because he was between two fires, which' brought out his native irresolution, and so he cut the gordian knot by running away. We shall see that he left tne Kimmell House the next morning without paying his bill. It was ior thesame reason he hud no money until after he had pointed his pistol at Georgetown. ^Tne fourth point ot the prosecution is that Atzeroth lodged in the same house with the Vice- President, and the relative situation of the rooms was favorable to assassination. The room of the Vice- President was one which no one coutd help passing in going down or up, aud room 126 was as remote from it as possible, in a different wing. It is evident that any one desirous of lying in wait for the Vice-President would have taken a room on the same floor, but the actual iact is better than suppositions. Mr. Browning says the. Vice President was in his room irom 5 to lu, during which time the deed could have been done. There is no evidence that Atzeroth was at the house during that time, except that of Fletcher, who says that Atzeroth went there and stayed five minutes. What was he doing there? lie was taking a drink at the bar. If be tried to kill Mr. Johnson why was it not shown? No one was seen lyins in wait; the lock had not been tampered with; the V'ce President was undisturbed even by a knock on the door—and why? Because Atzeroth reiused to do it. Because he kept up appearances but backed out. Because the instrument wuich was to have as sassinated the Vice President was too conscientious, or airaid to do it. The fi th pointis, that on his arrest he gave a false name, lienied having left Washington recently, and said he bad nothing to do with the assassination. For the last statement be told the truth. Assassination , and murder were things for which he was not by nature intended, and he had nothing to do with it; as lor the laise name, it appeared that Sergeant Gemmill understood his name to be Atwood; knowing that he had been in colleague with others to capture tne Presi dent, he was afraid to cou less his part, and then and there denied having recently left Washington. The sixth point is that he said to Ftetcner, after ten on the 14th, "If this thing happens to-night you will hear of a present." And also iu reference to the mare, "she is good on a retreat;" and to Lieutenant Keim, on the Sunday before, "If one fails I shall want the other.'1 On the first-occasion, Atzeroth was about half drunk, while the other remark was made alter the parties had taken their cocktails, so that even if we credit the drunken memories oi thewitnesses, we can not do more than credit it to pot valor, pointing to the possible desperate melee of an attempt to capture There is only one assumption that will make every thing agree. Atzeroth backed out. He arrived here: he liked the money, but did not like to be bung. He nevei heard of murder before that evening at eight o'clock, or he would long before have hid himself When he did hear it he had firmness enough to object. Coward conscience came to his rescue. But Booth TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 171 threatened to kill, and he knew well enough he was the man to close the mouth of any one who troubled him, so he went off, driven likeapoor frail being be tween irresolution and fear; took drinks, feigned to he doing his part, talked valiantly while the rum was in his throat, promised gloriously, galloped round fiercely, talked daggers, and when the hour struck did nothing and ran. The specification charges that about 10*15 he was lying Iu wait to murder. &c, and the counsel contends that all the circumstances can be accounted for. The prisoner had opportunity to lie in wait, and as there was no, proof that he did, he should be considered guiltless of tbe attempt to murder. If the theory of his attempting to murder be adopted, itis met with de nial at every ppmt. He tried to become a hero, but was only a coachmaker, absolutely without courage. The plain, unvarnished statement is that during the latter part of February. Jonn Surratt and Booth wanted a man who understood boating, and would both get a boat and ferry a party over the Potomac on a capture. Surratt knew Atzeroth. and under tbe in fluence of great promises of a fortune, consented to furnish the boat and do the ferrying over. This plot was attempted on the lsth of March and failed. Booth, however, kept his subordiuates unin formed of bis plans, except that it was understood the President w..s to be captured. Meanwhile everybody was w litin^ for Booth. On the 13th of March Atzeroth went to the Kimmcl House. On the 1st of April he talked of future wealth; on tbe 6th he spoke to Lieu- tenautKeim, over their liquor, of using one if the other failed. On the 12th he stopped at the Kirkwood, and tried to sell the bay horse to Pope; on tbe 14th Booth unfolded his plans at the Herndon House, and Atzeroth refused; from the Herndon House he went to Oyster Bay till ten, and took drinks; at ten he took a drink with Fletcher; at ten minutes past ten he took a drink at the Kirkwood House; at twenty minutes past ten ditto at Kimmel.and rode aboutthe city; at eleven returned his horse; at twelve he was at tbe Navy Yard; at two he went to bed. Next morning at five he got up and went to George town, pawned his pistol, and went to Mr. Mett's; on the 16th, took dinner at Mett's; o n Sunday evening he went to Hartman Richter's; on the lUtb lie was ar rested. This ends this history, which might have be come a tragedy, but which the prisoner has turned to a farce. He was riding round from bar-room to bar room while Payne was at Seward's, and it is plain he was drunk. After his peregrinations, to charge him with lying in waitj&c, is paying him an undeserved compliment. There is not a particLe of the specifica tion proved, but the immediate contrary. During the whoie of the evening, so Jar as the evidence throws any light on his conduct, instead of lying in wait near to the Vice President, he was standing at the different bars from the Union House to the Kimmel Houso, with the intent then and there unlawfully and mali ciously to make Atzeroth drunk. Booth employed him for au emergency. He was esnecialy competent toper otmin tneplau to capture, to furnish the boat, and to carry the party across the Potomac. For participating in the President's mur der he never could have been intended. Booth was, as his conduct shows, anxious to carry off the glory of the tiling. He remarked that he wanted "no botch ing wilh General Grant." He must have known when he told Atzeroth to takecharge of the Vice President, that he had not the courage and did not care particu larly whether he accomplished it or not. Tue charge is divisible in two separate and distinct parts, ''With combining, confederating," etc., "on or before the 6th of March," etc. And even suppose he was proven guilty of the charge and speciiication, be has already turned State's evidence to the Provost Marshal, and therefore bis punishment would fall under the practice usuat in all courts of justice, that one confessing lias an equitab.e right to the leniency of the Court. His case, however, re^ts ou no such slender ground. Instead of conspiring to kill, be re fused to kill; instead of lying in wait to murder, he intoxicated himself. at the appointed hour, and the next morning ran away. He is guilty solely ot what he confesses, of conspiring to abduct the President, and of that he can be found guilty only under a new indictment. Mr. Aiken read the argument in behalf of Mrs, Sur ratt, commencing as follows:- For the lawyer, as well as the soldier, there is an equally pleasant duty, an equally imperative com mand. That duty is to shelter from injustice and wrongtheianocent; to protectthe weak from oppres sion, and to rally, at all times and on all occasions when necessity demands it, to the special delense of those whom nature, custom or circumstances may have plaeed in dependence upon our strength, honor aud cherishing regard. That command emanates and reaches each class from the same authoritative source. It comes from a Superior whose right to command none dare question, anclnone dare to disobey. In this command there is nothing of that lex talionis which nearly two thousand years ago nailed to the cross its Divine Author. "Thereiore all things what soever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even bo unto them, for this is the law and the prophets." God bas not only given us life /but he has filled the world with everything to make life desirable, and when we sit down to determine the taking away of that which we did not give, aud which, when once taken, we cannot restore, we consider a subject the most solemn within tbe range of human thought and human action. Profoundly Impressed with the inno cence of our client, we enter upon this last duty in her case with the heartfelt prayer that her honorable judges may enjoy the satisfaction of nothavin^asingle doubt left on their minds in granting her an acquittal, either as to the testimony affecting her or by the sur rounding circumstances of the case. After alluding to the argument of tbe Hon. Reverdy Johnson, whom he styled the "grander decus colu- menoue" of his profession, Mr. Aiken discussed with much particularity the plea of reasonable doubt, and in applying the rules wbich obtain hi civil courts to courts-martial, and that they must be goyerned in the acceptance and analysis precisely by these, reasonable rules of evidence, that time and experience ab autico, surviving many ages ol judicial wisdom, have unalter ably fixed as glides in the administration of ttie cri minal law. Mr. Aiken here quoted many authorities sustaining his positions. He claimed that if Mrs. Sur- iattcouid be found guilty in aeivil court she mightbe convicted here. He then stated that for private and public reasons it was highly desirable that t ie findings of the Court should be sustained by sufficient evidence. If they were, the public would overlook any irregu larity that might be supposed to exist. He stated that the case was wonderfully barren of even circumstantial evidence against Mrs. Surratt; but all that was circumstantial by no means connected ber with guilty knowledge or guilty intent. ' He then-in quired what these facts were, the character -of this evidence in support of them, and ofthe witness, and whether they were consistent with a reasonable theory by which guilt is excluded. The character, scope and tone of the argument can , he gathered from the remarks near the close, viz:— A mother and son, associated in crime, and such a crime as this half of the civilized world never saw matched in all its dreadful bearings. Our judgments can have hardly recovered their unprejudiced^ poise since the shock of the late horrors; if we can contemplate with credulity such a picture conjured by the unjust spirits of indiscriminate accusation and revenge; a crime which in private misery would have driven even the atis haunted heart of a Medici, a Borgia, or a Madame Bocarmi to w.ld confusion before its accomplishment, and daunted even that soul, of all the recorded world, the most eager for novelty in license and most un shrinking in sin the indurated soul of Christiana, of Sweden; such a crime as pro.ounde^t plotters within padded walls would scarcely dare whis per; the words forming the expression of wh.'ch spoken aloud in the upper air would convert all listening boughs to aspens, and all g. ad sounds of nature to shuddering wails, and tbis made known even surmised to a woman a "mater familias." The good genius, the "placens uxor ' of- a home where children had gathered all the iniltiences of purity and the reminiscences of innocence, where religion watched and the Church was minister and watcher, who were circumstantial evidence strong and conclusive, such as only time and the slow-weav ing fates could elucidate, and deny. Who will believe, when the mists of uncertainty which cloud the pre sent shall have dissolved, that a woman born and bred in respectability and competence, a Christian mother and acitizen who never offended the laws of civil propriety; whose unfailing attention to the most sacred duties of life has won lor her the name of "a pioper Christian matron;" whose hearth was ever warmed by charity; whose door was unbarred to the poor, and whose Penates has never cause to veil their face,s who will believe that she could so suddenly and iully have learned the intricate arts of sin? Mr. Aiken closed with the following remarks:— "Let not this first State tribunal in our country's history, which involves a woman's name, be blazoned^ beiore the wolrd with frhe harsh hints of intolerance which permits injustice, but as the benignant heart and kindly judging mind ot the world-lamented v.ctim ot a crime which would, in its ramifications of woe, aroused so many fates, would himself have counselled you. Let the heralds of peace and charity, wi th their wool-bound slaves, follow the fasces and axes of judgment and Law, and without thesacrifice of any innocent sphigenla, let tbe ship of state launch with dignity of unstained sails into tbe unruffled sea of union and prosperity. The Court adjourned over till Friday. Proceedings of Friday, Washington. June 23.— George B. Hutchinson, a witness called by the Government, testified that he was an enlisted man during tbe recent war, for a year and a half; he saw Clement C. Clay on or about the 12th or 13th of February last, at the Queen's Hotel, Toronto; he did not think he was mistaken in seeing Clay then and there; he also saw Sanders, Beverly Tue- 172 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. ker, and others, at Montreal, on the 16th or 17th of the same month. The witness was present at a conversation at the St. Lawrence Hall, Montreal, on the 2d or 3d of June, when the present trial was the subject discussed by Dr. Merritt, Beverly Tucker, General Carroll, of Tennessee, and ex-Governor Wescott, of Florida. Beverly Tucker said he had burned all the letters, for fear the Yankee sons of would steal them. The witness had knowledge that Dr. Merritt enjoyed the confidence of Tucker and the others. Air. Ewiiia's Argument. 'Mr. Ewing then proceeded to read the argument in tbe prisoner Arnold's case. Heremarked that the evi dence was not voluminous, a'nd it was all in harmony as to the main facts. Mr. Horner, the detective, said tbat Arnold after bis arrest gave an account of a meet ing held at the Lichen House in Washington, the ef fect of which was to capture the President and take him South for the purpose of compelling the Govern ment to an exchange of prisoners. After announcing his intention of having nothing to do with it if not per formed within the week* Arnold withdrew from it, when Booth said for tbis be ought to be shot. Booth had previously furnished the conspirators with arms. and so perlectiy satisfied did he become that Arnold had withdrawn from the plot, that he told Arnold to dispose ofthe arms placed in the prisoner's hands just as he pleased. This statement of Arnold was truthful and ingenuous, and all the evidence corroborated and conformed to it. In Booth's trunk was found a letter from Arnold. dated from Hookstown. March 27, in reply to one from Booth, who-had endeavored to reclaim and again en list him in his scheme. Tnis letter showed that the rupture between them was comniete, never to be healed. During Arnold's stay at Mrs. Van Tyne's in this city it was not denied that he was engaged in tbe plot for the capture of President Lincoln. Arnold re mained in Maryland from the2istto the 31st of March, when he proceeded to Fortress Monroe for thepurpo^e of entering upon a situation as clerk with Mr. Whar ton. About the 20th of March occurred the meeting Which resulted in the quarrel of the accused with Booth, when Arnold gave up his room at Mrs. Van Tyne's and never saw Booth afterwards. The evidence established only that at one time Ar nold was a party to a plot to capture or abduct the President. If on the 14th of April the President had been abducted, instead of assassinated. Arnold could not be punished, because be had withdrawn from tbe conspiracy, as the prisoner countermanded the inten tion to abduct, and altogether withdrew from it. There was no crime committed, and as a consequence no punishmentshould follow. Mr. Ewing quoted from various legal authorities to show that after Arnold had terminated his association with the conspirators, be was not responsible lor what was done afterwards. No one act of the conspirators could affect him. There was not the remotest lesti- monv to connect Arnold with the commission of the murderous deed. He repeated, that the original plot in which Arnold bore a part was abandoned, and an entirely new one with which Arnold was in noway connected was substituted. Although hehad conspired with the same parties for a different purpose, he cer tainly was not responsible with the wicked men who did the wicked deed of murder. The prisoner, the counsel argued, could not be an accessory beiore the fact of a crime hedid not know was to be committed. At the time of the assassination Arnold was not in Washington. He was not nearer the scene tban For tress Monroe, nor did he give any KUilty aid orpartici. pationtothe murder after the crime had been com mitted. After a Recess Mr. Ewing addressed tbe Court upon the subject of jurisdiction, arguing that neither the Constitution of the United States nor the laws passed under it gives them power to try the prisoners for the crime "w'th which tbey are charged. As there was no Constitu tional or legal provision for trial in such a Court, it must have been authorized by some mandate from the Executive, which the Constitution prohibits. If his clients were to be tried for treason and murder, it must be proved thatthey aided in or abetted the acts, for either of them, on conviction, wan punishab'e with death. The Judge Advocate would not s-xy on what law and authority he rested the conviction of these pa' ties and for what crime. The civil Courts were open, without impediment, for impartial trial, and hence, in the absence of other considerations, there was no necessity lor this trial before a military Court. If such a precedent be set we may have fastened upon us a military despotism. It might be tbis ar raignment before a military Court was more conve nient and conviction more certain tban before a civil tribunal. The Judge Advocate had said that the parties were tried under the common military law. This was a quiddity, and might make a fictitious crime, and a: tach an arhitrary punishment, and who may gainsay it? Our rules and articles of war-are familiar to us all. We never heard of the common laws of war having juris diction not conferred by express enactment or consti tutional grant. If the laws govern, he (Mr. Ewing) felt satisfied that his clients were safe. One of them. Dr. Mudd. had committed no crime known to tbe law. He could not be charged with treason, nor as aiding and abetting in tbe murder of the President, for, at the time of tbe tragedv, Dr. Mudd was at his residence, thirty miles from the place of the crime. Ho certainly could not be charged with the com mission of the overt act. There were not two witnesses to show it, but there was abundant evidence to show hedid not commit tbe overt act. Dr. Mudd never bv himself, or with others, levied war against the United States or gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Mr. Ewing then proceeded to comment on the evi dence, claiming that there was nothing which in tho, remotest degree connected Dr. Mudd with the con spiracy. He ventured to say, that rarely in the annals of the civil trials, has the life of accused been assailed by so much false testimony, as had been exhibited in this case, and rarely has it been the good fortune of an innocent man to so confute and overwhelm his false accusersbyapreponderanceofundisputed truth. There was no reliable evidence to show that Dr. Mudd met Booth more than twice, and that was last November, in Charles county, on a mere matter of trade. Hehad never met Booth in ihis city. The counsel then reviewed the evidence relative to Dr. Mudd^having set Booth's leg and other events in that connection, arguing tbat from all tbis there was nothing to lead to a conclusion un favorable to the accused. Dr. Mudd voluntarily, not on compulsion, gave information concerning tbe route by whicn Booth with Harold had escaped, and instead of thanking him forthis-asagoodand loyal citizen, an effort was made to punish him. Truly the ways of military justice, like those of Providence, are inscru table and past finding out. In the course ot his de fense Mr. Ewing said that in all the writings which had been seized there is not a scratch of a pen impli cating Dr. Mudd, nor is there anything whateverto show that he bad the least intimation or knowledge either of assassination or of abduction. He con cluded that his client could not he punished either as a principal or as an accessory before the fact, for tbe evidence fails to show either knowledge, or intimation or suspicion to commit the crime. It the prisoner was to be held responsible at all, it was a1- an accessory after the fact, and beyond all controversy therewas no proof on this point. All the arguments lor theacensed havingbeen read, Associate Judge Advocate Bingham said lhat on Tues day next he would beiready with so much of his sum ming up as touches the question of the jurisdiction of tbe Court and he hoped, by the next day, to deliver the conclusion ol his argument. The Court then adjourned until Tuesday morning, at 11 o'clock. Washington, June 27.— The Court met at 11 o'clock when Judge Advocate-General Holt recalled Sandford Conover, alias J. W. Wallace, as a witness for the Go vernment. Judge Holt said he held ii bis hand a volume con taining the judicial proceedings in thecase of theSt. Albans raid, and asked the witness whether his evi dence there'n was trurhiully reported. The witness said the testimony to which General Holt had espe cially reierred was partly his, but associated with that of another person named Wallace. Q. Do you remember how many persons named Wallace gave testimony on that trial? A. There were threesofaras I know; William Pope Wallace. J. Wat son Wallace, and J. Wal'ace; what was read from the work just now was Le report of the Montreal Tele graph, printed from the type of that newspaper; the report which appeared in the Montreal Witness was correct. This was read as follows:— " James Watson Wallace said:— I reside at presentiu this ciry and have been here.since October: I formerly resided in the Con ederate States: I know Jimes A Seddon; he occupied r tie position o Secretary of War I should say the signatures to the papers M, N and O are those of the said Seddon; I have on 'several occasions seen the signature of James A Seddon and h veseen him on.several occasions write his name He has signed documents in my presence, and handed them to me after signing; I never belonged to the Con federate army, but have seen many commissions is sued by the Con It-derate Government; the commission or Lieutenant Young, marked M.,ls in the usual form- the army commissions are always signed by the Se<> retary oi War; I have never seen a commission with the name oi tbe Prrsident or witb the seal of the Go vernment: the Confederate States at the time I leit tha country had no seal; one had been designed, but not prepared." e ' ut The witness remarked that the above was substan tially what hedid say; it was olipped either from the Montreal Witness or the Herald. Q. State whether after you gave your testimony in this Court, you visited Montreal. A. I left here ber- haps the same day. * TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 173 Q. Whom did you meet there of those spoken of as refugees? A. I met Tucker, Carroll, Dr. Pallen, ex- Governor Wescott. George Sanders. Lewis Sanders, his son. and a number of others; I had a free conversa tion with some of them, especially with Tucker and Sanders. Q. What did Tucker say, so far as the purpose of those men was concerned? A. They had not the slightest idea tbat I had testified before this Commis sion, and received me with great cordiality: the subject of this trial was generally discussed; Tucker, after de nouncing Secretary Stanton and President Johnson as scoundrels, spoke of Judge Holt as a bloodthirsty old villain; he said they must protecttbemselves by aguard at present; "but, by the Eternal, the dav of reckoning will come.and they would have a 1 ong account to settle:" Sandersdid not make such violent threats as Tucker did; William S. Cleary, whom he also met, made simi lar violent threats; he said that Bealewould have been pardoned by the President had it not been for Judge Holt: he also said blood should follow blood; he reminded me of what he had formerly remarked con cerning President Lincoln. "That retributive justice had come, and tbe assassination of thePresident was the beginning of it." Q. After giving your testimony here did you not go to Canada for me? A I did, to get a certified copy ofthe record; at Montreal I met these conspirators; I had not been there long when they discovered that my testimony had been published; I received a mes sage from Sanders, Tucker,* Carroll andO'Donnell, a Virginian, sometimes called McDonnell. Q. The man who boasted of setting fire to houses in New York? A. He so boasted: I went into the sa loon to wait until tbe public offices were opened; while sitting there about ten minutes, a dozen Rebels surrounded me; they accused me of having betrayed their secrets: not knowing at tlte time that my testi mony had been published I denied it; they said Ifl would give them a letter to tbat effect it would be well: just as I was about to get away Beverly Tucker came iu: he said a mere letter would not do, because I had testified before the Court, therefore I must give some paper under oath to make my denial sufficiently strong; about a dozen of these men assailed me In a furious manner; O'Don- nell took out his pistol and said unless I did so I should never leave the room al i ve: at last Sanders said, "Wal lace, you see what kind of hands you are in;" I at length consented: It was understood that I was to pre pare the paper in my own way: I intended, however, not to prepare the paper but to escape from them at the most convenient opportunity; Mr. Kerr was Jheu sent for to prepare the paper: two of Morgan's men were there; a pistol was again drawn on me; Kerr came and the affidavit was prepared and I sighed it and went through the ceremony of an oath. Q, Did you know that.Kerr had knowledge of these menaces? A. It must have so appeared to bim, for Tucker said if I did not sign the paper I should never leave the town alive, and that they would follow me to . Q. Did that paper appear In the Telegraph, and was it afterwards copied into the New York World? A. It did (the paper was read); it appeared in the Montreal JEvening Telegraph, of June lOtb, and is to the effect that if President Johnson will send him (James W. Wallace) a safe conduct to go to Washington and to return to Montreal, he would proceed hither and go before the Military Court and make proffer of himself in order that they may see whether he was thesame Sandford Conover who swore as stated; this is dated June 8th, 18fi5. and is s;gned James W. Wallace; to this tbe affidavit before referred to is appended namely:— "I am the same James W. Wallace who grave evi dence on the subject of the St. Alban's raid, wbich evidence appears in page 212 of tbe printed report of thecase; I am>a native of Loudon county, Virginia; I resided in Montreal in October; 1 have seen and ex amined the report of what is called tbe suppressed evidence before the court-martial now being holden at Washington on Mrs. Surratt, Payne and others, and I have looked carefully through the report of the evidence in the New York papers of a person calling himself Sandford Conover, whoreferred to the fact that whilst in Montreal he went by the name of James Watson Wallace, and gave evidence in the St. Alban's raid investigation; that said Conover evi dently personated me before the said court-mar tial: that I never gave any testimony what soever before tne said court-martial: that I never gave any testimonv whatsoever before the said court-martial at Washington City; that I never had knowledge of John Wilkes Booth, except seeing him on the stage, and did not know he was in Montreal until I saw it published after the murder of President Lincoln: that I ft ever was a correspondent of the New York Tribune; that I never went, under the name of Sandford Conover: that I never had any confidential conversation with George N. Sanders, Be verly Tucker, Hon. Jacob Thompson. General Carroll, of Tennessee, Dr. M. N. Paller, or any ot the others therein ment:oned; tbat my acquaintance with every one of these gentlemen was slight, and in fine, Ihave no hesitation in stating that tbe evidence of tbe said Conover personating me is false, untrue and un founded in fact, and is, from beginning to end, a tissue of falsehoods. I have made this deposition voluntarily, and injus tice to my own character and name. (Signed) "J. WATSON WALLACE." This was sworn to before G, Smith, Justice of the Peace, at Montreal, on the 8th of June, inst : Alfred Terry testified that Wallace subscrieed to the paper of his own free will, &c. By Judge Advocate Holt.— Q. I understand this is the paper sworn and subscribed to by you under the cir cumstances which you have detailed, with pistols pointed at your face, and that the statements m this paper ure false. A. Yes sir. I never heard of Alfred Terry, who said I swore to it voluntarily; the adver-r tisement appended to the deposition, and which is as follows, was also induced by the same threats, "Five hundred dollars reward will be given for the arrest, so that I can bring to punishment in Canada, the infamous and perjured scoundrel who recently personated me under the name of Sandford Conover, and deposed to a tissue of falsehoods before the Mili tary Commission at Washington. (Signed) "J.W.WALLACE." Q. You have stated that you were never in the Con federate army: what did you mean?. A. I meant that I never served as a soldier after I was conscripted; I- was detailed as a clerk in the Rebel War Department. Q. By Judge Holt.— Was any attempt made by those men io detain you in Canada? A. I believe so, by friends of theirs, and I was relieved through the influ ence of General Dix. Testimony of Nathan Aimer. By Judge Holt.— Witness said he had known Sand ford Conover for eight or ten years; his character for integrity was good; recently witness had accompanied Conover to Montreal and was present at the interview with Tucker and Sanders; after they went into O'Don- nell's room Mr. Cameron came therewith a paper con taining an account of Conover's testimony; Conover had the paper shown to him, but denied be had so testified; be was told he must sign a writing to that effect or he should not leave tbe room alive; they would shoot him like a dog; they all went into the St. Lawrence Hall, but would not let the witness follow them; there were twelve or fifteen persons in the party, including Sanders, Tucker. O'Donnell, Carroll, Dr. Pallen and Cameron. The witness said he did not see any weapons on their persons. Testimony or John Cantly. By Judge Holt.— I reside at Selma, Alabama, and am a printer in the office of the Selma Dispatch, Judge Holt said, I will read the following wbich purports to have been clipped from tbat newspaper, namely:— "A million dollars wanted, to have peace by tbe 1st of March. If the citizens of the Southern Confederacy will furnish me with the cash or good securities tor the sum of $1.000,('00, 1 will cause the lives of Abraham Lincoln, Wm. H. Seward, and An drew Johnson to be taken by tbe 1st of March next. Tbis will give us peace and satisfy the world that cruel tyrants cannot live in a land of liberty. If this is notaccomnlished nothing will be claimed beyond the sum of $50,U0O in advance, which is supposed to be necessary to reach and slaughter the three villains. I will give, myself, $1000 towards the patriotic purpose. Everv one wishing to contribute will address 'X.' Ca- hawba, Alabama, December 1st, 1864." Q. Will you state whether this advertisement was published in ihe Selma Dispatch in December 1864? A. As far as I recollect it was November, and was pub lished four or five times: I saw the manuscript, which was in tbe handwriting of G. W. Gale, of Cahawba, Alabama; his name was signed at the bottom ofthe sheet simply to indicate the author and who was re sponsible lor it; the Dispatch had a circulation of eight hundred copies, and exchanged with the Richmond parers; Gale is a lawyer of considerable reputation, and is distinguished for his extreme views on the subject of slavery: I never saw Gale before his arrest. "Watkins D. Graves, also a printer, who had tteen em ployed in the Selma Dispatch office, remembered to bave seen the advertisement signed X.: it was in Mr. Gale's handwriting, which the witness had frequently seen. Dr. Merritt was recalled for the Government with reference to a statement made by Mr. Hutchinson that he overheard a conversation on the 2d of June. The Doctor said on tbat day he saw General Carroll at St. Lawrence Hall, and introduced himself as Dr. Mer ritt, of Memphis. As there was a large family of that name at Memphis, from which vicinity General Car roll came, he pxpressed to the witness great gratifica tion at meeting him. m General Carroll introduced bim to Tucker and others as Dr. Merritt. On Tuesday, the 6th of June, the testi mony was published in Canada, when Tucker said they were perfectly posted as to everything on this trial, and Tucker said they had burned the papers from the Con federate Government for fear some Yankee would steal tbem for evidence. Ex-Governor Westcott was present duringtbe interview with w:tness, but he did not hear the latter utter any disloyal sentiments, although it 174 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. must be Inferred he was playing into his friends hands. By General Wallace.— Q. By whom were they being post v . Hesaid. we have friends in Court; who, I don't know: I did not take lor granted it was any member ot the Court. (Laughter). Judge Holt said theGovernment was now through with its testimony. Assistant Judge-Advocate Bingham then delivered his argument, as follows:— Argument of Joins A. Biiifrhnm, SPECIAL JUDGE ADVOCATE, IN REPLY TO THE SEVE RAL ARGUMENTS IN DEFENSE OF MARY E. SURRATT AND OTHERS, CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY AND THE MURDER OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, LATE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. May it please the Court— The conspiracy charered and specified, and the acts alleged to have been com mitted in pursuance thereof, and with the intent laid, constitute a crime the atrocity of which has sent a shudder through the civilized world. All that was agreed upon and attempted by the alleged inciters and instigators of this crime constitutes a combination of atrocities with scarcely a parallel in the annals of the human race. Whether the prisoners at your bar are ftiilty of the conspiracy and the acts alleged to have een done in pursuauce thereof, asset forth in the charge and ^peciacation, is aque^t'Ti the determina tion ot which rests solely with th s honorable court, and in passing upon which this court are the sole judges of the laVv and the fact. In presenting my views upon the question of law raised by tho several counsel for the, defen.se, and also on the testimony adduced for and ag-iinst the accused, 1 desire to be jq.-st to,them, just to you, just to my country, and, lust to my own convictions. The issue joined involve1; the holiest interests of the accused, and, in my judgment, the highest interests of the whole people ofthe United States. It is a matter of great moment to all the people of this country that fhe prisoners at your bar be lawfully tried and lawfu'lv convicted or as/quitted. A wrungiul arid illegal conviction or a wrongful and illegal ac quittal upon this dread issue would impair somewhat the security of every man's life, andshako the stability ofthe republic. Tho crime charged and specified upon your record is not simply tbe crime of murder ing a human being, but it is ihe crime of killing and murdering on the 14th day Of April. A. D. 1SC5, within the military department of Washington and (be intrenched lines thereof, Abra ham Lincoln, then President of the United States. and Commiindcr-in-Chief of the army and navy thereof; and then and there assaulting, with intent to kill and murdsr. William H. Seward, then Secre tary of Stale of tbe United States; and then and there lying in wait to kill and murder Andrew Johnson, then Vice President of tho United States, and Ulysses S. Grant, then Lieut -General and i . i command of ihe armies ol the Uniiedotnt-es, in pursuance of a treason able conspiracy, entered into by the accused with one John W'ilkes Booth, and John H. Sjrratt, upon the instigation of Jefferson Davis. Jacob Thompson, George N. Sanders and others, with intent thereby to aid the existing Rebellion and subvert the Constitu tion and laws of the United States. The Bebellion, in aid of which this conspiracy was formed and tins great public crime committed, was prosecuted for the vindication of no right, for the re dress of no wrong, but was itself simply a criminal conspiracy and gigantic assassination. In resisting and crushing this Robelbon the American people take no step backward, and cast no reproach upon their past history. That people now, as ever, proclaim the self- evident truth tnat whenever Government becomes subversive of the ends of its creation, it is the right and duty of the people to alter and abolish it: but dur ing these four years of conllict they have as clearly proclaimed, as was their right and duty, both by law and by arms, that the Government ot their own choice, humanely and wisely administered, oppres sive of anno and just to all, shall not be overthrown byprivv conspiracy or armed Bebellion. What wrong had this Government or any of its duly constituted agents done to any of the guilty actors in this atrocious Bebellion? Tiiey themselves being wit nesses, tbe Government which tliey assailed had done no act, and attempted no act, injurious to them, or in any sense violative oi'their right3 as citizens and men; and yet for four years, without cause of complaint or colorable excuse, the inciters and instigators of the conspiracy charged upon your record have, by armed Rebellion, resisted the lawful authority of the Government, and attempted by force of arms to blot the republic from the map of nations. Nowthat their battalions of treason are broken and flying before the victorious legions of the republic, the cnief traitors in this great crime against your Government secretly conspire with their hired confederates to achieve by assassination, if possible, what they.have in vain attempted by wager of battle, the overthrow of theGovernment of (be United States and the sub version of* its Constitution and laws. It isforthisse- cret conspiracy in tbe interest ofthe Rebellion, formed at the instigation ofthe chiefs of that Rebellion, and in pursuanc ¦ of wbicn the acts charged and specified are alleged to have been done and with the intent laid, that the accused are upon trial. The Government in preferring this charge does not indict the whole people of any Stateorsection, but only the alleged parties to this unnatural and atrocious con spiracy and crime. Tbe President of the Uuited/Staies, in tbe discharge of his duty as Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and by virtue ofthe power vested in him by the Constitution and laws of tue United States, has constituted you a military court, to hear and deter mine the issue joined against the accused, and has con- stitutedyouacourt.or no other purpose whatever. To this charge and specification the defendants have pleaded, first, that this court has no jurisdiction In the premises; and, second, not guilty. As the court has already overruled the plea to the jurisdiction, it would bepassed over in silence by mo but for the fact that a grave and elaborate argument has been madeby' coun sel for the accused, not only to show the want of juris diction, but to arraign the President of the United States beiore the country and the world as a usuroerof power over the lives and the liberties o J' tbe prisoners. Denying the authority ofthe President to constitute this commission is an averment that tbis tribunal is not a court of justice, has no tesal existence, and there fore no power to hear and determine the issuejoined. Tbe learned counsel for the accused, when they make this averment by way of argument, owe it to them selves and to their country to show how the President could otherwise lawfully and efficiently discharge the duty enjoined upon him by his oath to protect, pre serve, anldoiend the Constitution ofthe United States, and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. An existing Rebellion is alleged and not denied. It is charged that m aid («' ibis existing Rebellion a con spiracy was entered into by the accused, incitedand instigated thereto by the.clneis of this Rebellion, to kill and murder the executive officers of theGovernment, and tbe commanderof the armies ofthe United States, and that this conspiracy was partly executed by the murder of Abraham Lincoln, and by a murderous assault upon the Secretary of State; and counsel re ply, by elaborate argument, that although the facts be as charged, though the conspirators be numerous and at large, able and eager to complete the horrid work of assassination already begun within your military encampment, yet tbe successor of your mur dered President is a usurper if he attempts by mili tary force and martial law, as Commander-in-Chief, to prevent the consummation of this traitorous con- spiracyin aid of this treasonable Rebellion. The civil Courts, say the counsel, are open in tne District. I answer, tbey are closed throughout halt the Republic, and were only open in this District on the day of this confederation aud conspiracy, on the day ot the trai torous assassination of your President, and are only open at this hour, by force ofthe bayonet. Does any man suppose that if the military forces which garri son the lutrenchments of your capital, fifty thonsand strong, were all withdrawn, the Reb^l bands who this dayiuiestthe mountain passesinyour vicinity would allow this Court, or any Court, to remain open in this District for the trial of these their confederates, or would permit your executive officers to discharge the trust committed to them, for twenty-four hours? At the time this conspiracy was entered into, and when this Court was convened and entered upon tbis trial, the country was in a stale ot civil war. An army of insurrectionists have, since this trial begun, shed the blood of Union soldiers in battle. 1 he conspirator, by wnose hand his co-conspirators, whether present or absent, jointly murdered tho Pres'dent on the Mth of last April, could, not be and was not arrested upon civil process, but was pursued by the military power of the Government, captured and slain. Was this an act of usurpation, a violation of the right guaran tied to that fleeing assassin by the very Constitution against which and for the subversion of which hehad conspired and murdered the President? Who in all this land is bold enough or base enough to assert it' I would be glad to know by what law the President, by a military force, acting only upon his military orders, is justified in pursuing, arresting, and killing one oi these conspirators, and is condemned for arrest ing in like manner, and by his order subjecting to trial according to the laws of war. any or all of theo'her parties to this same damnable conspiracy and crime by a military tribunal of justice; a tribunal, I mav be pardoned for saying, whose integrity and imtfartialitv are above suspicion, and pass unchallenged even bv the accused themselves, ^»^" wj> The argument against the jurisdiction of this court rests upon the assumption that even in time of insur- ™SnHndKC,vl1 ^ar' n° crimes are cognizable and punishable by military commission or court-martial save crimes committed in the military or naval ser vice oi the United States, or in the militia of the seve ral States .when called into the actual service of the Eh Z? states. But that is not all the argument; it affirms that under this plea to the jurisdiction, tbe ac cused have the right to demand that this court shall decide thut it is not a judicial tribunal and has no lecal existence. *«*.**! TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 115 This Is a most extraordinary proposition: that the President, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, was not only not authorized but abso lutely forbidden to constitute this court for the trial of the accused, and, therefore, the act of the President is void, and the gentlemen who compose the tribunal without judicial authority or power, and are not in fact or in law a court. That I do not misstate what is claimed and at tempted to be established on behalf of tbe accused, I ask the attention of theCourt to the following as the gentleman's {Mr. Johnson's) propositions:— That Congress has not authorized, and, under the Constitution, cannot authorize the appointment of this Commission. That this Commission has, "as a Court, no legal ex istence or authority," because the Pres, dent, who alone appointed tbe Commission, bas no such power. That his act 'Ms a mere nullity, the usurpation of a power not vested in the Executive, and conferring no auihority upon you." We have had no common exhibition of law learning In this defense, prepared by a Senator of tbe United States; but with all his experience, and all his learn ing, and acknowledged ability, he bas failed, utterly failed, to show how a tribunal constituted and sworn, as this lias been, lo duly try and determine the charge and specification against the accused, and by its Com mission notauthorized to hear or determine any oth^r issues whatever, can rightfully entertain, or can by any possibility pass upon, the proposition presented by thisurgumentoi tbe gentleman for its consideration, Ihe members of this Court are officers in tbe army of the United States, and by orderof the Presi dent, as Commander-in-Chief, are required to dis charge this duty, and are authorized in this capacity to dis barge no other duty, to exercise no other judicial power. Gf course, if the commission of thePresident constitutes this a Court for the trial of this case only, as such Court it is competent to decide all questions of law and Jact arising in the trial of thecase. But this Court bas no power, as a Court, to declare the autho rity by wb ich it was constituted nuil a nd void aud the act of the President a mere nullity, a usurpation. Has it been Siiown by the learned gentleman who de- mauds that this Court shall so decide, that officers ot the army inny lawfully and constitutionally question in this manner ibeurders of their Commander-in-Chief, d.sohey, set them aside a' d declare them a nullity and a usurpation? Even if it be conceded that the officers thus detailed by orderoi the Commander-in-Chief may question and utterly disregard his order and set aside his authority, is it possible, in tbe nature ot things, thai any budy of men, constituted and qu lihed as a tribunal of justice, can sit in judgment upon thepro- posuion that tuey are not a Court lor any purpose, and finally dec.de judicially, as a Court, that the Go vernment which appointed them was without autho rity? Why not crown the absurdity of this proposi tion by asking the several members of this Court to determine tuat they are not men. dving intelligent, responsible men? Th:s wou.d be no more irrational than tho question upon which they are a ked to pass. How can any sensible ra^n entertain it? Before he begins to reason upon theproposition hemust lake for granted, and thereiore decide in advance the very question in dispute, to wit, his actual existence. ' So with the question presented in tbis remarkable argument for the deiense. Beiore this Court can enter upon ihe inquiry ol the want of authority in thePresi dent to constitute them a Court, they must take for granted and decide the very point in issue, that the President had tbe authority, and that they are, in law and in fact, a judicial tribunal; and, having assumed this, they are gravely asked, as such judicial tribunal, to finally and solemnly decide and declare that they are not in iact or in law a judicial tribunal, but a mere nulhty and nonentity. A most lame and impotent conclusion! As the learned counsel seems to have great reverence for judicial authority, andrequirespreceuent for every opinion. 1 may be pardoned lor saying that the objec tion which 1 urge against the possibility of any judi cial tribunal, alter being officially qualified as such, entertaimn ; much less judicially deciding, tbe propo sition that it has no legal existence asaCourt. andthat the i.ppoinLment was a usurpation and without autuo- rityor law, has been solemnly ruled bytbesupreme Court of the United Status- That Court say:— '"The acceptance of the judicial office is a recognition of the authority from, which it is de rived. Ii a court should enter upon the inquiry (whether the authority of the Government which esta blished it existed), aud should come to the conclusion that tbe Government under which it acted had been put aside. 1 1 would cease to be a court and be incapable of pronouncing a judicial decision upon the quesiion it undertook to try. If it decides at all, as a court, it ne cessarily f*furms the existence and authority ofthe Government under which it is exercising judicial power."— {Luther vs. Borden, 7 Howard. 40.) That is the very question raised by the learnedgen- tleman in his argument, tbat there was no authority In the President, by whose act alone this tribunal was constituted, to vest it with judicial power to try this issue, and by the order upon your record, as has al- \ ready been shown, if you have no power to try tbis issue for want of authority in the Commander-in- Chief to constitute you a Court, you are no Court and have no power to try any issue, because his order limits you to this issue, and tbis alone. It requires no very profound legal attainments to apply the ruling of the highest judicial tribunal of tbis country just cited, to tbe point raised, not by the pleadings, but by the argument, This Court exists as a judicial tribunal by auihority only of the President of the United States; the acceptance of the otfice is an acknowledgment ot the validity of the authority con ferring it, and if tbe President bad no authority to order, direct and constitute this Court to try theac- -cused, and. as u claimed, did, in so constituting it. per form an unconstitutional and Illegal act, it necessa rily results that theorder of the President is void and of no effect; that the order did not and could not con stitute this a tribunal of justice, and thereiore its mem bers are incapable of pronouncing a Judicial decision upon the question presented. There is a marked distinction between the question here presented and tbat*raised by a plea to the juris diction of a tribunal whose existence as a Court is nei ther questioned nor denied. Here it is argued, through many pages, by a learned Senator and a distinguished lawyer, that the order of the President, by whose au thority alone this Court is constituted atrihunal of military justice is unlawful; if unlawiul it is void and of no effect, and has created no court; therefore tbis body, not being a court, can have no more power as a court to decide any question whatever than have its Individual members power to decide that they as men do not in fact exist. It is a maxim of the common law— the perfection of human reason— that what is impossible the law re quires of no man. How can it be possible that a judicial tribunal can decide the question that it does not exist any more than tbat a rational man can decide that he does not exist? The absurdity ofthe proposition so elaborately urged upon tbe consideration of mis Court cannot be saved from the ridicule and contempt of sensible men by the pretense that the Court is not asked judicially todecide that it is uot a court, but only that it has no jurisdic tion; for it is a fact not to be denied that the whole argument ibr the defense on thi; point is that thePresi dent had not the lawful authority to issue the order by which alone this Court is conati tuted, and that the order for its creation is null and void. Gentlemen might as, well isl: the Supreme Court of the United States, upon apleato the jurisdiction, to de cide as a Court tbat the President bad no lawful autho rity to nominate the Judges thereof severally to tbe Senate, and that the Senate had no lawful authority to advise aud consent to their appointment, as to ask this Court to decide as a court that the order of the Pres:dent of the United States constituting it a tribunal for tbe sole purpose of this trial was not only without authority of law, but against and in violation ot law. If this Courtis not a lawful tiibunal.it has no existence, and can no more speak as a court than the dead, much less pronouncethe judgment required at its hands, that it is not a court, andthat the President of the United States, in consti tuting it such to try tbe question upon the charge and specification preierred. bas transcended his authority, and violated his oath ot office. Before passing from the consideration of thepropo sition ofthe learned Senator that this is not a court, it is fit that I should notice that another of the counsel for the accused (Mr, Ewing) has also advanced the same opinion, certainly with more directness and candor, and without any qualification. Kis statement is, "You," gentlemen, "are no court under the Consti tution." This remark of the gentleman cannot fail to excite surprise, when it is remembered that the gen tleman, not many months since, was a General in the service ofthe country, and as such, in his Department in the West, proclaimed and enforced martial law by the constitution of military tribunals for the trial of citizens not in the land or naval forces, but who were guilty of'military offenses, for which he deemed them justly punishable belore military courts. andTaccord- ingly he punished them. Is the gentleman quite sure, when that account comes to be rendered for these al leged unconstitutional assumptions ol power, thathe will not have to answer ior more of these alleged violations of the rights of citizens by illegal ar rests, convictions and executions tban any of the members of this Court? In support of bis opinion that this is no Court, the gentleman cites the 3d article of the Constitution, which provides "that the judicial power of the United States shall be ve.tediu one su preme court, and such inferior courts as Congress may establish," tbe judges whereof "shall hold their offices during good behavior." It is a sufficient answer to say to the gentleman, that the power of this Government to try and punish mili tary offenses by military tribunals is no part of tho "judicial power of the United States," under the 3d ar ticle of the Constitution, but a power conferred by the 8th section of the 1st article, and so it bas been ruled by the Supreme Court in Dyres vs. Hoover, 20 Howard 78. If this power is so conlerred by the 8th section, a 176 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. military rourt authorized by Congress, and constituted as tbis has been to tryall persons for military crimes in time of war though not exercising "the judicial power" provided for in the 3d article, is nevertheless a court as constitutional as the Supreme Court itself. The gentleman admits this to theext-ent of the tr'-al, by courts-martial, of persons in the military or naval service, and by admitting it, be gives up the point. There is no*exprrss grant for any such tribunal, and the power to establish such a court, therefore, is implied from the provisions of the 8th section, 1st article, that "Congress shall have power to provide andmaintain a navy," and also "tonqake rules for the government of the land and naval forces." From these grants tho Supreme Court inler the power to establish courts-mar tial, and from the grants in the same 8th section, as I shall notice hereaiter, that "Congress shall have power to declare war." and "to pass all laws necessary and proper to*carry this and all other powers into effect," it is necessarily implied tbat in time of war Congress may authorize military commissions to try all crimes committed in aid of tne public enemy, as such tribunals are necessary togiveetfect to the power to make war and suppress insurrection. Inasmuch as the gentleman (General Ewing) for whom, personally, I have a high regard, as the mili tary commander of a Western Department made a liberal exercis"e. under theorder ofthe Commander ;n- Chief of the army, of this power to arrest and try mili tary offenders not in the land or naval forces of the United States. and inflicted upon them, as lam in formed, the extreme penally of the law by virtue of his military jurisdiction. I wish to know whether he proposes, by his proclamation of the personal responsi bility awaiting all such usurpations of judicial autho rity, tbat hehimselP shall be subjected to thesame stern judgment which he invokes against others; that, in short, he shall be drawn and quartered for in flicting the extreme penalties of the law upon citizens of the United Slates in violation of the Constitution and laws oi bis country? I trust that bis error or'judg- ment in pronouncing this military jurisdiction a usur pation and. violation of the Constitution may notrise up injudgment tocondemn him, and that he may never be subjected to pains and penalties for having done his duty heretofore in exercising this rightful au thority, and in bringing to judgment those who con spired against the lives and liberties of tbe people. Here 1 might leave ths questiou. committing it to the charitable speechesof men. butfor thelact that the learned counsel has been more careful in his extia- ordinary argument to denounce the President as a usurper than to show how the Court could possibly de cide that it ba^ no judicial existence, and yet that it has judicial existence. A representative of tbe people and ofthe rights of the people before this Court, by the appointment ofthe President, and which appointment was neither sought by me nor desired, I cannot allow all that has here been said by way of denunciation ofthe murdered Pres!dent and his successor to pass unnoticed. This bas been made the occasion by the/iearned counsel, Mr. Johnson, to volunteer, not to defend the accused, Mary E. Surratt, not to make a judicial argument in her behalf, but to make a political harangue, apartisan speech against his Government and country, and thereby swelt the cry of the armed legions of sedition and rebeuion that but yesterday shook the heavens witb their in;ernal enginery of treason and filled the habitations of the people with death. As the law for bids a Senator of tne United States to receive compen sation.or fee, for defending, :n cases before civil or military commissions, the gentleman volunteers to make a speech beiore this Court, in which he de nounces the action of the Executive Department in proclaiming and executing martial law against Bebels in arras, their aiders and abettors, as a usurpation and a tyranny. I deem it my duty to reply to this denun ciation, not for the purpose of presenting thereby any question for the decision of this Court, for I have shown that the argument of the gentleman presents no question for its decision as a Court, but to repel, as far as I may be able, tbe unjust aspersion attempted to be cast upon tbe memory of our dcadjgresident and unou the official conduct of his successor. I propose now to answer fully all that the gentleman (Mr. Johnson) has said of the want of jurisdiction in this Court, and of the alleged usurpation and tyranny of the Executive, that the enlightened public opinion, to which he appeals, may decide whether all tbis de nunciation i3 just; whether, indeed, conspiring against the whole people, and Confederation and agreement in aid oi insurrection to murder all tbe executive officers of theGovernment, cannot be checked or arrested by the executive power. Let the people decide this ques tion, and ia doing so. let them pass upon the action of the Senator as well as upon tbe action of those whom he so arrogantly arraigns. His plea in behalf of an ex piring and shattered rebellion is a fi t subject for public consideration and ior public condemnation. Let that people also note, that while tbe learned gen tleman (Mr. Johnson), as a volunteer, without pay, thus condemns as a usurpation tbe means employed so effectually to suppress tbis gigantic insurrection, tbe New York News, whose proprietor, Benjamin Wood, is shown, by the testimony upon your record, to have received from tbe agents ofthe Rebellion twenty-five thousand dollars, rushes into the lis:s to champion the c~use of the Bebellion, its aiders and abettors, by fol lowing to the letter his colleague (Mr. Johnson), and with greater plainness of speech, and a fervor intensi fied, doubtless, by the twenty-five thousand dollars received, and the hope of more, denounces the Court as a usurpation, and threatens the members with the con sequences! The argument ofthe gentleman to wbich the Court has listened so patiently and so long is but an attempt to show tbat it is unconstitutional lor the Government ofthe United States to arrest upon military order, and try before military tribunals, and punish upon convic tion, in accordance with the laws of war and theusagea of ha1 ions, all criminal offenders acting in aid ofthe existing Bebellion. It does seem to me that the speech in its toneand temper is the same as that which the country has beard ior the last four years, uttered by the armed Kebels themselves and by their apologists, averring thaftit was unconstitutional for the Govern ment oi the United States to defend by arms its own rightful auihority and the supremacy of its laws. . It is as clearly the right of tbe Bepublic to live and to de end its Ihe until it forfeits that right by crime as it is the r ght otthe individual to live so long a* God gives him file, unless he lorfeits that right bycrinre. I make no argumentto support this proposition. Who is there here or elsewhere to cast tue reproach upon my country that for her crimes she must die.' Young est born oi the nations! is she not immortal by all the dread memories of tbe past, by tbat sublime and voluntary sacrifice ofthe pre sent, in wbich the bravest and noblest of her sons have laid down their lives that she might live, giving their serene brows to tbe dust of tne grave, and lifting their hands for the last time amidst the consuming fires of battle! I assume, for the purposes of this argument, that self-defense is as clearly the right of nations as it is the acknowledged right of men that the American people may do in tbe defense and maintenance of their own rightful au thority against organized armed rebels, their aiders and abettors, whatever free and independent nations anywhere upon this globe, in time ot war, may of right do. All this Is substantially denied by the gentleman in the remarkable argument which he has here made. There is nothing further from my purpose than to do injustice to, the learned genaeman or to his elaborate aud ingenious argument. To justify what I have al ready said. I may be permit Led here to remind tbe Court that nothing is said by the counsel touching the eonuuet of the accused, Mary E. surratt, as shown by tbe testimony; that he makes comession at the end of his arraignment ofthe Government and country, that be has not made such argument, and that ho leaves it tob3 made by ber other cpunsel. He does take-care, however, to arraign the country and the Government lor conducting a trial with closed doors and before a secret tribunal, and compares the proceedings of this Court to the -Spanish Inquisition, using the strongest words at his command to intensify the horror which he supposes bis announcement will excite throughout the civilized world. Was this dealing fairly by this Government? Was there anything in the conduct of the proceedings here thut j ustitied any such remark? Has this been a secret trial? Has it not been conducted in open day, in the presence of the accused, and in tne presence of seven gentlemen learned in the law, who appeared from day to day as their counsel? Were they not imormedof the accusation against them? Were they deprived of the right of challenge? Was it not secured to them by law, and were they not asked to exercise it? Has any part of the evidence been suppressed? Have not all tne proceedings been published to the world? What, then, was done, or intended to be done, by the Govern ment which justifies this clamor about a Spanish In- quisit.on? That a people assailed by organized treason over an extent of territory half as large as the continent of Europe, and assailed in their very capital by secret as sassins banded together and hired to do the work of murder by the instigation of these conspirators, may not be permitted to make inquiry, even with closed doors, touching the nature and extent of the organiza tion, ought not to be asserted by any gentleman who maces the least pretensions to any knowledge ot the law, either common, civil or military. Who does not know that at the common law all inquisition touching crimes and misdemeanors, preparatory to indictment by the grand inquest ofthe State, is made with closed doors? In this trial, no parties accused, nor their counsel, nor the reporters of this Court, were at any time ex cluded irom its deliberations when any testimony was being taken; nor has there been any testimony taken in the case with closed doors, save tbat ot a lew wit nesses, who testified, not in regard to the accused or either of them, but in respect to the traitors and con spirators not on trial, who were alleged to have incited this crime. Who is there to say that the American people, in time of armed Bebellion and civil war, have not the right to make such examination as secretly as they may deem necessary, either in a military or civil court? TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 177 I I have said this, not by way of apology for anything the Government has done or attempted to do in tn» progress of this trial, but toexpo°ethe animus of the argument, and to repel the accusation against my country sent out to the world by the counsel. From anything that he has said. I have yet to learn tbat tne American people have not the right to make their in quiries secretly, touching a general conspiracy in aid of an ex sting rebellion, which involves their na tionality and the peace and security oi'all. The gentleman then enters into a learned argument forthe purpose of showing that, by the Constitution, thepeopieof the United States cannot, in war or in peace, subject any person to trial before a military tribunal, whatever may be bis crime or offense, unless ; suchperson be in ihe military or naval service of the i United States. Ihe conduct of this argument is as re- I markabie as its assaults upon the Government are unwarranted, and its insinuations about the revival of the inquisition and secret trials are inexcusable. TheCourt will notice that the argument, from the be ginning almost to its conclusion, insists \ hat no person Is liabe to i e tried by military or martial 1 "w before a military tribunal, save those in the land and naval service of ihe Un. ted States. I repeat, the conduct of this argument of the gentleman is remarkable. As an instance, I ask tbe attention, not only of this Court, buttofthat public whom hehas ventured to address In this tone and temper, to the autoonty of the distin guished Chancellor Kent, whose great name the coun sel has endeavored to press into bis service iu support of his general proposition, that no person savo those in the military or naval servceofthe United States is liable to be tried for any crime whatever, either in peace or in war, before a military tribunal. The language of the gentleman,: after citing tho pro vision of the Constitution, '"that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a f;rand jury, except in cases.arising in the land or naval brces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger," is "that this exception is de signed to leave in. force, not to enlarge, thepower vested in Congress by the original Constitution to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; that the land or naval forces are the terms used in both, have tbe samemeaning, and until lately have been supposed by every com mentate and judge to exclude from military jurisdic tion offenses committed by citizens not belonging to such forces.' The learned gentleman then adds:— "Kent, in a note to his 1st Commentaries, 341, states, and with accuracy, that 'military and naval crimes and offenses, committed while the party is attached to and under tbe immediate authority of the army and navy of the United States and in actual service, are not cognizable under the common law jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.' " I ask this Court to bear in mind that this is the only passage which he quotes from this note of Kent in bis argument, and that no man possessed of common sense, however destitute he may be of the exact and varied learning in tbe law to wbich the gentleman may r.ghti'ully lay claim, can for a moment entertain theopinion that tbe distinguished Chancellor of New York, in the passage just cited, iutimates any such thing as the counsel asserts that tbe Constitution excludes from military jurisdiction offenses committed by citizens not belonging to tbe land or naval forces. Who can fail to see that Chancellor JCent, by the passage cited, only decides tbat military and naval crimes and offenses committed by a party attached to and under the immediate authority ot the Army and Navy ofthe United States and in actual service, are not cognizable under the common law jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States? He only says they are not cognizable under its common law juris diction ; but bv that he does not say or intimate, what Is attempted to be said by the counsel tor him, that 1 ' all crimes committed by citizens are by the Constitu tion excluded irom military jurisdiction," and that the perpetrators of them can under no circumstances be tried before military tribunals. Yet the counsel ven tures to proceed, standing unon this passage quoted from Kent, to say that, " according to this great autho rity, everv other class of persons aud every other spe cies of offenses are within tbe Jurisdiction of tne civil Courts, and entitled to the protection of ihe proceeding by presentment or indictment and the public trial in such a Court." ._ , Whatever that great authority may have said else where, it is very doubtful whether any candid man in America will be able to come to the very learned and astute conclusion that Chancellor Kent has sostated in the note or any part of the note wbich the gentleman has just cited. If he has said it elsewhere, it is for the fentleman, if he relies upon Kent ior authority, topro- uce the passage. But was it fair treatment of this " great authority"— was it not taking an unwarrantable privilege with the distinguished chancellor, and his great work, the enduring monument of his learning and genius, to so mutilate the note referred to. as might leave the gentleman at liberty to make bis de ductions and assertions under cover of the great name of the New York chancellor, to suit the emergency of bis case, by omitting the following passage, which oc curs in the same note, and absolutely excludes the conclusion so defiantly put forth by the coinselto support his argument? In that note Chancellor Kent says-— "Military law Is a system of regulations for the go vernment of the armies in the service of tbe United States, authorized by the act of Congress of April 10, 1806, known as the Articles of War, and naval law is a similar systemtfor the government of the navy, under the act of Congress of April 23, 1800. But martial law is quite a distinct thing, and is founded uponpaia- mount necessity, and proclaimed by a military chief.'* However unsuccessful, after tbis exposure, the gen tleman appears in maintaining his monstrous proposi tion, that the Amer. can people are by their own Con stitution forbidden to try the alders and abettors of armed traitors and rebellion before military tribunals, and subject them, according to the laws of war and the usages of nations to just punishment for their freat cr.mes. it bas been made clear from what have already stated that he has been eminently suc cessful in mutilating this beautiful production of that great mind; wbich act of mutilation every one knows la violative alike ofthe laws of peace and war. Even in war the di viae creations of art and tbe immortal pro ductions of genius aud learning are spared. In the same spirit, and it seems to me with thesame uniairnessas that just noted, the learned gentleman has very adroitly pressedinto his service, by an extract from the autobiography of the war-worn veteran and hero, General Scott, tbe names of the late Secretary of War Mr.Marcv, and thelearnedex-AttorneyGeneral, Mr. Cushing. This adroit performance is achieved in this wav: alter stating the fact that General Scott in MexicVproclalmed martial law forthe trial and punish ment by military tribunals of persons guilty of "assas sination, murder, and poisoning," the gentleman pro ceeds to quote from the Autobiography, "that this order, when handed to the then Secretary of War (Mr. Marcy) for his approval, 'a startle at the title (martial law order) was the only comment he then or ever made on thesubject,'.and that it was "soon silently returned as too explosive for sale handling.' 'A little later (he adds) the Attorney-General CMr. Cushing) cal ltd and asked for a cony, and the law officer of tbe Govern ment, whose business it is to speak on al i such matters, was stricken with legal dumbness.' " Thereupon the learned gentleman proceeds to say: "How much more startled and more paralyzed .would these great men havebeen had they been consulted on such a commis sion as this! A commission not to sit in anoihcr country, and to try offenses not provided fur in any Jaw of the United States, civil or military, then in force, but in their own country and In apart ot it where there are laws providing for their trial and punishment.aiid civil courts clothedwith ample power j lor both, and In the daily and undisturbed exercise of their jurisdiction." I think I may safely say, without stopping to make any special references, that the official career of the lateSecretaryof War (Mr. Marcy) gave no indication that he everdoubtedordeniedtheconstitutionil power ofthe American people, acting through their duly con stituted agents, to do any act justified by the laws of war, lor the-suppression of a rebellion or io repel inva sion. Certainly there is nothing in this extract from theAutobiograpby wbich justifies anysuch conclusion. He was startled, we are told. It may have been as much tbe admiration he had for the boldness and wis dom ofthe crnqueror of Mexico as anv aohorrence he h d for the trial and punishment of '-assassins, poison ers, and murderers," according to the laws and usages of war. But the official utterances otthe ex- Attorney-General Cu bing, with which thegentleman doubtless was fami liar when he prepared this argument.by no meansjusti- fy the attempt here made to quote him as authority against the proclamation and enforcement of martial law in time of rebellion and civil war. That distin guished man, not second in legal attainments to any who have held that position, has leit an official opinion of record touching this subject. Referring to what is said ny Sir Matthew Hale in his History of tbe Common Law concerning mar tial law. wherein he limits it, as the geatlemau has seamed by the whole drift of his argumentdesirous of doing, and says that it is "not in truth and ;n reality law.butsomethingindulgedratherthan allowed as a law— tbe necessity ots (SCranch): also in the prize cases (2 Black., 641). Nothing more thereiore, need be said upon this auestionol'an existing Insurrection than tbis; The political department ofthe Government has heretofore proclaimed an insurrec tion, that department has not yet declared the insur rection ended, and the event on the 14th of April which robbed the people of their chosen Executive, and clothed this land in mourning, bore sad but over whelming witness to the fact that the Rebellion is not ended. The fact of the insurrection is not an opeu question to be tried or settled by parol, either in a mili tary tnbunal.or in a civil court. The declaration of the learned gentleman who opened the defense (Mr. Johuson), that martial law bas never been declared by any competent authority, as I have already said, arraigns Mr. Lincoln for usur pation of power. Does the gentleman mean to say that, until Congress authorizes it, the President cannot proclaim and enlorce martial law in the suppression of TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 1T9 armed and organized Rebellion? Or does be only affirm that tbis act of thelaie President is a usurpa tion ? The proclamation of martial law in 1862 a usurpa tion! though it armed the people in that dark hour of trial with the means of defense against traitorous and secret enemies in every State and district of the coun try; though by its use some otthe guilty were brougnt to swift and just punishment, and others deterredfroin crime or driven to flight; though'by this means i he in nocent anddelenseless were protected; though by this means the city of the gentleman's residence was saved from the violence and DiWage ofthe mobiandthe torch ofthe Incendiary. But, says the gentleman, it was a usurpation, forbidden by the laws of the land ! The same was sa d of the proclamation of blockade issued AprlUO and 27, 1861, which declared a blockade ofthe poits ofthe insurgent States, and that all vessels Violating thesame were subjects of capture, and, to gether with the cargo io be condemned as -prize. In asmuch as Congres 5 had not then recognized the fact of civil war, these-proclamations were denounced as void. The Supreme Court decided otherwise, and affirmed tbepower of the Executive thus to subject the property on the seas to seizure and condemnation. I read trom that decision. "Tbe Constitution confers upon the President the whole executive power; be is bound to take care that tbelawsbe faithfully executed; he is commander-in- chief ofthe army and navy of the United States, and ofthe 'inlitia ot theseveral States when called into the actual service of the United States. * * Whether the President, in fulfilling his duties as commander-in- chief nnsuppressing an insurrection, has met with such aimed hostile resistance, and a civil war oc such alarm ing proportions as w.iil compel him to accord tj thorn the character of belligerents is a question, to be decided byHim, and this court must be governed byihedeci- sions and acts of the political department of the Government to which this power was intrusted. He must' determine wnat degree of force the crisis de mands. "The proclamation of blockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to tbecourt tbat a slate of war ex isted which demanded and authorized a recourse to such a measure under the circumstances peculiar to thecase." (2 Black. 670.) It has been solemnly ruled by the same tribunal, in an earlier case, "i hat the power is confided to the Ex ecutive Of the Union to determine when it is necessary to call out the militia of the States to reoei invasion," as follows*— "That he is necessarily constituted the judge of the existence of the exigency in the first in stance, and is bound to act according to his beiief of the facts. If he does so act, and decides to c 11 forth the militia, his orders lorthis purpose are in strict conform ity with the provisions of the law; and it would seem to follow as a necessary consequence, that every act done by a subordinate officer, in obedience to such orders, is equally justifiable. The law contemplates that, under such c:rcumstances, orders shall be given to carry thepower into effect: and it cannot therefore be a correct inference that any other person lias ajust right to d.sobey them. The law does not provide for any appeal from the judgment of the President, or fbr any right in subordinate officers to review his decision, and in effect de.eat it. Whenever a statute gives a discretionary power to any person, to be exercised by him upon his own opinion oi certain facts, it is a sound rule of construction, that the statute constitutes him the sole and exefusive judge ofthe existence of those facts." (12 Wheaton , 31). Inthe light of these decisions it must be clear to every mind that the question ofthe existence of an insurrection, and the necessity of calling into requisi tion for its suppression both the militia of the Slates and the army and navy of the United States, andol proclaiming martial law, which is an essential condi tion of war whether foreign or domestic, must rest with t he-officer ofthe Government who is charged by the express terms ofthe Constitution with theper- formanceof this great duty for the common defense and the execution of the laws of the Union. But it is further i nsisted by the gentleman in th is ar gument that Congress has not authorized the estab lishment of military commissions, which are essen tial to the judicial administration of martirl law and the punishment of crimes committed during the ex istence of a civil war, and especially tbat such com missions are not so authorized to try persons other than those in tbe military and naval service of the United States, or in the militia of the several States, when in the actual service of the United States. The gentleman's argument assuredly destroys itself, lor e insists that the Congress, as the legislative depart ment ofthe Government can pass no law which, either in peace or war, can constitutionally subject any citizen not iu the land or naval forces to trial for crime before a military tribunal, or otherwise than by a jury in the civil courts. Why does the learned gentleman now tell us tbat Congress has not authorized this to be done, alter d e clanngjust as stoutly that by the filth and sixth amend ments tOtthe Constitution no such military tribunals can be established for the trial of any person not in the military or naval service ofthe United States, or in the militia when in actual service, for the comm'ssion of any crime whatever in time of" war or insurrection? It ought to have occurred to Lhe gentleman when com menting upon,the exception in the fifth article of the Constitution, tnat there was a reason for it very diffe rent from ihat which he sawfltto assign. and that reason, manifestly upon the face of the Constitution itself, was, that by toe-eighth section ofthe first article, it is expressly provided, that Congressshallhave power to make rules forthe governmentof the land and naval forces, and to provide for organizing, arm/ng, and dis ciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in tbe service of the United ' States, -and that, inasmuch as military discipline and order are^is essential in an army in time of peace, as in time ot war, it'tbeConstitutlonwould leave this power tO'Congress in peace.it mustmaKe the exception, so tbat rules and regulations for the governmentof the army and navy should be.operative in time ofpeaceas well as in time of war : because lhe provisions of the Constitution give the right of trial by jury In TrMEOE1 peace, in all criminal prosecutions by indictment, in terms unbracing every human being that may beheld to answer for crime in the United States; and therefore if tbe eighth section ofthe first article was to remain in full lorceiN TitLEOF peace, the exception must be made: and accordingly, the exception was made. But by tbe argument we have listened to. this court is told, and the country is" told, that in time of war, a war which Involves in its-dread issue the lives and in terests of us all, the guaranties of the Constitution are in full force forthe benefit of those who conspire with the enemy, creep into your camps, murder in cold blood, in the interests of the invader or insurgent, the commander-in-chief of your army, and secure to him the slow and weak provisions ol the civil law, while thesoldier who may when overcome by the demands of exhausted nature, which cannot be resisted, have sle'pt.at hi3post, Is subject to be tried upon tbe spot by a military tribunal and shot. The argument amuunts to this:— That as military courts and military trials of civilians in time of war are a usurpation iind tyranny; and as soldiers are liable to such arrests and trial. Ser geant Corbett, who shot Booth, should be tried and executed by sentence of a military court, while Booth's co-conspirators and aiders should be saved from any such indignity as a military trial. Iconiess that I am too dull to comprehend the logic, the reason, or the sense of such a conclusion. If there is any one enti tled to this privilege of a civil trial, at a remote pe riod, and by a jury of the District, in time of civil war, when the foundations of the Republic are rocking beneath the earthquake tread of armed Rebellion, that man is the defender of the Republic. It will never do to say, as has been said in this argument, that the soldier is not lia ble to be tried in timeof war by a military tribunal for any other offense than those prescribed in the rules and articles of war. To hiy mind, nothing can be clearer than that citizen and soldier alike, in time of civii or foreign war, altera proclamation of martial law. are triabie by military tribunals for all offenses of which they may be guilty, intne interests of; or in concert with, tne enemy. These provisions, therefore, of your Constitution ,for indictment and trial by jury in civil courtsot alt crimes are, as I shall hereafter show, silent and inoperative in timeof war whentbe public salety requires it. The argument to which I have thus been replying, as theCourt will not fail toperceive, nor that public to which the.argument is addressed, isa labored attempt to establish the proposition, that, by the Constitution oftheUnited States, the American peop.e cannot, eveninacivil war the greatest the world has-ever seen, employ martial law and military tribunals as a means of successfully asserting their authority, pre serving their nationality, and securing protection to the lives and property of all, and especially to the per sons of those to whom they have committed, officia.ly, the great trust of maintaining the national authority. The gentleman says, with an air of perfectconfidence, tbat hedeuies the jurisdiction of military tribunals for the trial of civilians in time of war, because neither the Constitution nor laws justify, but on the contrary repudiate them, andthat ail the experience*of the pastisagamst it. I might content myselfwith saying that the practice of all nations is against the gentle man's conclusion. The struggle for our national in dependence was aided and prosecuted by military tri bunals and mart al law, as well as by arms. The con test for American nationality began with tbe estab lishment, very soon after the firing of the first gun at Lexington, on thelflthday of April, 1775, of military tribunals and martial law. On -the 30th of June, 1775, the Continental- Congress provided tbat "whr.so- ever belonginy to the continental army, shall be con victed of holding correspondence with, or giving intel ligence to the enemy, either indirectly or directly, shall suffer such punishment as by a court-martial shall be ordered." This was found not sufficient, inas much as it did not reach those civilians who, like cer tain civilians of our day, claim the protection of tbe civil law in timeof war against milita-y arrests and military trials ior military crimes. Therefore, the same Congress, on the 7th of November. 1775. amended this provision by striking out the words "belonging to 180 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. the continental army," and adopting the article as fol" lows:— "All persons convicted of holding a treacherous cor respondence with, or giving intelligence to the enemy, shall suffer death or such otuer pu nishment as a gene ral court-martial shall think proper." And on the 17th of June, 1776, the Congress added an additional rule— "That all persons, not members of, nor owing alle giance to, any of the United States of America, who should be found lurking as spies in or about the fortifi cations or encampments of the armies ofthe United States, or any ot them; shall suffer death, according to the Jaw and usage of nations, by the sentence of a court-martial, or such other punishment asacourt- xnartiul shall direct." Comprehensive as was this legislation, embracing as It did soldiers, citizens, and aliens, subjecting all alike to trial lcr their military crimes by the military tri bunals of justice, according to the law and the usage of nations, it was lound to be insufficient to meet that most dangerous of all crimes committed in the inter ests ofthe enemy by citizens in tima'of war, the crime of conspiring together to assassinate or seize and carry away the soidieis and citizens who were loyal' to the cause ofthe country. Therefore, on the 27th of Febru ary, 1778, the Congress adopted the following resolu tion :— "Resolved, That whatever Inhabitants of these States shall kill, or seize, or take any loyal citizen or citizens thereof and convey him, ber, or them to any place within fhe power ofthe euemy. or shall enter into any combination for such purpose, or attempt to carry the same into execution, or hath assisted, or shall assist therein; or shall, by giving intelligence, acting as a guide, or in any manner whatever, aid the enemy in the perpetration thereof, he shall suffer death by the judgment ot a court-martial as a traitor, assassin, or spy, if the offense be committed within seventy miles of the bead-quarters of the grand or other armies of these States where a general officer commands."— Journals of Congress, vol ii, pp. 459, 460. So stood the law until the adoption f the Constitu tion of the United States. Every well in lormed man knows that at the time ofthe passage ot these acts, the courts of justice having cognizance of all crimes against persons, were open in many of tbe States, and that by their several constitutions and charters, which were then tbe supreme law for the punishment of crimes committed within their respective territorial limits, no man was liable to conviction but by the ver dict of a jury. Take, for example, the provisions of the Constitution of North Carolina, adopted on the 10th of November, 1776, and in full force at the timeof the passage of the last resolution by Congress above cited, which provisions are as follows :— "That no lreeraan shall be put to answer any crimi nal charge but by indictment, presentment or im peachment.'' "That no freeman shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of a jury of good and lawful men in open court, as heretofore used.,r This was the law in 1778 in all the States, and the pro vision for a trial by jury every one knows meant a jury of twelve men. empanneled and qualified to try the issue in a civil court. The conclusion is not to be avoided, that these enactments of the Congress under the Con federation set aside the trial by jury within the several States, and expressly provided for the trial by court- martial of "any of the inhabitants" who, during the revolution, might, contrary to the provisions of said law, and in aid ofthe public enemy, give them Intelli gence, or kill any loyal citizens ofthe United States, or enter into any combination to kill orcarry them away. How comes it, if the argument of the counsel be true, that this enactment was passed by the Congress of 177S, when the constitutions ofthe several States at that day as fully guarantied trial by jury to everv person held to answer for a crime, as does the Con stitution of the Unit'd States at this hour? Notwithstanding this fact, I have yet to learn that any loyal man ever challenged, during all the period of our conflict for independence and nationality, the validity ofthat law for the trial, for military offenses, by military tribunals, ot all offenders, as the law, not or peace, but of war, and absolutely essential to theprose- cution of war. I may be pardoneu for saying that It is the accepted common law of nations, that mar tial-law is, at all times and everywhere, essential to the successful prosecution of war, whether it be a civil or a foreign war. The validity of'these acts ofthe Con tinental and Confederate Congress I know was chal lenged, but only by men charged with tbe guilt of their country's blood. Washington, the peerless, the stainless, and the Just, with whom God walked through the night ot tba'-great trial, enforced this just and wise enactment upon all occasions. On the 30th of September, 1780, Joshua H. Smith, by the order of General Washington, was put upon his trial before a court-martial, convened in tbe State of New York, on the charge of there aiding and assisting Benedict Arnold. In a combination with tbe enemy, to take, kill, and seize such loyal citizens or soldiers of the United States as were in garridon at West Point. Smith objected to the jurisdiction, aver ring that he was a private citizen, not in the military or naval service, and therefore was only amenable to the civil authority ofthe State, whose Constitution had guarantied tbe right of trial by jury to all persons held to answer for crime. (Chandler's Criminal Trials, vol. 2, p. 187). The Constitution of New York then in force had so provided; but, notwithstanding that, theCourt overruled theplea, held him to answer, and tried him. I repeat that, when Smith was thus tried by court- martial, the Constitution of New York as lully guaran tied trial by jury in the civil courts to all c.vilians charged and held to answer for crimes within the limits of that State, as di es the Constitution ofthe United states guarantee such trial within the limits of the District of Columb.a. By the second of tbe Articles of Conlederation each State retained "its sovereignty," and every power, iurisdiction and right not expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled; Bythoie articles there was no express delegationof judicial power; therefore tbe States retained it fully. . . If the military courts constituted by tbe commander of the army of the United States under the Confedera tion, who was appointed only by a resolution of the Congress, without any express grant of power to au thorize it, his office not being created by the act of the people in their fundamental law, had jurisdiction in everyStateto try and put to death "any inhabitant" thereof who should Artft any loyal citizen or enter into "any combination" for anv such purpose therein in time of war, notwithstanding the provisions of the constitution and laws of such States, how can any man conceive that, under the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law over every State, anything in the constitution and laws of such State. to the contrary notwithstanding, and the su preme law over every Territory ofthe republic as well, the Commander-in-Chief of the army of the United States, who is made such by the Constitution, and by its supreme authority clothed with the power and charged with the duty of directing and controlling the whole military power of theUni:ed States in time of rebellion or invasion, has not that authority? I need not remind the Court that one of the marked differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States was, that under the Confederation the Congress was the sole de- gositoryof all Federal power. The Congress of the onfederation. said Madison held "the command of the army." (Fed., No. 38). Has the Constitution, which was ordained by the people the better "to insure do mestic tranquility and to provide for the common de iense," so lettered the great power of self-deense against armed insurrection or invasion that martial law, so essential in war, is forbidden by that great in strument? I will yield to no man in reverence for or obedience to the Constitution of my country, esteem ing it, as I do. a new evangel to the nations, embodying the democracy of the New Testament, the absolute equality of all men before the law, in respect of those rights of human nature whicli are thegiitof God. and there. ore asuniversal as the material structureoi man. Can it he that this Constitution of ours, so divine in its spirit of justice, so beneficent in its results, so full of wisdom and goodness and truth, under which we be- cameone people, a great and powerful nationality, has ¦ in terms, or by implication, denied to tbis people the power, to crush armed rebellion by war, and to arrest and punish, during the existence of such rebellion, according to the laws of war and the usages of nations, secret couspirators, who aid and abet the public enemy? Here is a conspiracy, organized and prosecuted by armed traitors and hired assassins, "receiving the moral support of thousands in every State and district,- who pronounced the war lor the Union a failure, and your now murdered but immor tal Commander-in-Chief a tyrant; the object of which conspiracy, as the testimony shows, was to aid the tottering Bebellion which struck at tbe nation's lite. It is in evidence that Davis, Thompson, and others, chiefs in tbis Bebellion, in aid of tbe same, agreed and conspired with others to poison the foun tains of water which supply your commercial metro polis, and thereby murder its inhabitants; to secretly deposit in the habitations of tbe people and in the ships in your harbors intlammable materials, and thereby destroy them by fire: to murder by the slow and con suming torture of famine your soldiers, captive in their hands; to import pestilence in infected clothes to be distributed in your capital and camps, and thereby murder the surviving heroes and defenders of the Republic, who, standing by tbe holy graves of your unreturning brave, proudly and defiantly cnallenge to honorable combat and open battle all public enemies, that their country may live; and, finally, to crown this horrid catalogue of crime, this sum of all human atro cities, conspired, as charged upon your record with the accused and John Wilkes Booth and John H Sur ratt, to kill and murder In your capital the executive officers of your Government and the commander of your armies. When this conspiracy, entered intobv these traitors, is revealed by its attempted execution and the foul and brutal murder of your President in the capital, you are told that it is unconstitutional. in order to arrest the further execution ofthe con spiracy, to interpose tbe military power of this Gov ernment for the arrest, without civil process, of any of TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 181 the parties thereto and for their trial by a military tri bunal ot justice. If any such rule had obtained during our struggle for independence, we never would have been a nation. If any such rule had been adopted and acted Uj.on now, during the fierce struggle otthe past four years, no man can say that our nationality would have thus long survived. The whole people of the United States, by their Con stitution, have created the office of President ot the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Wavy, and have vested, by the terms oV that Con stitution, in the person of the President and Com mander-in-Chief, the power to enforce tbe execution Of tbe laws, and preserve, protect and defend the Con stitution. The question may well be asked, If, as Commander- in-Chief, the President may not, in time of insurrec tion or war. proclaim and execute martial law, ac cording to the usages of nations, how he can success fully per ortn the duties of his office— execute the laws, preserve the Constitution, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion? Martial law and military tribunals are as essential to tbe successful prosecution of war, as are men, and arms, and munitions. The Constitution of the United States has vested the nower to declare war and raise armies and navies exclusively in the Congress, and the power to prosecute the war and command the army and navy exclusively in the President ot the United States. Asunder the Confederation, the commander of the army, appointed only by the Congress, was by the resolution ofthat Congrf-ss empowered to act as he might think proper for the good and wel fare ot the ser vice; subject only to such restraints or orders as lhe Congress might give; so, under the Constitution, the President is, by the people who ordained that Consti tution and declared him Commander-in-chief of the army and navy, vested with full power to direct and control the army and navy of the United Slates, and employ all the iorces necessary to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and execute the laws, as enjoined by his oath and the very letter of the Consti tution, subject to no restriction or direction save such as Congress may irom time io time presoribe. That these powers lor the common deiense, intrusted by the Constitution exclusively to the Congress and tbe President, are, in time of civil war or foreign invasion, to be exercised without limitation or restraint, to the extent of the public necessity, and without any inter vention of tne Federal judiciary or of State constitu tions or State laws, are facts in our history not open to question. The position is not to be answered by saying you make the American Congress thereby omnipotent, and clothe the American Executive with the asserted at tribute of hereditary monarchy— the king can do no wrong. Let the position be fairly stated— that the Con gress and President, in war as in peace, are but the agents of the whole people, and thatthis unlimited power for thecommon defense against armi-d rebellion or foreign invasion is but tbe power of tbe people in trusted exclusively to tbe legislative and executive de partments as their agents, for any and every abuse of which, these agents are directly responsible to the peo ple: and the demagogue cry of an omnipotent Congress and an Executive invested with r.-yal prerogatives, vanishes like the baseless fabric of a vision. If the Congress, corruptly or oppressively or wantonly abuse this great trust, the people by the irresistible power of the ballot hurl them from place. If the President so abuse the trust, the people by their Congress withhold supplies, or by impeachment transfer the trust to bet ter bands, strip him ot the franchises of citizenship and of office, and declare him forever disqualified to hold any position of honor, trust or power under the Gov ernment of his country. I can understand very well why men should tremble at tbe exercise of this great power by a monarch whose person, by the constitution of his realm, is inviolable, but I cannot conceive how any American citizen, who has faith in the capacity ofthe whole people to govern themselves, should give himself any concern on the subject. Mr. Hallam, the distinguished author ot the Constitutional History of England bas said :— "Kings love to d.splay the divinity with which their flatterers invest them in nothing so much as in the in stantaneous execution of their will, and to stand re vealed, as it were, in the storm and thunderbolt when their power breaks through the operation of secondary causes and awes a prostrate nation without the inter vention of law." ^ x How just are such words when applied to an irre sponsible monarch! how absurd when applied to a whole people, acting through their duly appointed agents, whose will, thus declared, is the supreme law, to awe into submission and peace and obedience, not a prostrate nation, but a prostrate rebellion! The same great author utters the tact which all history attests, when he says:— „ „„ A ^ - t , "It has been usual for all Governments during actual Bebellion to proclaim martial law for the suspension of civil jurisdiction; and this anomaly, I must admit," he adds, "is very far from being less indispensable at Buch unbappy seasons where the ordinary mode of trial is by jury than where the rigbt of decision re sides in the court."— Const. Hist., vol. i, ch. 5, p. 326. That the power to proclaim martial law and fully or partla".y suspend the civil jurisdiction. Federal and State, In time of Bebellion or civil war, and punish by military tribunals all offenses committed in aid of the public enemy, is conferred upon Congress and the Exe cutive, necessarily results from the unlimited grants Of power tor the common defense to which Ihave already briefly referred. I may be pardoned for say ing that this position is not assumed by me lor the purposes of this occasion, but that early in the first year of this great struggle for our national life I pro claimed it as a representative of tbe people, under the obligation of my oath, and as 1 then believed, and still believe, upon the authority of the great men who formed and fashioned the wise and majestic fabric of American Government. Some of the citations which I deemed It my duty at that time to make, and some of which I now repro duce, have, I am pleased to say, found a wider circula tion in books that have since been published by others. When the Constitution was on trial ior Its deliver-' ance before the people of the several States, its ratifi cation was opposed on the ground that it conferred upon Congress and the Executive unlimited power for thecommon defense. To all such objectors, and tbey were numerous In" every State, that great man, Alex ander Hamilton, whose words will live as long as our language lives, speaking to the listening people of all the States and urging them not to reject that matchless instrument which bore tbe name of Washington, said:— "The authorities essential to the care ofthe common deiense are these — To raise armies: to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations: to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation; because it is imoossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, and the corres- E undent extent and variety of the means which may e necessary to satisfy them. "The circumstances that endanger tbe safety of na tions are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power lo which the care of it is committed. * * * This power ought to be under the direction ofthe same councils which are appointed to preside over the common de fense. * * * It must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, tbat there can be no limitation of that authority, which is to provide for the de ense- and pro tection ofthe commnnity, in any manner essential to Its efficacy; that ii, in any manner essential to the for mation, direction, or support ot the national forces." He adds tbe further remark:— "This is one of those truths which, to a correct and unprejudiced mind, car ries its own evidence along with it, and may be ob scured, but cannot be made plainer by argument or reasoning. It rests upon axioms as simple as tbey are universal thewiran* ought to be proportioned to the end; the persons from whose agency the attainment of any end is expected ought to posiess the means by wbicli it is to be attained."— Federali st, No. 23. In the same great contest for tbe adoption of the Constitution Madison, sometimes called the Father of the Constitution, said :— "Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative. * * * Is the power of raising armies and equipping fleets ne cessary? * * * It is involvedin thepowerof self-iefense. * * * With what color of pro- Eriety could the force necessary for defense be limited y those who cannot limit the force of offense. * * The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. * * * It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain, because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpa tions of power."— Federalist, No. 41. With tbis construction proclaimed both by the advo cates and opponents of its ratification, the Constitution of the United States was accepted and adopted, and that construction has been followed, and acted upon by every department ofthe Government to this day. It was as well understood then in theory as it has since been illustrated in practice, that the judicial power, both Federal and Slate, had no voice and could exercise no authority in the conduct and prosecution of a war, except in subordination to tbe political de partment of the Government. The Constitution con tains tbe significant provision, "The privilege ofthe writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases ot rebellion or invasion the public safety may reqnire it. . What was this but a declaration that in time of re bellion or invasion, tbe public safety is tbe highest law? that so tar as necessary the civil courts (ot which the Commander-in-Chlet. under the direction of Congress, shall be the sole judge) must be silent, and the rights of eachjeitizen, as secured in time ot peace, must yield to the wants, interests, and necessities of tbe nation? Yet we have been gravely told by the gentleman, in his argument, that the maxi m soluspoputi suprtmaest lex, is but fit for a tyrant's use. Those grand men, whom God taught to build fabric of empire, thought other wise, when they put that maxim into the Constitution of their country. It is very clear tnat tbe Constitution recognizes the great principle which underlies the 182 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. structure of society and of all civil government, that no man lives for himself alone, buteacb for all; that, if need be, some must die. that the State may live, because at best the individual is but for to-day, while the commonwealth is for all time. I agree with the gentleman in the maxim which he borrows from Aristotle, "Let thepublic weal be under the protection of the law;" but I claim that in war, as in peace, by the very terms of the Constitution of the country, the public safety is under tbe protection of the law; that the Consti.ut'on itself has provided for the decla ration of war for lhe common defense, to suppress re bellion, to repel invasion, and, by -express terms, has declared that whatever is necessaryto make the prose cution of the war successful, may be done, and ought to be done, and is therefore constitutionally lawful. Who will dare to sav that in timeof civil war "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law?1' This is a provision of your Constitution than which there is none more just or sacred iu it; it is, however, only the law of peace. not of war; In peace, that wise provision of the Con stitution must be, and is, enforced by the civil courts; iu war, it must be, and is, to a great extent, inoperative and disregarded. The thousands slain by your armies in battle were deprived ot life "without due process of law.'' All spies arrested, convicted and executed by your military tribunals in time ofwar, are deprived of liberty and life ''without duo process of law, ' all ene mies captured and held as prisoners of war are de prived of liberty "without due process of law;" all owners whose property is forcibly seized and appro priated in war are deprived of their property "without dueprocess of law." Tbe Constitution recognizes the principle of common law, that everyman'shouseis his castle; that his home, the shelter of his wiieand child ren, is his most sacred possession; and has therefore specially provided, '-that no soldier shall in timeof peace he quartered in any house without fhecousentof its owner, nor- in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law (III Amendment), thereby de claring that in time of war Congress may by law authorize, as it has done, that without the consent aud against the consent of the owner, the soldier may be quartered in any man's house, and upon any man's hearth. What I have said illustrates the proposition, that in timeof war the civil tribunals of justice are wholly or partially silent, as the public safety may re quire; that the limitations and provisions of the Con stitution in favor of life, liberty and property are'there- forewholyor partially suspended. In this I am sus tained by an authority second to none with intelligent American citizens. Mi. John Quincy Adams than whom a purer man or a wiser statesman never as cended the chair of the chief magistracy in America, said in his place in the House of Representatives, in 1836, that:— "In the authority given to Congress by the Constitu tion ot lhe Un.ted Slates to declare war, all the powers incident to war are by necessary implication conferred upon the Government of the United States. Now the powers incidental lo war are derived, not from their internal municipal source, but from the laws aud usages of nations. There are, then, in the authority of Congress and of the Executive two classes of powers altogether different in their nature and often incom- patible witb eao other, the war power and thepeace power. The peace power is limited by regula tions and restricted by provisions prescribed within the Constitution itse.f, The war power is limited only by the laws and usage of nations. This power is tremendous; it is strictly constitutional, but it breaks down every barrier so anxiously erected lor the pro tection ot liberty, ofproperty, and of life." If this be so. how can there be trial by jury for military offenses in time of civil war? If you cannot, and do not, try the armed enemy before you shoot him. or the captured enemy befbre you im prison bim, why should you be held to open the civil courts and try tbe spy, the conspirator, and the assassin, iu the secret service of the public ene my, by jury, before you convict and punish him? Why not clamor against holding imprisoned the captured arm* d Bebeis, deprived ot their liberty with out due process of l;ivv? Aretheynot citizens? Why not clamor aga:nst slaying for their crime of treason, which is cognizable in the civil courts, by your rifled ordnance and the iron bail of your musketry in battle, these public enemies, without trial by lury? Are they not citizens? Why ia thd clamor confined exclusively to the trial by military tribunals of justice oi traitorous spies, traitorous c-nsnirators and assassins hired to do secrctlv what the armed Kebel attempts to do openly, murder yorr nationality by assassinating its defenders and its executive officers? Nothing can be clearer than that the Rebel captured prisoner, being a citizen ot the republic isiismuch entitled to trial by jury before be U committed to prison as the spy, or the aider and abettLrof the treason by conspiracyand assassination, bein < a citizen, is entitled to such trial by jury beiore he is subjected to the just punishment ot the law lorhisgieatcrime. I think thatin timeof war the remark of Montesquieu, touching the civil judiciary, is true, tbat "it Is next to nothing." Hamil ton well said, " Tin Executive holds tbe sword of the commuuity: the judiciary has no direction of the strength of society; it bas neither force nor will; It bas judgment alone, and is dependent for the execution of that upon tbe arm of the Executive." The people of these States so understood the Constitution, and adopted it. and intended thereby, without lim.tation or restraint, to empower theirCongress and Executive to authorize bylaw, and execute by force, whatever tbe public safety might require to suppress rebellion or repel invasion. Notwithstanding all that has been said by the coun sel lor the accused to tbe contrary the Constitution bas received this construction from tbe day ol'its adop tion to this hour. The Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly decided that the Constitution has comerred upon the Government auihority to employ all tbe means necessary totbe faithful execution of all the powers which', that Constitution enjoins upon the Government of the United States, and upon every de partment and every officer thereof. Speaking of that provision ot the Constitution which provides that "Congress shall have power to make all laws that may be necessary and proper to carry into effect all powers granted to the Government of the United>StaLe-s, or to any department or officer thereof," chief Justice Marshall, in his great decision in the case of McCui- loch vs. Stateof Maryland, says:— "The powers given to the Government imply the ordinary means ofexecution, and theGovernment, iu atl sound reason and fair interpretation, must have the Choice of themeans which it deems the most con venient and appropriate to the execution of the power. * * * rpiie powers of th.e Government were given forthe welfare ofthe nation; they were intended fo en dure for agesto.come, and to be adapted io the various crises in human affairs. To prescribe the specific means by which Government should, in all luture time, execute its power, and to confine the choice of means to such narrow limits as should.not leave it in thejpowerof Congress to adopt any whicsi might be appropriate and conducive to the end, would be most unwise and pernicious." (4 Wheaton, 420.) Words fitly spoken! which illustrated at the time of their utterance the wisdom of the Cuustitutiou in pro viding this general grant of power to meet every pos sible exigency which tbe fortunes of war might cast upon tne/country, and the wisdom of which words, in turn, has beeii illustrated to-day by the. gigantic and tr.umphant struggle of the people during the last four years lor the supremacy of the Constitution, andin exact accordance with its provisions. In. the light of these wondenul events the words of Pinckney, ut tered when tbe illustrious Chief Justice had concluded thisopinion, "The Constitution of my country is im mortal!" Lseem to have become words of prophecy. Hasnot this great tribunal, through the chief of all its judges, by this luminous aud proiound reasoning, de clared that Lhe Government may by law authorize the Executive to employ, in the prosecution of war, the ordinary means, and all the means necessary and adapted to the end? Andin the otner decision, belore referred to. in the 8th of Cranch, arising during the late w..r witli Great Britain, Mr. Justice Story said:— " When the legislative authority, to whom the right to dec are war is confided, has declared war in its most unhmited manner, the executive authority, to' who>n the execution of the war is confided; Is bound to carry it into effect. Hehas axliscretion vested in him as to the manner and extent, but he cannot lawfully transcend the rules of warfare established .among civilized nations. He cannot lawfully exercise powers or authorize proceedings which tne civilized world re pudiates and disclaims. The sovereignty, as to declar ing war and limiting its effects, rests with the* legisla ture. Th 'sovereignty as to its execution rests witb the President." (Brown vs. United States, 8 Cranch, 15 J.) Has the Congress, to whom is committed the sove reignty of the whole people todeclare war, by legisla tion restricted thePresident, or attempted to restrict him in the prosecution of tbis wanorthe Union from exercising all the "powers" and adopting all tbe "pro ceedings" usually approved and emploved. by the civilized world? He would, in my judgment, be aboid man who asserted thatCongres> has so legislated: i;ud the Congress which should by law fetter the executive aim when raised for the common de ense would, in my opmion. b? false to their oath. That Congress may prescribe rules for the Government ofthe army and navy and the militia when in actual service, by arti cles ol war, Ls an express grunt of power in tbe Con stitution, which Congress bas rightfully exercised and vv ich the Executive must and does obey. That Con gress may aid the Executive by legislation in the pros ecution of a war, civil or foreign, is admitted. Tbat Congress may restrain the Executive, and arraign, try and condemn him for wantonly abusing the great trust, is expressly declared in the Constitution. That Congress shall pass all laws necessarvto enable tho Executive to execute tbe laws or the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasion, is one ot the express requirements of tbe Constitut.on, for the performance of winch the Congress is bound by an oath. * What was the legislation of Congress when treason fired its first guu on Sumter? Bv tbe act of 1795 it is provided that whenever the laws of the United states shall be opposed, or the execution thereol obstructed Interior View of the Railroad Oar that carried the Remains of President Lincoln to Springfield. TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 183 £ In any State by combinations too powerful to be sup- ' pressedbythe ordinary course of judicial proceeding, or by the powers vested in the marshals, it shall be lawful by tbis act for the President to call forth the militia ofsuch State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations and to cause tbe laws to be executed. (1st Statutes at Large, 424.) By the act of 1SH7 it is provided that in case of insurrection or obstruction to the laws, either ofthe United States or of any individual State or Ter ritory, where it is lawiul for the PresUent of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, orof causlngthe laws to be duly executed, it-shail be lawful for him to employ for such purpose such part of the land or naval forces of the Unitedstates as shall be judged necessary. (2d Statutes at Large. 443.) Can any one doubt that by these acts thePresident is clothed with lull powertodetermlne whether armed in surrection exists in any State or Territory of theUnioh, and if so. to make war upon it with all the force he may deem necessary or be able to command? By the simple exerciseof this great poweritnecessarily results that be may, in the prosecution of the war for tbe stip- -iressionof such insurrection, suspend, as far as may ie necessary, the civil administration of justice by sub stituting in its stead martial law, which is simply the common law of war. If, in such a moment, the President may make no arrests without civil warrant, aud. may inflict no violence or pe nalties on persons (as is claimed here for the accused), without first obtaining the verdict of juries and tne judgment of civil courts, then is this legislation a mockery, and the Constitution, which not only authorized but enjoined its enactment, but a flittering generality aud a splendid bauble. Happily he Supreme Court has settled all controversy on this Question. In sneaking of the Rhode Island insurrec tion, the court 3ay:— "The Constitution of the United States, as far as it has provided for an emerge noy^ef this kind and au thorized the general Government to interfere in the domestic concerns of a State, has treated the subject as political in its nature and placed the power in tbe hands of that department." * * * * "By the act of 1795. the power of deciding whether the exigency has arisen upon which the Government of the United States is bound to interfere, is given to the President." The court add;— "When the President has acted and called out the militia, is a Circuit Court ot the Unitea States author ized to inquire whether his decision was right? It it could, then it would become the duty or the court, pro vided it came to the conclusion tbat the President har- decided incorrectly, to discharge those who were ad- rested or detained by tne troops in the service of the United States." * * * "If the judicial power extends so far, the guarantee contained in the Constitution ot the United States is a guarantee of an archy and not of order " * * * "Yet If this right does not reside in the courts when the con flict is raging, if the jud'cial power is at that time bound to follow the decision o' tb*> political, it must be equally bound when the contest is over. It cannot, when peace is restored, punish as offenses and crimes the acts wbich itbetore recognized and was bound to recognize as lawful." Luther vs. Borden, 7 Howard, 42,43. If this be law, what becomes of tbe volunteer advice of tbe volunteer counsel, by him given withoutunoney and without price, to this Court, of their responsibility, their personal responsibility, for obeying the orders of the President of the United States in trying persons accused of the murder of the chief magistrate and commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States in time of Rebellion, and in pursuance of a conspiracy entered into with the public enemy? I may be pardoned ior asking the attention or the Court to a further citation from this important deci sion, in which the Courtsay, the employment of mili tary powerto put down an armed insurrection "is es sential to the existence ot every Government, and is as necessary to the States Oi this Union as toany other Government, and it the Government of theState deem the armed opposition so formidable as to require the use of military force and the declaration of martial XAW.wesee nogrouud upon which this Court can question its authoritv."— Ibid. This decision in terms declared that under tbe act of 1795 the President had power to decide and decided the question so as to ex clude further inquiry whether the State Government which thus employed force and proclaimed. martial law was the Government ot the State, and thereiore was permitted to act. If a State may do this, to put down armed insurrection, may not thti Federal Government as well? The reason of the man who doubts it may justly be questioned. I but quote the language of that tribunal, in another case before cited, wnen I say the Constitution confers upon the President tbe whole executive power. vfe have seen that the proclamation of blockade made by thePresident was affirmed by the Supreme Court as a lawful and valid act, although its direct effect was to dispose of the property otwuoever vio lated it, whether citizen or stranger. It is difficult to perceive what course of reasoning can be adopted, In the light of that decision, wbich will justify any man In saying that the President had not the like power to proclaim martial law in timeof insurrection against the United States, and to establish, according to the customs of war among civil. zed nations, miiitarv tri bunals of justice for its enforcement, and for the punish ment of all crimes committed in the interests of the public enemy. These acts of the President have, however, all been legalized by tbe subsequent legislation of Congress, al though the Supreme Court decided, in relation to the proclamation of blockade, that no such legislation was necessary. By the act of August 6th, 1861, ch. 63, section 3, it is enacted that— "All the acts, proclamations and orders of thePresi dent ofthe United States, after the 4th ot March, 1861, respecting the army and navy of the United States, and calling out, or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved in all respects, legalized and made valid to the same extent, and with fbe same effect as if they had been issued and done under tbe previous express authority and direction of the Congress oi the United States."— (Ii Stat, at Large, 326.) This act legalized, If any such legalization was neces sary, all tnat the President had done from the day of his inauguration to that hour, in the prosecution ofthe war for the Union. He had suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and resisted its execution when issued by tbe Chief justice of the United States; he bad called Out and accepted the services of a large body of volunteers for a period not previously author ized by law; he had declared a blockade of the South ern ports; he had declared the Southern States in in surrection! he had ordered tbe armies to invade them and suppress it; thus exercising, in accordance with the laws of war, power over the life, the liberty, and the property ot the citizens. Congress ratified it and affirmed it. In like manner and by subsequent legislation did the Congress ratify and affirm the proclamation of mar tial law ot September 25, 1862. That proclamation, as the Court will have observed, declares that during the existing Insurrection all Rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United Stages, and all persons guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to the Rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be Bubject to martial law and lia ble to triahand punishment by courts-martial or mili tary commission; and second, that the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now or hereafter during theRebellion shall be imprisoned in any fort, &c. by any military autho rity, or by the sentence of any court-martial or milU tary commission. One would suppose that it needed no argument to satisfy an intelligent and patriotic citizen of the United States that, by the ruling ofthe Supreme Court cited, so much of this proclamation as declares that all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors, shall be subject to martial law, and be liable to trial and punishmeut by court-martial or military commission, needed no ratification by Congress. Every step that the President took against rebels and insurgents was taken in pursuance of the rules of war and was an ex ercise of martiaL law. Who says that he should not deprive tbem, by the authority of this law. of life and liberty? Are tbe aiders and abettors of these insur gents entitled to any h'gher consideration tban the armed insurgents themselves? It is against these tbat the President proclaimed martial law, and against all others who wereguilLy ofauy disloyal practice afford ing aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States. Against these heisuspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and these, and onlysuch as these.were by that proclamation subjected to trial and punishment by court-martial or military commission. That the Proclamation covers the offense charged here, no man will, or dare, for amoment deny. Wasit not a disloyal practice? Was it not aiding and abetting the insurgents and Rebels to enter into a conspiracy with them to kill and murder, within your Capital and your intrenched camp, the Commauder-in-Chief of our army, your Lieutenant-General, and the Vice Presi dent, and the Secretary of State, with intent thereby to aid the Rebellion, and to subvert the Constitution and laws of the United States? But it is said that tho President could notestablish a court for their trial, and therefore Congress must ratify and affirm this Procla mation. I have said before that such an argument comes witb ill grace from the lipsot him who declared as solemnly that neither by the Congress nor by the President could either tbe Rebel himself or his aider or abettor be lawfully and constitutionally subjected to trial bv any military tribunal, whether court-martial ormilitary commission; but the Congress did ratify, in the exercise of the power vested In them, every part of this Proclamation. I have said, upon the authority ofthe fathers of the Constitution, and of its judicial in terpreters, tbat Congress has power by legislation to aid the Executive in the suppression of rebellion, in executing the laws of the Union when resisted by armed insurrection, and in repelling Invasion. By the act of March 8. 1863, the Congress of the 184 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. United States, by the first section thereof, declared that during the present Rebellion the President of the United States, whenever in his judgment the public safety may require it. is authorized to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in any case throughout the United States or any part thereof. By the fourth section of the same act it is declared that any order of the Presi dent, or under his authority, made at anytime durin the existence ot tbe present Rebellion, shall be a de fense in all courts to any aetion or prosecution, civil or criminal, nending or to be commenced, for any search, Seizure, arrest or imprisonment made, done or com mitted, or acts omitted to be done, under and by virtue of such order. By the fifth section it is provided that if any suit or prosecution, civil or criminal, has been or shall be commenced in any State Court against any officer, civil or military, or against any other per son, for any arrest or imprisonment made or other trespasses or wrongs done or committed, or any act omitted to be done at any time during the present Re bellion, by virtue of or under color of any authority derived from or exercised by or under the President of tbe United states, if the defendant shall, upon ap pearance in such Court, file a petition stating the facts upon affidavit, &c, as aforesaid, for the removal ofthe cause for trial to the Circuit Court ofthe United States, it shall be the duty of the State Court, upon his giving security, to proceed no further in the cause or prosecu tion. Thus declaring that all orders ofthe President made at any time during the existence of the present Rebellion and all acts done in pursuance thereof shall beheld valid in the courts of justice. Without further inquiry, thess provisions of this statute embrace Order No. 141, which is the proclamation of martial law, and necessarily legalize'every act done under it. either be fore the passage of the act of 1863 or since. Inasmuch as that proclamation ordered that all rebels, insur gents, their aiders and abettors and persons guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to rebels against tbe authority of theUnitedStates at any time during the existingmsurrection should be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by a military commission, the sections of the faw ]ust cited declaring lawful all acts done in pursuance ot such order, including of course the trial and punishment by military commission of all such offenders as directly legalized this order of the President as it is possible for Congress to legalize or authorize any executive act whatever. 12 Stat, at Large, 755-6. But after assuming and declaring with great earnest ness in his argument, that no person could be tried and convicted lor such crimes by any military tribunal, whether a court-martial or a military commission, save those in tbe land or naval service in time of war, the gentleman makes the extraordinary statement that tbe creation of a military commission must be authorized by the legislative department, and de mands, if there be any such legislation, "let tbe sta tute be produced." The -statute has been produced. Tbenowcr so to try, says tbe gentleman, must be au thorized by Congress, when the demand is made for such authority. Does not the gentleman thereby g.ve up his argument, and admit that, if the Congress has so authorized lhe trial of all aiders and abettors of rebels or insurgents, for whatever they do in aid of such rebels aud insurgentz, during the insurrection, that the statute and proceedings under it are lawful and valid? I have already shown that the Congress have so legislated, by expressly legalizing order No. 141. which directed the trial of all Rebels, their aiders and abettors, by military commission. Did not Con gress expressly legalize tbis order, by declaring that the order shall be a defense in ail courts, to any action or prosecution, civil oi criminal, for acts done in pur- euance of it? No amount of argument coula makethis point clearer than ihe language of the statute itself. But, says the gentleman, if there be a statute author izing trials by military commission. "Let it be pro duced." By the act of March 3, 1863, it Is provided in section thirtythatin time of war, insurrection or rebellion, murder and assault with intent to kill, as the thirty-second article of the rules for tbe government of the navy; which means tbat courts-martial have jurisdiction or such crimes as are not specified, but which have been recognized to be crimes and off'enses by the usages in navies of all nations, and that thev shall be punished according to tne laws and customs of the sea.— (Dynes vs. Hoover, 20 Howard, 82.) But it isafactthatmust not be omitted in tbe reply which I make to the gentleman's argument, that an effort was made by himself and others in the Senate of the United States, on the 3d of March last to condemn the arrests, imprisonments, &c, made by order of the President ofthe United States in pur suance of his proclamation, and to reverse bv the judgment of that body, the law which had been before passed affirming his action, which effort most signally failed. 'Thus we see that the body which, by the Constitu tion, if thePresident had been guilty of tbe misde meanors alleged against him in this argument ot tho TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 185 f;ent:eman, would, upon presentation of such charge n legal ibrm against tho President, constitute tbe high court of impeachment for his trial and condemnation, has decided tbe question in advance, and declared upon the occasion referred to, as they had before de clared by solemn enactment, that this order of tbe President declaring martial law and the punishment of all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors, by military commission, shouid be enforced during the insurrection as tbo law of the land, and that the offenders should be tried as directed by military com mission. Iti may be said that this subsequent legisla tion of Congress, ratifying and affirmingwhat had been done by the President, can have no validity. Of course, It cannot if neither theCongress northe Executive can authorize the proclamation audeniorcement of mar tial law in the suppression of rebellion for the punish ment of all persons committing military offenses in aid ofthat rebellion. Assuming, however, as the gentle man seemed to assume, by asking for the legislation ot Congress, that there is such power in Congress, tbe Supreme Court of the United States ha** solemnly affirmed that such ratification is valid. <2 Black, 671.) The gentleman's argument is full of citations of Eng lish precedent. There isalate English precedent bear ing upon this point— the power of the legislature, by subsequent.enactment, to legalize executive orders, ar rests and imprisonment of citizens— that I beg leave to commend to bis consideration. I refer to tbe statute of 11 and 12 Victoria, ch. 35, entitled "An act to em power the Lord Lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, to apprehend and detain until the 1st day of March, 1849, such persons as be or they shall suspect of conspiring against her Majesty's per son and Government." .passed July 25, 1848. which statute in terms declares that all and every person and persons who is, are, or shall be, within that period, within that part of tbe United Kingdom of England and Ireland called Ireland at or on the day the act shall receive her Majesty's royal assent, or after, by warrant for high treason or treasonable practic s, or suspicion of high treason or treasonable practices, signed by the Lord Lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors ot Ireland lor the time being, or his or their chief secretary, for such causes as aforesaid, may be detained in safe custody, without bail or main prize, until tbe first day of March, 1849; and that no Judge or justice shall bail or try any such person or persons so committed, without order from her Ma jesty's privy counsel, until tbe said first day of March, 184ti, any law or statute to the contrary notwithstand ing. The second section of this act provides that, in cases where any persons have been, before the passing of the act, arrested, committed or detained for such cause by warrant or warrants signed by tbe officers aforesaid, or either of tbem, it may be lawful for the person or persons to whom such warrants have been or shall be directed, to detain such person or persons in his or their custody in any place whatever in Ireland; and that such person or persons to whom such warrants have been or shall be directed shall be deemed and taken, to all intents and purposes, lawfully authorized to take into safecustody and be the lawful jailers and keepers of such persons so arrested, committed, or detained. Here the power of arrest is given by the act of Parlia ment to the Governor or his secretary; the process of thecivil courts was wholly suspended; bad was denied and the parties imprisoned, and this not by process of the courts, but by warrant of a Chief Governor or his Secretary, not for crimes charged to have been com mitted, but for being suspected of treasonable practices. Magna charta it seems opposes no restraint, notwith standing the parade tbat is made about it in this argu ment upon the power of the Parliament of England to legalize arrests and imprisonments made before the passage of the act upon an executive order, and without colorable authority of statute law; and to authorize like arrests and imprisonments ot so many of six million of people as such executive officers might suspect of trea sonable practices. . .. But, says the gentleman, whatever may be the pre cedents English, or American, whatever maybe the provisions of the Constitution, whatever may be the legislation of Congress, whatever maybe the procla mations and orders of the President as Commander-in- chief, it is a usurpation and a tyranny in time of re bellion and civil war to subject any citizen to trial lor any crime before military tribunals, save such citizens as are in the land or naval forces, and against this usurpation which he asks this Court to rebuke by so lemn decision.be appeals to public opinion. I trust that I set as high value upon enlightened public opinion as any man. I recognize it as the reserved power of the people which creates and dissolves ar mies, which creates and dissolves legislative assem blies, which enacts and repeals fundamental laws, the better to provide for personal security by the due ad ministration of justice. To that public opinion upon this verv question of tbe usurpation of authority, of unlawful arrests, and unlawiul imprisonments, and unlawful trials, condemnations and executions by the late President of the United States, an appeal has al ready been taken to public opinion On this very issue the President was tried before tbe tribunal of the peo ple that great nation of freemen who cover this-conti- nent, looking out upon Europe from their eastern and upon Asia from their western homes. That, pebple came to the consideration of this issue not unmindful of the iact that the first struggle for the establishment of our nationality could not have been, and was not successfully prosecuted without the proclamation and enforcement of martial law, declaring, as we have seen, that any inhabitant who, during that war, should kill any loyal citizen, or enter into any combination for that purpose, should, upon trial and conviction be fore a military tribunal, be sentenced as an assassin, traitor or spy, and should suffer death, andthat in this laststruggle forthe maintenance- of American nationality the President but followed the example of the illustrious Father of his Country. Upon that issue the people passed judgment on the 8th day of last No vember, and declared that the charge of usurpation was false. From this decision of the peoplethere lies no appeal on tbis earth. Who can rightfully challenge the au thority of the Americanpeople to decide such questions for themselves ? The voice of the people, thus solemnly proclaimed, by the omuipotence ol the ballot, in favor of the righteous order of their murdered President, issued by him for the common defense, for the preser vation of the Constitution, and for the enforcement of the'laws ofthe Union, ought to be accepted, and will be accepted. I trust, by all just men, as the voice of God. Mr. Ewing said, I ask.permission ofthe Court to say in response to the allusion of tbe Assistant Judge Ad vocate to my acts as military commander, that be will find in tbe Bureau of Military Justiceno records of the trial in my former commands of any persons not in the military service ofthe United States or in tbe Con federate service, except guerillas, robbers and others, hostex human i generis taken flagrante bello, with arms in their hands, or in acts of hostility, and if he will do me the favor to refer to my argument on the jurisdic tion, he will see that I not only did not deny, but con ceded the power of arrest and summary punishment by thecomma'ndlng general in the field of all such per sons, restricted only by the laws and1 the orders of military superiors. The Court adjourned until to-morrow, at l o'clock. Wednesday, June 28.— The Court met at 1P.M. when Associate Judge Bingham resumed his argument as follows:— May it please the Court : I have said thus much con cerning lhe right of thepeople under their Constitu tion, in timeof civil war and rebellion, to proclaim through their Executive, with the sanction and ap proval of their Congress, martial law, and enforce the same according to the usage of nations. I submit tbat it has been shown that, by the letter and spirit of the Constitution, as well as by its con temporaneous construction, followed and approved by every department of theGovernment, this right Is in thepeople; tbat it is .inseparable from the condition of war, whether civil or foreign, and absolutely es sential to its vigorous and successful prosecution; tbat, according to the highest authority upon constitu tional law, the proclamation and enlorcement of mar tial Jaw are "usual under all Governments in lime of rebellion;" that our own highest judicial tribunal has declared this and solemnly ruled that the question of thenecessitv for its exercise rests exclusively with Tongress and thePresident; andthat tbe decision of the political departments of the Government ,that there is an armed rebellion and a necessity for the em ployment of military force and martial law in its sup pression, concludes the judiciary. In submitting what I have said in support of the jurisdiction of this honorable Court and ot its constitu tional power to her.r and determine this issue, 1 have ut tered my own convictions, andfor their utterance inde- fense of my country and its right to employ all the means necessary for tbe common defense against armed re bellion and secret treasonable conspiracy in aid of ruch Rebellion, I shall neither asls nor offer apology. I find no wordi with which more fitly to conclude all I have' to sav upon the question of the jurisdiction and constitutional authority of this Court than those em- nloved by the illustrious Lord Brougham to the House ot Peers, in supp rt ofthe bill referred to, which em- nowered tbe Lord Lieutenant ot Ireland and his de puties to apprehend and detain, for the period o seven months or more, all such persons within that nland as thevshould suspect of conspiracy against Her Majesty s person and Government. Said that Ulustnous man, "A friend of liberty I have lived, and such will I die; nor care I how soon the latter event may happen, if I cannotbe a friend of liberty without being a friend of traitors at tbe same time, a protector ot criminals of the deepest dye, an accomplice ot foul rebellion and of its concomitant civil war, with all its atrocities and all its fearful consequences." (Hansards Debates, 3d series, vol. 10U. P- 635.) , . „ May it please th» Court:-It only remains for 186 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. me to sum up the evidence, and present my views ot the law arising unon the facts in tbe case on trial. The questions of tact involved in the issue are:— First. D d the accused or any two of them, confede rate and conspire together as charged? and Second. D.d the accused, or any of them, in pur suance of such conspiracy , and with the intent al leged, commit either or all of the several acts speci fied? ^ If the conspiracy be established, as laid, it results that whatever was sa>d or dune by either of tbe par- tips thereto, in the furtherance or execution of the common design, is the- declaration or act of all the o' her parties ti the conspiracy: and this whether the o'her parties, at the time such words were uttered, or such acf3 done by iter confederates, were present or absent, here, witlin the intrenched lines of vour Capi tal, or crouching behind the intrenched lines of Rich mond, or awaning tbe results of their murderous p'ot against the.r couo'ry, its Constitution and Jaws, across the border, under the shelter of the Brit.su flag. The declared and accepted rule of Jaw in cases of conspiracy is that:— "In prosecutions for conspiracy it is an established rule ihat where several persons are proved to have combined tog^therf'or thesame illegal purpose, any act done by oue of the par y. in pursuance of the origi nal concerted plan, and in reference to thecommon object, is, inthe ccn emplatton oflaw, as well asin sound reason, the actof the whole party: and. there fore, the proof of tbe actwill be evidence against any of the others, who were engaged in tho same general consp'racy, without regard to the question whether the prisoner is proved to have been concerned in the particular transaction." (Phillips on Evidence, p. 2.0). The same rule obtains in cases o1" treason:— "If seve ral persons agree to levy war. some in one place and some in another, and one partv do,actually appear in arms, this is a levying of war by all, as well those who were not in arms as th ise who were, it it were done i i pursuance of the or ginal concert, lor those who made the attempt were emboldened by the confidence in spired by ihe general concert, and thereiore these particular ac;s are in justice imputable lo all fbe rest." (l East., Pleas of tbe Crown, p. 97; Rou-oe, 8i). In ex parte Bollman and Sivartwou,'., 4 Cranch. 126, Marshall, Chief Justice, rules:— -'If war be actua'ly levied, that is, if a body of men be actua'ly assembled, for the purpose of effecting, bv force, a treasonable purpose, all those who per orm any part, however minute or however remote, from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy are to be considered as traitors." In U.iited States vs.. Cole et al!, 5 McLean. 601, Mr. Jus tice McLean says:— "A conspiracy Is rarely if ever proved by positive testimony. "When a crime of high magnitude is about to be perpetrate! by a combination otindividua.s, fheydonotactopen:y. out covertly and secretly. The purpose formed iskuowii only to those who enter into it. 'TJn ess oneof theoriginat'c^nspira- tors betray bis companions andg ve evidence against them, their guilt can be proved onlv by circumstantial evidence. * * - It is said by some waters on evidence that such circumstances are stronger than positive proo'. A witness swearing p03.tively, It is said, may misapprehend the facts or swear falsely, but tbat cir cumstances cannot I.e. "The common design is tbe essence of the charge; and this may be made to appear when the defendants steadily pursue tho same object, whether acting sepa rately or together, by common or different mean 3, all leading to thesame unlawful result. And wberejer/ma facie evidence has been given of a combination, the B,cts or coniess'ons of one are evidence against all. »: * Itisrcasonable tbat whereabodyof men assume the attribute of Individuality, whether for commercial Dusiness or for the commission of a crime, that the as sociation should be bound by the acts of one of its members in carrying out the design." It i3 a rule of the law, not to be overlooked in this connection, that the conspiracy or agreement of the parties, or some of them, to act inconcprtto accom plish the unlawful act charged, n^ay be established either by direct evidence of a meetl.ig or consultation for the illegal purpose charged, or more usually, from the very nature of the case, by circumstantial evi dence. (2 Starlrie, 232.) Lord Mansfield ruled that it was not necessary to Erove the actual fact of a conspiracy, but that it might e collected from collateral circumstances. (Parson's Case, 1 W. Blactotone, 302.) "Ii," says a great authority on the law of evidence, "on a charge of conspiracy, it appear that two persons by their acts are pursuing the same object, and olten by the same means, or one performing part of the act, and the other completing it, for the attainment of the same object, the jury may a aw the conclusion there is a conspiracy. Ifa conspiracy be formed and a per son join fn it afterwards, he b equally guilty with the original conspirators." (Roscoe, 415.) "The rules of tbe admissibility of the acts and de- plarations of any one ofthe conspirators, said or done in furtherance of the commen design, applies In cases as well where onlv part of the conspirators are in dicted, or upon trial, as where all are indicted and upon trial. Thus, upon an indictment for murder, if uVp^earthat others, together with the prisoner con spired io commit tbe crime, the act of one, done in pursuance ofthat intention, will be evidence against tbe rest." (2Starkie, 2S7.) . . mnmmnn They are all alike guilty as P"ncmals. (Common wealth vs Knapp, !> Pickering, 496; 10 Pickering, 477, 6 Term Reports. 518; 11 East, 584.) . nmr.ant. ,, What is tbe evidence, direct and circumstantial? That the accused, or either of them together with John H. Surratt. John Wilkes Booth Jefferson Davis. George N. Sanders, Beverly Tucker, Jacob Thompson, William C. Cleary, Clement C. Clay, George Harper and Ceorge Young, did combine, confederate and con spire in aid of the existing Rebellion, as charged, to kill and murder witbip the military department of Washington, and within the fortified and intrenched lines thereof. Abraham Lincolh^late. and. at thetime o' the said combining, con.ederating and conspiring. President of the United States of America, and Com mander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof: An drew Johnson, Vice President of tbe United States; William H. SewaTd, Secretary of State of the united States. andUlyssesS. Grant, Lieutenant-General ofthe armies thereof and then in command, under the di rection of thePresident. The time, as a>"d in the charge and specification, when this conspiracy was entered into, is immaterial, so that it appears by th ' evidence that thecriminal combination and agreement were formed before the coinmiss on ofthe acts alleged. That Jefferson Davis, one oftbe conspirators named, was the acknowledged chie and leader of the existing Rebellion against the Govprnment of the United State3, and that Jacob Thompson George N. Sanders, . Clement C. Clay, Bev erly Tucker, and others named in the specification, werehi3duly accredited and authorized agen's to act in the int' rests of said Rebellion, are facts established by the testimony in this case beyond*ali question. That. Davis, as tbe leader of said Rebellion, gave to those agents, then in Canada, commissions in blank, bearing the official signature of the war minister, James A. Seddon, to be by them filled up and delivered to such agents aa they might 'employ to act in the interests of tbe Rebellion within the United States, and intended to be a cover rnd protect on for any crimes they might there'n commit in the service of tbe Rebellion, are also facts established here, and which no man can gansay. y/ho doubrs that Kennedy, whose confes sion, made in viewofimmediatedeath as proved here was commissioned by ibosenccredited-agentsol Davis to burn the cily of New York? that he was to have at tempted it on the night of the Presidential election, and that he did. in combination with his confederates, set fire to four bote's in thecity of New York on the night ofthe 2ith of November last? Who doubts that, In Jikemannerin theinterestsottheR',be'Iion and by tbe an rority of Davis, the e his agents also commis sioned Bennett n. Young (o commit a-son. robbery, and tbe murder of unarmed citizens, iu St. Albans, Vermont? Who doubts, upon the testimony shown, that Davis, by his agents, deliberately adopted the sys tem of starvation for the murder of our captive soldiers in his hands: or that, as shown by the testimony, he sanctioned the burning of hospitals and steamboats, the property of ]Ti vate persons, and paid therefor from his stolen treasure the sum of thirty-five thousand dol lars in gold? By the evidence of Joseph Hyams it is proved that Thompson— the agent ot Jefferson Davis— paid him money for the service be rendered in the infamous and fiendish project of importing pestilence into our camps and cities to destroy the lives of citizens and soldiers alike, and into thehouse of thePresident for the'purpose of destroying his life. It may be said, and doubtless will besaid, by tbe pensioned advocates of thisReoell on, tbat Hyams, being inlamnu'Us not to be believed. It is admitted lhat he is in famous, ns it must be conceded that any man is infamous who either par ticipates In such a crime or attempts in any way to ex tenuate it. But it will be observed that Hyams is sup ported by the teslimony of Mr. Sandford Conover, who heard Blackburn and the other Rebel agents in Canada speak of this infernal project, and bythetes- tiraonvof Mr. Wall, (he well-known auctioneer of this city, whoie character la unquestioned, that he received this importation of pestilence (of ccurse without any knowledge of the purpose), and that Hyams con signed the goods to him in thenameof J. W. Harris— a fact in itself an acknowledgment of guilt: and that be received afterwards a letter from Harris, dated To ronto- £a"ada West. Doceraber 1,1864, wherein Harris stated thathe had not been able to come to tho States nACheQ1^aetUTTnT-SGun1?da' ancl askel r°r an account ™^e*!aJ?« He identifies the Joseph Godfrev Hyams who testified in Court as tbe J. W. Harris who imported the pestilence. The very transaction shows that Hyams' statement it truthful nig ves the names of the parties connected with this in famy (Clement C. Clay. Dr. Blackburn, Hev Br Stuart Robinson, J. C. Holcomb-all refused from the Confederacy in Canada) and statSfES he gave Thompson a receipt for the' fifty* do-nars pafd to him. and that he was by occupation a Shoemaker^ in none of which facts is there an attempt to dE TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON'. 1ST credit him. It is not probable that a man In his posi tion in life would be ableto buy five trunks of clothing, ship them all the way from Halifax to Washington, and then order them to be sold at auction, without regard to price, solely upon his own account. It is a matter of notoriety, that a part of his statement is verified by the results at Newbern, North Carolina, to which point, he says, a portion of the iniected goods were shipped, through a sutler; the result of wbich was, that, nearly two thousand citizens and soldiers died there about that time.with the yellow fever. That the Rebel Chief, Jefferson Davis, sanctioned these crimes, committed and attempted, through the instrumentality of his accredited agents in Canada, Thompson, Clay, Tucker, Sanders. Cleary, &c„ upon the persons and property ofthe people ofthe North, there is positive proof on your record. The letter brought from, Richmond, and taken from the archives of his late pretended Government tuere, dated Feb ruary 11, 1865. and addressed to him by a late Rebel Senator from Texas, W. S. Oldham, contains tha fol lowing significant words:— "When Senator Johnson, of Missouri, and myself waited on you a few days since, in relation to the project of annoying and harrasslng theenemyby means of burning their shipping, towns, Ac, &c, there were severai remarks made by you upon tbe subject, which I was not fully prepared to answer, but which, upon subsequent conference witb parties proposing the enterprise, I find cannot -apply as objections to the scheme. First, the 'combustible ma terials' consist of several preparations, and not one alone, and can be used without exposing the party using them to the least danger of detection whatever. # ' * * * * * "Second, there is no necessity for sending persons in the military service into the enemy's country, but the work may be done by agents. * * * I have seen enough ofthe effects that can be produced to satisfy me that in most cases, without any danger to the parties engaged, and in others but very slight, we can, first, burn every vessel tbat leaves a ioreign port for the United States; second, we can burn every trans port that leaves the harbor of New York, or other Northern port, with supplies for the armies of the enemy in the South; third, burn every transport and gun-boat on the Mississippi River, as well as devastate the country of the enemy, and fill his people with ter ror and consternation. * * * For the purpose of satisfying your mind upon the subject, I respectfully but earnestly request that you will give an interview with General Harris, formerly a member of Congress from Missouri, who, I think, is able, from conclusive proofs, to convince you that what I have suggested is penectly feasible and practicable." No one can doubt, from the tenor of this letter, that theRebel Davis only wanted to be satisfied that this system of arson and murder could be carried on by his agent i in the North successfully and without detection. With him it was not a crime to do these acts, but only a crime to be detected in them. But Davis, by his en dorsement on this letter, dated the 20th of February, I860, bears witness to his own complicity and bis own Iniamy in.this proposed work of destruction and crime for tbe future, as well as to bis complicity in what had before been ¦.attempted without complete success. Ken nedy, wuh h;s confederates, had failed to burn thee ty of New York. "The combustibles" which Kennedy bad employed were, it seems, defective. This was "a difficulty to be overcome." Neither had be been able to consummate the dreadful work without subjecting himself to detection. This was another "difficulty to be overcome." Davis, on the 20th of February, 1865, in dorsed upon this letter these words:— "Secretary of State, at his convenience, see General Harris and learn whatpian he has for overcoming the difficulties hereto fore experienced. J. D." This indorsement is unquestionably proved to be the handwriting of Jefferson Davis, andit bears witness on its fac3 tnat the monstrous proposition met his ap proval, and that he desired his Rebel Secretary of State, Benjamin, to see General Harris, and learn bow to overcome thedifficulty heretofore experienced, to wit: the inefficiency of "the combustible materials" that had been employed, and the liability of his.agen's to detection. After tbis. who will doubt that he had en deavored, by tbe hand of incendiaries, to dest-oy by fire the property and lives of the people of tae North, and thereby "fill them with terror and consternation;" that he knew bis agents had been unsuccessful: that he knew his agents had oeen detected in their villany and punished for their crime; tbat be desired through a more perfect '•chemical preparation," by the science and skill of Professor McCullocb, to accomplish suc cessfully what had been unsuccessfullvattempted? The intercepted letter of his agent. Clement C. Clay, dated St. Catherine's, Canada West, November 1, 1864. is an acknowledgment and confession of what they had attempted, and a suggestion made through J. P. Benjamin, Rebel Secretarv of State, of what remained to be done, in order to make the "chemical prepara tions" edicient. Speakiug of this Bennett H. Young, he says:— "You have doubtless learned through the press of tbe-United States ofthe raid on St, Albans by about Vweuty-flve Coniederate soldiers, led by -Lieu tenant Bennett H. Young; of their attempt and failure to bum the town; of their robbery of three banfcs there of the aggregate amount of about two hundred thou sand dollars; of their arrest in Canada by tbe United States forces; of their commitment and the pending preliminary trial." He makes application. In aid of Young and his asso ciates, for additional documents, showing that they acted upon the authority of the Coniederate States Government, taking care to say, however, that he held such authority at the time, but that it ought to be more explicit, so far as regards the particular facts complained of. He states that he met Young at Hali fax, in May, 1864, who developed his plans for retalia tion on the enemy: that he, Clay, recommended him to the Rebel Secretary of War; that after this, "Young was sent back by the secretary of War witb a com mission as Second Lieutenant, to execute his plans and purposes, but to report to Hon. and myselfl" Young afterwards "proposed passing through New England, burning some towns and robbing them of whatever he could convert to the use of the Con federate Government. This I approved as justi fiable retaliation. He attempted to burn the town of St. Albans, Vermont, and would have succeeded but for the failure of tbe chemical preparation with which he was armed. He then robbed tho banks ot funds amounting to over two hundred thousand dol lars. That he was not prompted by selfish or merce nary motives lam as well satisfied as I am that he is an honest man. He assured me before going that his effort would be to destroy towns and farm-houses, but not to plunder or rob; but he said if. after firing a town, he sow he could take funds from a bank or any house, and thereby might inflict injury upon the ene my and benefit bis own Government, he would do so. HeaddPd most emphatically that whatever he took should be turned over to the Government, or its repre sentatives in foreign lands. My instructions to him were to destrov whatever was valuable, not to stop to rob: but if, after firing a town, he could seize andcarry off money, or Treasury or bank notes, he might do so upon condition that they were delivered to the proper authorities of the Coniederate States," that is, to Clay himself. When he wrote this letter, it seems that this accred ited agent of Jefferson Davis was as strongly impressed with the usurpation anddespolism of Mr, Lincoln's Ad ministration as some of the advocates of his aiders and abettors seem to he at this day; and be indulges in the following statement:— "All that a large portion of the Northern people, especially in the Northwest, want to resist th opprr ssious ofthe despotism at Washington is a leader. '1 hey are ripe for resistance, and it may come soon after the Pi esidential election. At all events, it must come, if our armies are not overcome, or de stroyed, or dispersed, No people of the Anglo-Saxon blood can long endure the usurpations and tyrannies of Lincoln." Ciay does not sign the despatch, but indorses tbe bearer of it as a person who can identify him and give his name. The bearer of that ietter was the wit ness Richard Montgomery, who saw Clay write-a por tion of the 1 et'.er. ahd 1 eceived it from his hands, and subsequently delivered to the Assistant Secretary of War 01 the United States, Mr. Dana. That theletter is in Clay's handwriting is clearly proved by those fami liar with it, Mr. Montgomery testifies that be was instructed by Clay to deliver this letter to Benjamin, theRebel Secretary of State, it be could get through to Richmond, and to tell him what names to put In the blanks. This letter leaves no doubt, if any before existed, in the mind of any one who had read the letter of Old- bam aud Davis' indorsement thereon, that "the che mical preparations" and "combustible materials" had been tried and had failed, and it became a matter of ffreat moment and concern that they should be so pre pared as, in ihe wordsjof Davis, "to overcome the diffi culties hereto. ore experienced;" that U to say, com plete the work of destruction, and secure tbeperpetra tors against personal injury or detection in the per- °Itoo"y remains to be seen whether Davis, the pro curer of arson and of the indiscriminate murder of the innocent and unoffending necessarily resultant there from, was capable uisoot endeavoring to procure, and in fact d d procure, the murder, by direct assassination, of the PresidentofheUnitedStatesandothers charged w"£ the duty ot maintaining the Government of the United Scales, and of suppressing tbe Rebellion in which this arch-traitor and conspirator was engaged. TheoiT icial papers or'Davis, captured under the guns of our victorious army in his B-bel Capital, identified be?cndquesS shadow of doubt, and placed upon vour record! together with the declarations and acts of Sis coconspirators and agents, proclaim to all the world that he was capable of atternptingto accomplish WiaVr0^nn^hlpnrocurationof the murder ot the late vi^rt^SS^&M officers of the United States, "his Excellency" a letter now before the Court, which ^1^*55^15-^^^ •»* * you will favor rDem^S™ys?rS:ing at the very hearts' blood of those who seek to enchain her in slavery.^ I consider nothing^ 188 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. dishonorable having such a tendency. All I ask of you is, to favor me by granting me the necessary papers, &c, to travel on. * * * * I am perfectly familiar withthe North, and feel confident that I can execute any thing I undertake. I was in the raid last June in Ken tucky, under General John H. Morgan; * * * was taken prisoner, * * * escaped irom tbem by dress ing myself inthegarbofac.tizen. * * * ' I went through to the Canadas, from whence, by the assistance of Colonel J. P. Holcomb, I succeeded in working my way around and through the blockade. * * * I should like to have a personal interview with you in order to periect the arrangements before starting." Is there any room to doubt that this was a proposi tion to assassinate, by the hand of this man and bis associates, such persons inthe North as he deemed the "deadliest enemies" of the Rebellion? The weak ness of the man who, for a moment, can doubt that such was the proposition of the writer of this letter, is certainly an object of commiseration. What had Jef ferson Davis to say to this pronosed assassination of the "deadliest enemies" in the North of his great trea son? Did the atrocious suggestion kindle in him in dignation against the villain who offered, with his own hand, to strike the blow? Not at all. On the contrary, he ordered his private secretary, on the 2Sth of No vember, 1864, to indorse upon tbe letter these words: — "Lieutenant A. W. Alston, accompanied raid into Kentucky, and was captured; but escaped into Cana da, irom whence be lound his way bacis. Now offers his services to rid the country ot some of its deadliest enemies; asks lor papers. &c. Respectfully referred, by direction of the President, to the honorable Secretary of War." It is also indorsed, for attention, "By order." Signed "J. A. Campbell, Assistant Secretary of War." Note the fact, in this connection, that Jefferson Davis himself, as well as his subordinates, bad, be/oro the date of this indorsement, concluded that Abraham Lincoln was "the deadliest enemy" of the Rebellion. You hear it in the Rebel camp in "Virginia, in 18(j3, de clared by Booth, then and there present, and assented to by Rebd officers, that ' Abraham Lincoln must be killed." You hear it in that slaughter-pen in Georgia, Andersonville, proclaimed among Rebel officers, who, by the slow torture oi starvation, inflicted cruel and untimely death on ten thousand of your defenders, captives in their hands whispering, like demons, their horrid purpose, "Abraham Linco n must be killed." And in Canada, the accredited agents of Jefferson Davis, as early as October, 1804, aud afterward, de clared that "Abraham Li a coin must be killed." it his re-election could not be prevented. These agents in Canada, on tbe 13th of October, 1864, delivered, in Cipher, to be transmitted to Richmond by Richard Montgomery, the witness whose reputation is un challenged, the following communication:— "October 13, 1SU4.— We again urge the immense ne cessity of our gaining immed.ate advantages. Strain every nerve for victory. We now look upon tbe re election of Lincoln in November as almost certain, and we need to whip these hirelings to prevent it. Resides, with Lincoln re-elected and his armies victorious, we need not hope even ior recognition, much less the help mentioned in our last. Holcomb will explain this. Those figures of tbe Yankee armies are correct to a unit. Our friends shall be immediately set to work as you direct." To which an official reply, in cipher, was delivered to Montgomery by an agent of the State Department In Richmond, dated October iu, 1864, as follows:— " Your letter of the 13th inst. is at hand. There is yet time enough to colonize many voters before No vember. A blow will shortly be stricken here. It is not quite time. General Longstreet ii to attack Sheri dan without delay, and then move North as far as practicable toward unprotected points. This will be made instead of movement before mentioned. He will endeavor to assist the Republicans in collecting their ballots. Be watchful and assist him. ' On the very day of the date of this Richmond de spatch Sheridan was attacked, and with whatsuccess history will declare. The Court wili not fail to notice that the re-election of Mr. Lincoln is to be prevented, if possible, by any and every means. Nor will they fail to notice that Holcomb is to " explain this"— the same person who, In Canada, was the friend and adviser of Alston, who proposed to Davis the assassination of the " deadliest enemies" of the Rebellion. In the despatch of the 13th of October, which was borne by Montgomery, and transmitted to Richmond in October last, you will find theso words:— "Our friends shall beimmediateiTsetto work as you direct." Mr. Lincoln is the subject ofthat despatch. Davis is therein notified that his agents i.i Canada look upon the re-election of Mr. Lincoln in November as almost certain. In this connection he is assured by those agents tbat the friends of their cause are to te set to work as Davis had directed. The conversations which are proved by witnesses, whose character stands unimpeached, disclose what "work" the "friends" were to do under the direction of Davis himself. Who were these "friends," and what was "the work which his agents, Thompson, Clay, Tucker, and Sanders, had been directed to set them at? Let Thompson answer for himself. In a conversation with Richard Montgomery, in the sum mer of 1864, Thompson said " he had his friends, Con federates, all over the Northern States, who were ready and willing to go any length lor the good of the cause ofthe South, and he could at any time have the tyrant Lincoln, or any other of his advisers that he chose, put out of his way; thatthey would not consider it a cr ime when done forthe cause of the Confederacy." This conversation was repeated by the witness in the sum mer of 1864 to Clement C. Clay ,who immediately stated: —"That is so; we are all devoted to our cause, and ready to go any length— to do anything under the sun." At and about the time that these declarations of Ctay and Thompson were made, Alston, who made the pro position, as we have -seen, to Davis, to- be furnished with papers to go Nm-th and rid the Confederacy of some of its "deadliest enemies," was in Canada. He was, doubtless, one or the "friends" referred to. A3 appears from the testimony of Montgomery, Payne, the prisoner at > your bar, was about that time in Canada, and was seen standing by Thompson's door.- engaged in a conversation with Clay, between whom and tne witness some words were interchanged, when Clay stated he (Payne) was one of their friends, "we trust him." It is proved beyond a shadow of doubt, that in October last, Joh.j Willies Booth, the assassin ofthe President, was also in Canada and upon inti mate terms w.th Thompson, Clay, Sanders, and other Rebel agents. Who can doubt, in tne light of the events which have sinco transpired, that he was one ofthe "iriends" to be "set to work," as Davis had al ready directed; not, perhaps, as yet to assassinate the President, but to do that other work which issuggested in the letter of Oldham, indorsed by Davis in his own ( hand, and spread upon your record, the work.of the secret inceuiiiary, which was to "fill the people of the North witb terror and consternation." Tne other "work" spoken of by Thompson, putting the tyrant Lincoln and any of his advisers out of theway, was work doubtless to be commenced only after the re election of Mr. Lincoln, wbich they had already de clared iu their despatch to-their employer, Davis, was with them a foregone conclusion. At all events, it was not until after the Presidential election iulSovember that Alston proposed to Davis to goNorth on the work of assassination; nor was it'un til a^ter that efection that Booth was found in possession ofthe letter which is in evidence, and which discloses the purpose to assassi nate the President. Being assured, however, when Booth was with them in Cauada, as tbey bad already declared in their despatch, that there-election of Mr. Lincoln was certain, in which event there would be no hope for the Coo. ederacy, they doubtless entered into the arrangement with Booth as one of their "friends," that as.soon as that fact was determined he should go "to work," and as soon as might be "rid the Confe deracy ot tho tyrant Lincoln and of his advisers." That the.de persons named upon your record, Thomp son, Sanders, Clay, Cleary and Tucker, were the agents of Jelierson Davis, is another iact established iu this case beyond a doubt. They made affidavit of it them selves, of record here, upon the examination of their "lnends." charged with the raid upon St. Albans, be fore Judge Smith, m Canada. It is in evidence also by theletterot'Clay. before referred to. The testimony, lo which Lhave thus briefly referred, shows, by the letter of his agents, of tbe 13th ot Octo ber, that Davis had before directed those agents to set bis friends at work. By theletterot'Clay, it seems that his direction had been obeyed, and liislriends bad been set to work, in the burning and roboery and murder at St. Albans, in the attempt to burn the city of New York, and in the attempt to introduce pestilence into this Capital and into the house of tho President. It having appeared, by the letter of Alston, and the indorsement thereon, that Davis had in Novem ber entertained the proposition of sending agents, that is to say, "friends," to the North, to not only "spread terror and.consternation dmongthe people,' hy moans of his "chemiCLil preparations," but also, in the words ofthat letter, "lostrike," by the hands of assassins, "at the heart's blood" of-.the dead liest enemies in the North to theconiederacy of trai tors; It bas also appeared hy the testimony of many respectable witnesses, among others the attorneys who represented thepeople ofthe United States and- the State ot Vermont, in the preliminary trial of the raiders in Canada, that Clay, Thompson, Tucker, San ders and Cleary, declared themselves tne agents of the Confederacy. It also cleariy appears by the corres pondence referred to and tbe letter of Clay, thai they were lidding, and at any time able to command blank commij&ioua irom J e^eraun Davis tjautnorize their jnendsxodo whatever work they appointed them to do, in the interest ofthe Rebellion, by the destruction of lhe and property in the North. If;i prima jo.de case justifies, as we have seen by the law ot evidence it does, the introduction of all declara tions and acta of auy of the parties lo a conspiracy, uttered and done in the prosecution of thecommon design, as evidence against all therest.it results, that whatever was said or uone in furtherance ot thecom mon design, after this month of October, 1884, by either of these agents in Canada, is evidence not only against themselves, but against Davis as well,ot his complicity with them in the-conspiracy. Mr. Montgomery testifies that he met Jacob Thomp- TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 189 son in January, at Montreal, when he said that "a proposition had been made to him to rid the world of the tyrant. Lincoln, Stanton, Grant,.and some others; thathe knew the men who had made the proposition were bold, daring men, able to execute what they un dertook; that he himself was in favor of the proposi tion, but bad determined to defer bis answer until he had consulted bis Government at Richmond: thathe was then only awaiting their approval." This was about the middle of January, and. consequently, more than a month after Alston had made his proposition direct to Davis, in writing, to go North and rid their Confederacy of someof its * deadliestenemies." It was at the timeof this conversation that Payne, the pri^- soner, Was seen by the witness standing at Thompson's door in conversation with Clay. This witness also shows tbe inrimacy between Thompson. Clay, Cleary, Tucker and Sanders. A f'ewdu.ysb.1 er the assassination ofthe President, Beverly Tucker said to this witness "that President Lincoln deserved his death long ago; that it was a pity be didn't have it long ago; and it was too bad that the boys had not been allowed to act when they wanted to." This remark undoubtedly had reference to thepro- Sositions made in the lall to Thompson, and also to 'avis, to rid the South of its deadliest enemies by their assassination. Cleary, who was accredited by Thompson as his confidential agent, also stated to this witness that Booth was one or the paity to whom Thompson had referred in the conversation in January, in which he said he knew the men who were ready to rid the world of the tyrant Lincoln, and of Stanton and Grant. Cleary also said, speaking of the assassi nation, "that it was a pity that tbe whole work had not been done." and added " they had belter look out, we are not done yet:" manifestly referring to the state ment made1 by Ins employer, Thompson, bejore in the suinmeivthat nut only the tyrant Lincoln, but Stanton andorant, aud others of his advisers, should be put out of the way. Cleary also stated to this witness that Bopth had visited Thompson twice in the winter, the last lime in December, and had also been there in the summer. Sauford Conover testified that he bad been for some time a clerk in the War Department in Richmond; that iu Canada he knew Thompson, Sanders, Cleary, Tucker, Clay and other Kebel agents; thathe knew John H. Surratt and John Wilkes Booth; that he saw Booth there upon one occasion, and Surratt upon several successive days; that be saw Surratt (whom he describes) in April last, in Thompson's room, and also in company witn Sanders; tbat about the 6th or 7th of April last Surratt delivered to Jacob Thompson a de spatch, brought by him from Benjamin, at Richmond, inclosing one in c.pher irom Davis. Thompson had before mis i.roposedto Conover to engage in a plot to assassinate President Lincoln and his C-ibinet, and on this occasion he laid his hand upon these despatches and said, "This makes the thing ail right." reierring to theassent of the Rebel authorities, and stated that tbe Rebel authorities had consented to the plot to assassinate Lincoln. Johnson, the Secretary of War, Secretary of State, Judge Chase and General Grant. Thompson remarked further that tbe assassination ot these parties would leave the Government of the UnitedStates entirely withouta head; that there wa . no provision in tue Constitution of the United States by whicn they could elect another President, if these men were put out of the way. In speaking of this assassination ot the President and otners, Thompson said that it was only removing them irom oilice; that the killing of a tyrant was no murder. It seems that he had learned precisely the same lesson that Alston had learned in November, when be communicated with Davis, and said, speaking ofthe Presiue. it's assassination, "hedid not think any thing di. honorable that would serve their cause." Thompson stated at thesame tiaie that hehad con i erred a commission on Booth, hnd that everybody engaged in the enterprise would be commissioned, and it it suc ceeded, or Jailed, and they escaped into Canada, they couid not he reclaimed under the extradition treaty. The faLt that Thompson and other Rebel agents he d blank conimi.ss:oust as I have said, has been proved, and a copy of oue.of them is on record here. This witness ai^o testifies to a conversation with William C. Cleary, shortly after the surrender of Lee's army, and on the day before the President s assassina tion! at the St. Lawrence Hotel, Montreal, when speaking o. the re:oic.ng in theStates over the capture of Richmond, deary said, "they would put the laugh on the other side of tbeir mouth in a day or two.'7 These parties knew that conover was in the secret of theassassinatiuii, and talked with him about it as freely as tney would speak of the weather. Before the assassination he had a conversation also with Sanders, who asked him if he knew Booth well, and expressed some apprehension that Booth would "make a failure of it; that he was kill and murder the parties namod in the record, and others not named in the record. If the proof is that the accused, witb Booth, surratt, Davis. &c, conspired to kill and murder one or more ofthe persons named, the charge of conspiracy is proved. The dec aration of Sanders, as proved, that there was plenty of money to carry out this assassination, is verystrougly corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Campbell, cashier of the Ontario B^uk, who states that Thomnson, during tho current year preceeding ibe as sassination, had upon deposit in the Montreal branch of the Ontar.o Bank, six hundred and forty-nine thousand dollars, besides large sums to his credit in other banks in tho Province. There is a further corroboration of the testimony of Conover as to the meeting of'Tuompson and Surratt in Montreal, and the delivery of the despatches from Richmond, on the 6th or 7th of April, first, in the iact which is shown,, by the testimony of Chester, ihat in the winter or spring Booih said he himself or some other party must go to Richmond ; and, second, by the letter of Arnold, dated 27th of March last, that hepre- ferred Booth's first query, that he would first go to Richmond and see bow they would take It. mani festly aluding to the proposed assassination of the President. It does not follow because Davis had written a letter in February which, in substance, approved tbe general object that the parties were fully satisfied with it, be cause it is clear there was to be some arrangement maae about the funds, and it is also clear that Davis had not before &i distinctly approved and sanctioned this act as his agents either in Canada or here desired. Booth said to Chester, "We must have money: there Is money in this business and if you will enter into it I will place tlnee thousand dollars at the disposal of your family, but Ihave no money myself, and must go to Richmond," or one of the parties must go, "to get money to carry out the enterprise." This was one of the arrangements ihat was to be "made right in Ca nada." The funds at Thompson's disposal, as the banker testifies, were exclusively raised by drafts of the Secretary of the Treasury of the Confederate States upon London, deposited in their bank to the credit ot Thompson. According. y, a'50ut the 27th of March, Surratt d'd go to Richmond. Ontboiid of April he returned to Wash ington, and the samcclay leit for Canada. Before leav ing, he stated to Weichman. that when in Richmond he had a conversation with Davis and with Benjamin The iact in this ccunceiion is net to be overlooked; tbat on or about the day Surratt arrived in Montreal, April O.Jacob Thompson, as tf>p cashier of the Ontario Bank states, drew of these Confederate funds the sum of one hundred and eighty thousand dollars in the form of certificates, which, as lhe bank officer testifies, " mi ;ht be used anywhere." Wnat more i3 wanting? Surely no word further need bespoken to show that John Wilkes Booth was in this conspiracy: that John H. Surratt was in this conspi racy: and that Jefferson Davis and his several agents named in Canada, wereii this conspiracy. If any ad ditional evi Jence i3 wanting to show the complic ty of Davis in it. let tho paper found in tbe possession oc h:-i bired assassin Booth come to bear witness agains' h.m. That paper contained the secret cipher which D-ivisus dinhisStatPDepartmentinRichmond.whicb ho employed in communicating with his agents in Canada, and which they employed in the letter of Oc tober 13, notifying him that "their lriends would beset to work as he had directed." Tho letter in cipher found In Booth's possession is translated hereby the use of the cipher machine now in Court, which, as the testimony ol Mr. Dana shows, he brought frcm the rooms of Davis' State Depart ment in Richmond. Who gave Booth tbis seret cipher? Of what usewas it to himifhe was not in confederation with Davis? .But there is one other item of testimony that ought, among honest and intelligent people at all conver sant with this ev'^ence, to end all further inquirvas to whether Jettt-son Davis was one of the parties with Booth, as charged upon this record, in the conspiracy to assassinate the President and others, That is, that on the fifth day after the assassination, in the city of Charlotte, Noith Carolina, a telegraphic despatch wa? received by him, at the house ofMr. Bates, from John C. Breckinridge, his Rebel Secretary of War, which despatch is produced heie, identified by the telegraph agent, and placed upon your record in the wordj following:— "Greensboro', April 19, 1865.— His Excellency Pre sident Davis:— President Lincoln was assassinated in the theatre at Washington on the night of the 14th Inst. Seward's house was entered on tbe same night, and he was repeatedly stabbed, and is probably mor tally wounded. JOHN C. BKECK1NRIDGE." At the time tbis despatch was handed to bim, Davis was addressing a meeting from the steps of Mr. Bates' house, and after reading the despatch to the people ho said:— "If it were to be done, it were better it were well done." Shortly afterward, in tbe house of the witness, in the same city, Breckinridge, having come to see Davis, stated his regret that the occurrence bad hap pened, because he deemed it unfo tunate for the peo ple ofthe South at that time. Davis rep'led, reU rring to the assassination, "Well, General. I don't know; if it were to be done at all, it were better tbat it were well done; and if thesame had been done to Andy John son, the beast, and Secretary Stanton, tbe job would then be complete." Accomplished as this man was In all tbe arts of a conspirator, he was not equal to the task— as, happily, in the good providence of God, no mortal man is— ox concealing, by any form of words, any great crime which he may have meditated or perpetrated either against his Government or his fellow-man. It waa doubtless furthest from Jefferson Davis' purpose to make confession, and yet be did make confession. His guilt demanded utterance; that demand he could not resist; therefore his words proclaimed his guilt, in spite of his purpose to conceal it. He said, "if it were tobedone.it were better it were well done." Would any man ignorant of tbe conspiracy be able to devise and fash. on such a form of speech as that? Had not the President been murdered? Had be not reason to believe that the Secretary of State had been mortally wpunded? Yet he was not satisfied but was com pelled to say. "it were better it were well done;" that is to say, all that had been agreed to be done had not been done. Two days afterwards, In his conversation with , Breckinridge, he not only repeats the same form of expression, "If it were to be done it were better it were well done," but adds these words:— "And if the same had been done to .Andy Johnson, tbe beast, and to Secietary Stanton, the job would then be complete." He would accept the assassination cf the President, the Vice President, of the Secretary of State, and tbe Sec retary of War as a complete execution of the "job," which he had given out upon contract, and which he had "made all right," so far as the pay was concerned, by the despatches he had sent to Thompson by Sur ratt, one of his bired assassins. Whatever may be the convictions of others, mvown conviction is that Jefferson Davis is as clearly proven guilty ot this conspiracy as is John Wilkes Booth, by whose hand JeLerson Davis inflicted tbe mortal wound upon Abraham Lincoln. His words of intense hate, and rage, and disappointment are not to be over- looted— that the assassins had not done their work well; that ihey had not succeeded in robbing thepeople altogether of their constitutional Executive and bis advisers; and hence he exclaims, "if they had killed Andy Johnson, the beast!" Neither can he conceal his caagriuand disappointment that the war minister of the lepubhc, whose energy, incorruptible integrity, sleep ess vigilance, and executivcability had organized day by day, month by monib. and year bv year, victory for our arms, had escaped the knile of the hired assas sins. The job, says this procurer of assassination, was not well done; it bad been better if it had been well done! Because Abraham Lincoln had been clear in bis great office, and had saved the nation's life by enforcing the nation's laws this traiior declares he muct be murdered; because Mr. Seward, as the foreign Secretary of theocountry, had thwarted the purposes of treason to plunge his country into a war with England, he must be murdered; because, upon the murder of Mr. Lincoln, Andrew Johnson would succeed to the Presidency, and because he had been true to the Constitution and Government, faithful found among tbe faithless of his own State, c'ingmg to the falling pillars of ihe Republic when others bad fled, he must be murdered: and because the Secretary of War had taken care, by the faithiul dis cbarge o this duties, that the Republic should live and not die, he must be murdejed. Inasmuch as these two faithful officers were not also assassinated, assuming that the Secretary of State was mortally wounded, Davis could not conceal his disappointment and cha grin tbat the work was not "well done;'- that "the job was not complete." Thus It appears, by the testimony, tbat the propo sition madr to Davis was to kill and murder the dead liest enemies of the Confederacy— not to kidnap them, rs is now pretended here; that by the declaration of Sanders, Tucker, Thompson, Clav, Cleary, Harper and Young, the conspirators in Canada, the agreement and combination among them was to kill and murder Abraham. Lincoln, Wm. H.Seward, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, Edwin M. Stanton, and others of hia advisers, and not to kHnap them; It appears from every utterance of John Wilkes Booth, as well as from the Charles Selby letter, of which*mention w 41 pre sently be made, that, as early as November, the pro position with him was to kill and murder, not to kid nap. ~ I ,ayince tlie first examination of Conover, who testi- 1 bed, as the court will remember, to many important TRIAL OF TnE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 191 facts against these conspirators and agents of Davis In Canada amorg others the terrible and fiendish plot disclosed by Thompson, Pallen ar.d others, that they had iiscerUiinedthovolumeoi water in the reservoir supplying New York city, estimated tbe qunntitv of noison required to render it deadlv, and intended thus to poison a whole city— Conover "returned to Canada, by direction of this court, for the purpose of obtaining certain documentary evidence. There, aboutthe 9th of June, he met Beverly Tucker, Sanders and other conspirators, and conversed with them. Tucker de clared that Secretary Stanton, whom be denounced as "a scoundrel," and Judge Holt, whom he called "a bloodthirsty villain," "cou;d pro'ect themselves as long as they remained in office by a guard, but that would not always be thecase, and, by the Eternal, he had a large account to settle with them." After this, the evidence of Conover here havinsr been published, these parties called upon him and asked him whether he bad been to Washington, and had testified before this Court, Cunovcr denied it; thty insisted, and took him io a room, where, with drawn pistols, they compelled him to consent to make an affidavit that he had been falsely personated here by another, and that he wuu'dmake that affidavit be fore a Mr. Kerr, who would witness it. They then called in Mr. lierrlocerti yto the public that Cono ver had made such a denial. They also compelled this witness to furnish for publication an advertise ment off .rmg a reward of fivebundred dollars for the arrest of the "iufamous andperiured scoundrel " who had recently personated James W. Wallace under the name of Sandford Conover, and testified tj a tissue of falsehoods belore the Military Commission at Wash ington, wbich advertisement was published. in the papers. To these facts Mr. Conover now testifies, and also discloses the fact that these same men puhished, in the^report ofthe proceedings before JudgeSmith an affidavit, purporting to be his, but which he never made. Tne affidavit which be in fact made, and which was published in anewspaper at that time, pro duced here, is set out substantially upon your record, and agrees with the testimony upon the same point given by bim in this Court. To suppose mat Conover ever made sucb an affida vit voluntarily as the one wrung irom him as stated is impossible. Would he advertise for his own arrest, and charge himself with falsely impersonating him- seh? But the iact cannot evade obser"ation that, when these guilty conspirators saw Conover's testi mony before this Court in the public prims, revealing to the world tbe atrocious plots ot thejie felon conspi rators, conscious ofthe truthiulncss ot his statements, they cast about at once for some de.ense be 'ore the public, and devised ihefooash ands-ui id invention of compelling him to make an affidavit that he was not Saiid.ord Conover, was not in ifiis Court, never gave this testimony, but was a pracicinij lawyer at Mon treal! This in.amous proceeding, coupled with the evidence before detailed, stamps tuese ruffian plotters with the guilt of this conspiracy. John Wilkes Booth iiaving entered into this con spiracy in Canada, as has been shown, as early as Octo ber, he is next found in the city of New York, on the 11th day, as I claim, of November, in disguise, in con versation with auother, the conversation disclosing to the witness, Mrs. Hudspeth, thatthey had some matter of personal interest between them; that upon one of them the lot bad Jalien to go to Washington; upon the other to go to Newborn. This witness upon being shown the photograph of Booth swears "that the face is the same" as that of one ot those men, wiio she says was a man of education and culture, as appeared by his conversation, aud who had a scar like a bite near tbe aw bone. It is a fact proved here by tbe Surgeon- General, tbat Booth had a scar on the side of his neck. Mrs. Hudspeth beard him say he would leave for Washington tne day auer to-morrow. His companion appeared angry because it had not fallen on him to go to Washington. This took place after the Presidential election in November. She cannot fix theprecisedate, but*jayB she w.is told General Butler left Nuw York on that day. The testimony discloses that General But ler's armjr was on the nth ot November leaving New York. The register of the National Hotel shows that Booth le*t Washington on the early morning train, November 11, and that he returned to this city on the 14th. Chester testifies positively to Booth's presence in New York early in November. This testimony shows most conclusively that Booth was in New York on the nth of November. The early morning train on wuich he left Washington would reach New York early in the alternoon of that day. Chester saw him there early in November, and Mrs. Hudspeth not only identifies his picture, but describes his person. The scar upon his neck near his jaw was peculiar, and is well described by the witness as like a bite. On that day Booth had a letter in his possession which be accidently dropped in the street car in the presence of Mrs. Hudsnetb, the witness, who delivered ft to Major-General D.x the same day, and by whom, as his leiter on file before this Court shows, tne same was transmitted to the War Department November 17, 1864. That letter contains these words :— *;Deab Louis:— The time has at last come that we have all so wished for, and upou you every thing de pends. As it was decided before you left, we were to castlots. We accordingly did so, and you are to be the Charlotte Cordayoi the nineteenth century. When I you remember the awful, solemn vow that was taken by us, you w.U feel there is no drawback. Abemust die. and now. You can choose your weapons— the cup. the knife, the bullet. The cup failed us once, and might again. Johnson, v* ho will give this, bas boen like an enraged d >mon since tbe meeting, because it has not fallen on him to rid the world of amonstcr. * * Ycu know where to find your friends. Your disguises are so per.'ect and complete, that without one knew youc face, no podce telegraphic despatch would catch you. The Engl. sh gentleman. Harcourt, must not act hastily. Remember he has ten days. Strike for your home, strike for your country; bldeyour time, but strike sure. Get introduced; congratulate him; listen to his stories; (not many more will the brute tell to eurthly friends.) do anything but fail, and meet us at the ap pointed place within the fortnight'. You will probably hear iromrnein Washington. Sanders isdo.ngus no good In Canada. ' Ca>s. Selby." The learned gentleman (Mr. Cox), in his very able and carefully cons dered argument in delense of OLaughln and Arnold, attached importance to this letier, and doub: less very clearly saw.its bearing upon thecase, and, therefore, undertook to show that the witness, Mrs. Hudspeth, must be mistaken as to the person of Booth. The gentleman assumes that the letter ot General Dix, of the lTth of November last, transmitting this letter to the War Department, reads that tbe party who dropped the letter was heard to say that he would start to Washington on Friday night next, although the word "next" is not in the letter, neither is it in Lhe quotatton which the gentleman makes.^Jor heouotes it fairly: yet he concludes that this would be the 18th of November. Now the fact is, the nth of November last was Fri day, and the register of the Nationat Hotel bears wit ness that Mrs. Hudspeth is not mistaken; because her language is, that Booth said he would leave ior Wash ington day alter to-morrow, which would be Sunday, the 13th, and it in the evening, would brnig him to Washington on Monday, the 34th of November, the day*on which the register shows he didieturnio the National Hotel. As to the improbability which the gentleman raises, on the conversation happening in a street car, crowded with people, there was nothing that transpired, although the conversation was ear nest, which enabled tuewitness, or could have ena bled any one. in the absence of this letter, or of the subsequent conduct of Booth, to lorm the least idea of thesuhject-matipr of their conversation. The gentieman does not deal altogether fairly in his remarks touching the letter of General Dix; because, upon a careful examination of the letter, it wdi be found thathe did not form any such judgment as that it was a hoax ior the Sunday Mercury ,buiiie took care to forward it to the Department, and nsked attention to it: when, as appears by the testimony oi the Assis tant secretary of Vv ar, Mr. Dana, the letter was deli vered to Mr. L ncoln, who considered it imponant enough to indorse it with the word "Assassmut.on," and'iileitin bis office, where it was found a. ter the commission of this crime, and brought into thisCourt to bear witness against his assassins. Although this leiter would imply that the assassina tion spoken of was to take place speeddy, yet iht party was to bide his time. Though hehad emered into the preliminary arrangements in Canada, although con spirators had doubtless agreed to co-operate wuh him in the commission ofthe crime, and lot3 had been cast for the chief part in the bloody drama, yet it remained for him as the leader and principal of ihe hired assas sins, hy w. ose hand their employers were lo stride the murderous blow, to collect about him and bring to Washington such persons as would be willing to lend themselves, for a price, to the horrid cr.me, and likely to give the necessary aid and support in its consum mation. The letter declares that Abraham Lincoln must die, and now, meaning as soon as the agents can be employed and the work done. To that end you will bide your time. , , , . . .. But, says lhe gentleman, it could not have been tho same conspiracy charged here to which this letter re fers. Why not? It is charged here tnat Booth, wall the accused and others, conspired to kill aud murder Abraham Lincoln; that is precisely the conspiracy dis closed in the letter. Granted that the purt.es on trial had net then entered into the combination; u they at any time a.terward entered into it they became parties to it, and tbe conspiracy was still the same. But. says the gentleman, the words of the letter imply that the consmracv was to be executed within tae fortnight. Booth is directed, by thenameof Louis, to meet the writer within a fortnight. It by no means lollows that he was to strike within the fortnight becausehe was to meet his co-conspirator within that time, and any such conclusion is excluded by the words, ••B.deyourume." Even ii the conspiracy was lo be executed wiihin the fortnight, and was not so executed, andthesameparty, Booth! afterwards hy concert and agreement witb the accused and others, did execute it by "striking sure" 192 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. and killing the President, that act, whenever done, would be but the execution of this same conspiracy. The letter is conclusive evidence of so much of this conspiracy as relates to the murder of President Lin coln. As Booth was to do any thing but fail, he imme diately thereafter sought out tbe agents to enable him to strike sure, and execute all that he had agreed with Davis and h:s co-confederates in Canada to do— to mur der thePresident, the Secretary of'State, the "Vice-Pre sident. General Grant and Secretary Stanton. Even Booth's co-conspirator, Payne, now on his trial, by bis de.ense admits all this, and says Booth had just been to Canada, "was filled with a mighty scheme, and was lying in wait for agents." Booth asked the co operation of the prisoner Payne, and said:— '"I will give you as much money as you want: but first you must swear to stick by me. It is in the oil business." This you are told by the accused was early in March last. Thus guilt bears witness against itself. We find Booth in New York in November, Decem ber and January, urging Chester to enter into this com bination, assuring him that there was monry in it; that they had 'friends on the other side." that if he would only participate in it, he would never want for money whilehelived.andallthat wasasked of bim was to stand at and open the back door of Ford's Tneatre. Booth, in his interview with Chester, confesses that he is without money himself, and allows Chester to reim burse him the fifty dollars which he (Booth ) had trans- mitted to him in a letter ior the purpose of paying his expenses to Washington as one of the parties to this conspiracy. Booth told him, although he himself was penniless, "there-is money in this, we have friends on the other side." and if you will but ensage, I will have three thousand dollars deposited at once for the use of your family. Failing fo secure the services of Chester, because bis soul recoiled with abhorrence from the loul work of assassinai.on and muroGr, he found more willing in struments in others whom he gathered about him. Men to commit the assassinations, horses to secure speedy aud certain escape were to be provided, and to this end Booth, with an energy worthy of abetter cause, applies himself. For this latter purpose he told Chester he had already expended §500!). In tbe latter part ot November, I8fi4, he visits Charles county, Maryland, and is in company with one ofthe prison ers, Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, with whom he lodged over night, and through whom he procures of Gardner one ofthe several horses which were at his disposal, and used by him and his co-conspirators in Washing ton on the night ofthe assassination. Sometime in January last, it is iu testimony, tbat the prisoner Mudd introduced Booth to John H. Sur ratt and the witness Weichman; that Booth invited them to the National Hotel: that when there, in the room which Booth took tbem, Mudd went out into the passage, calied Booth out and had ap.-ivateconversa- tion withhim. leaving the witness and Surratt inthe room. Upon their return to the room Booth went out with Suiratt, and upon theircomingin all thrce,Booth, Surratt, and Samuel A. Mudd, went out together and had a conversation in the passage, leaving the wit ness alone. Up to tbe time of this interview it seems that neither the witness nor Surratt hud any know- ledfre of Booth, as they were then introduced to him by Dr. Mudd. Whether Surratt bad in iactpreviouslv known Booth it is not important to inquire. Mudd deemed it necessary, perhaps, a wise precaution, to introduce Surratt to Booth; he also deemed it neces sary to have a pnvateconversntion with Booth shortly alterwards, and directly upon that to have a conversa tion together with Booth and ftu ratt alone. Had this conversation, no part of winch was heard by the witness, been perfectly innocent, it is not to be presumed that Dr. Mudd, who was an entire stranger to We.chman, would have deemed it necessary to hold the conversation secretly, nor to have volunteered to tell the wnntss, or rather pretend to tell him, what the conversation was; yet he did say to the witness, upon their return to the room, byway oi apology. I suppose, for the privacy ot' the conversation, that Booth had some private business with him, and wished to purchase his farm. This silly device, as is often the case in attempts at deception, failed in the execution: ior it remains to be shown how the fact that Mudd had private business with Booth, and that Booth wished to purchase his larm, made it at all necessary or even proper that they should both volunteer to call out Sur ratt, who up to that moment was a stranger to Booth. What had Surratt to do with Booth's purchase of Mudd's larm? And, if it was necessary to withdraw and talk by themselves secretly about the sale of the farm, why should they disclose the fact to the very man from whom they bad concealed it ? Upon the return of these three parties to the room. tbey seated themselves at a table, and upon the back of un enveione Booth traced lines with a pencil, indi cating, as the witness states, the direction of roads. Why was tbis done? As Booth had been previously in that section of country, as the prisoner in his delense has taken great pains to show, it was certainly not necessary to anything connected with the purchase of Mudd's farm that at that time he should be indicating the direction of roads to or from it; nor is it made to appear by anything in this testimony, how It comes tbat Surratt, as the witness testifies, seemed to be as much interested in the marking out of these roads as Mudd or Booth. It does not appear that Surratt was in any wise connected with or interested in the sale of Mudd's farm. From all that has transpired since this meetingattbehotel.it would seem that this plotting the roads was intended, not so much to show the road to Mudd's farm, as to point out the shortest and safest route for flight from tho Capital, by tbe houses of all the parties in this conspiracy, to their " friends on the other side." , » „ . x • ,_¦ But, says the learned gentleman (Mr. Ewing). in his very able argument in defense of this prisoner, why should Booth determine that his flight should be through Charles cou n ty ? The answer must be obvious. upon a moment's reflection, to every man, arid could not possibly have escaped the notice of the counsel himself, -but for the reason that bis zeal for his client constrained him to overlook it. It was absolutely es sential that this murderershouldhavehis co conspira tors at convenient points along his route, and it does not appear in evidence that by theroute to his friends, who had then fled from Richmond, which the gentle man (MY. Ewing) indicates as the more direct, but of which there is not the slightest evidence whatever, Booth had co-conspirators at an equal distance from Washington. Tne testimony discloses further, thaton therouteselectedbyh'm for bis flight, there is a large population that would be most likely to favor and aid him in the execution of his wicked purpose, andin making his escape. But it is a sufficient answer to the gentleman's question, that Booth's co-conspirator, Mudd, lived in Charles county. To return to the meetingat the hotel. Inthelightof other facts in this case.it must become clear to the Court that this seen t meeting between Booth, Surratt and Mudd was a conference looting to the execution of this conspiracy. It so impressed the prisoner, it so impressed his counsel, that they deemed it necessary and absolutely essential to their defense to attempt to destroy the credibility of the witness Weichman. I may say here, in passing, that they have not at tempted to impeach his general reputation fortruth by the testimony of a single witness, nor have they impeached his testimony by calling a single witness to discredit one material fact to wbich he has testified in this issue. Failing to find a breath of suspicion against Weichman's character, or to contradict a single iact to which he testified, the Accused had to fly to the last resort, an alibi, and very earnestly did the learned counsel devote himself to the task. It is not material whether this meeting in the hotel took place on the 2«d of December or in January. But, says the counsel, it was after the commencement or close of the Congressional holiday. That is not ma terial: but theconcurrent resolution of Congress shows that the holiday commenced on the22d December, the day before the accused spent tiie evening in Washing ton. T\.e witness is not certain aboutthe date of this meeting. Tbei material iact is, did this meeting take place— either on tne 23d of December cr in January last? Were the private interviews there held, and was the apology made, as detailed, by Mudd and Booth alter the secret conference to the witness? That the meeting did take place, and that Mudd did explain that these secret interviews, with Booth first, and with Booth and Surratt directly afterward, had rela tion to the sale of his farm, is confessedly admitted by the enacavor of the prisoner, through his counsel, to show that negotiations had been going on between Booth and Mudd for the sale of Mudd's farm. If no such meeting was held, if no such explanation was made by Mudd to Weichman, can any man ior a moment believe that a witness would have been called here to give any testimony about Booth having nego tiated for Mudd's farm? What conceivable connec tion has it with this case, except to show that Mudd's explanation to Weichman for his extraordinary con duct was in exact accordance with the fact? Or was this testimony about the negotiations for Mudd's larm intended toshow so close an intimacy and inter course with Booth that Mudd could not fj.il to recog nize him when he came flying for aid to his house from the work of assassination? It would be injustice to the able c mnsel to suppose that. I have said that it was wholly immaterial whether this conversation took place on the 2:|d ot December or in January; it is in evidence that in both those months Booth was at the National Hotel; that he occupied a room there; that be arrived there on the 22dand was there on the 20d of December fast, and also on the 12th day of January, lhe testimony of the witness is, that Boothsaid he hadjustcomein. Suppose this,conver- sation took place in December, on the evening of the 23d, the time when it is proved by J. T. Mudd, the wit ness for the accused, that he. in company with Samuel A. Mudd, spent tbe night in Washington city. Is there anything in the testimouy ofthat or any other witness toshow that the accused did not have and could not nave have had an interview with Booth on that even ing? J. T. Mudd testifies that he separated from the prisoner, Samuet A. Mudd, at the National Hotel earlv in the evening of that day, and did not meet him again untilthe accused came in for the night at the Pennsylvania House, where he stopped. Where was TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 193 Dr. Samuel A. Mudd during this Interval? What does his witness know about him during that time? How can he say that Dr. Mudd did not go up on Seventh street In company with Booth, then at the National: thathe did not, on Seventh street, meet Surratt and Weichman: that he did not return to the National Hotel; that he did not have this interview, and after wards meet him. the witness, as he testifies, at the Pennsylvania House? Who knows that the Congres sional holiday had not, in fact, commenced on tbat day? What witness has been called to prove that Booth did not on either of those occasions occupy the room that had formerly been occupied by a member of Congress, who had temporarily vacated it, leaving his books there? Weichman, I repeat, is not positive as to the date, he is only positive as to the fact: and be disclosed vo luntarily, to this Court, that thedate could probably befixed by a reference to the register of the Pennsyl vania House. That register cannot, of course, be con clusive of whether Mudd was there i 1 January or not, for the very good reason that the proprietor admits that he did not know Samuel A. Mudd; therefore, Mudd might have registered bv any other name. Weichman does not pretend to know that Mudd had registered at all. If Mudd was hero in January, as a Earty to this conspiracy, it is not at all unlikely that, if e did register at that time in the presence ot a man to whom he was wholly unacquainted, his kins. nan not then being with him, he would register by a false name. But if the interview took place in December, the I es- timonyof Weichman bears as strongly against the ac cused as if it had happened in January. Weichman Says he does not know what time was occupied in this interview at the National Hotel; thatit probably lasted twenty minutes; that ar\er the private interviews be tween Mudd, and.Surratt, and Booth, which were not of very Ion-? duration, had terminated, the parties went to the Pennsylvania House, where Dr. Mudd had rooms, nd after sitting together in the common sit ting-room ofthe hotel, they left Dr. Mudd there about 10 o'clock P. MM who remained during the night. Weichman's testimony leaves no doubt tbat this meet ing on Seventh street and interview at the National took place aUer dark, and terminated be.'ore or about 10 o'clock P. M. His own witness, J. T. Mudd, alter stating that he separated from the accused at the Na tional Hotel, says after hehad got through a conver- sationwith agentleman ol his acquaintance, be walked down the Avenue, went to several clothing stores, and "after a while" walked round to the Pennsylvania House, and "very soon after" be got there Dr. Mudd came in, and they went to bed shortly aitervvards. What time he spent in his "'walk aLone" on the Ave nue, looking at clothing; what period he embraces in tbe terms "after a whiie," when he returned to the Pennsylvania House, and 1'soon alter" which. Dr. Mudd got there, the witness does not disclose. Neither does he intimate, much Jess testify, that he saw Dr. Mudd when he first entered the Pennsylvania House on tbat night after their reparation. *F".ow docs he know tbat Booth and Surratt and Weichman did not accompany Samuet A. Mudd to that house that eve ning? How does he know that the prisoner and those persons did not converse together some time in the sitting room ofthe Pennsylvania Hotel? Jeremiah Mudd has not testified that heir et Dr. Mudd in that room, or thathe was in it himself. Hehas, however, sworn to the fact. which is dis proved by no one, that the prisoner was separated from him long enough that evening to have had the meeting withDooth. Surratt and Weichman. and the interviews in the National Hotel, and at the Pennsyl vania House, to which Weichman has testified. Who is there to disprove it? Of what importance is it whether it was on the 23d day of December or in Janu ary? How does that affect" the credibility of Weich man? He is a man, as I have before said, against whose reputation for truth and good conduct they have riot been able to bring one witness. If this meeting did by possibility take place that night, is there any thing to render it improbable that Booth, and Mudd, and Surratt did have the conversation at the National Hotel to which Weichman testifies? Of what avail, therefore, is the attempt to prove that Dr. Mudd was not here during January, if it was clear that he was hereon the 23d of December, 18G4, and had this conver sation witb Booth? That tbis attempt to prove an alibi during January has failed, is quite as clear as the proof of the fact that the prisoner was here on the evc- ningof the23d of December, and present in theNa- tional Hotel, where Boothstopped. The laet that the prisoner, tsamuel A. Mudd, went with J. T. Mudd on tbat evening to the National*" Hotel, and there separated from him, is proved by his' own witness, J. T. Mudd; andthat he did not rejoin him until tney retired to bed in the Pennsylvania House, is proved by the same witness, and contradicted by nobody. Does any one suppose there would have been such assiduous care to prove that the prisoner was with bis kinsman all thetimeon the 23d of Decem ber in Washington, if they had not known that Booth was then at tne National Hotel, and that a meeting of the prisoner with Booth, Surratt and Weichman on that day would corroborate and confirm Weichman's testimony in every material statement he made con cerning that meeting? The accused having signally failed to account for his absence after heseparated from his witness, J. T. Mudd, early in the evening of tbe 23d of December, at the Na tional Hotel, .until they had again met at the Pennsyl vania House, when they retired to rest, he now at tempts to prove an alibi as to the month of January. In this he has failed, as he failed in the attempt to show that he could not have met Booth, Surratt and Weich man on the 23d of December. For this purpose the accused calls Betty Washington. She had been at Mudd's house every night since the Monday after Christmas last, except when here at Court„nndsays that the prisoner. Mudd, has only been away from home three nights during that time. This witness forgets that Mudd has not been at home any night or day sincethis Court assembled. Neither does she account fur the three nights in which she swears to his absence from home. First, she says he went to Gardner's party second, he went to Giesboro', thpn to Washington. She does notknow in whut month he was away, the second time, all night. She only knows where he went from whathe and his wi.e said, which, is not evidence: but she does testify that wheu he left home and was absent over night, the second time.it was about two or three weeks after she came to his house, which would, if it were three weeks, make it just about the ljth of January. 1SG5. because she swears she came to his house on the first Monday alter Christ mas fast, which was the 23th day of December: so that theijth of January would be thre:; weeks, less one day from that time; and it might have been a w^ek earlier, according to her testimony; as, also, it might have been a week earlier, or more; by Weichman's testi mony, for he is not positive as to the time. What I have said ofthe register ofthe Pennsylvania House, the head-quarters of Mudd and Atzeroth, I need not here repeat. That record proves nothing, save that Dr. Mudd was there on the 23d of December, which, as %ve have seen, is a fact, alongwith oihers, to show that the meeting at the National then took place. I have also called the attention of the Court to the fact that if Mudd was at the bouse again in Janu ary, and. did not register his name, the fact proves nothing; or, if he did, the register only urove3 that he registered falsely; either oi which facts might have happened without the knowledge ofthe witness called by tho accused from that house, who does not know Samuel A. Mudd personally. Tne testimony of Henry L. Mudd, his brother, in Support of thn alibi, is that the prisoner was in Wash ington ou the 23d of March and on the 10th of April, four days before tbe murder! But be does not account for the absent ni^ht in January, about which Betty "Washington testifies. Thomas Davis was called forthe same purpose, but stated that he was himself absent one night in January, after the 9th of that month and be couid not say whether Mudd was thereon that ni^ht or not. He does testify to Mudd's absence over night three times, and fixes one occasion on the night oi the 23 th of Januarv: this witness cannot account forthe absence of Mudd on the night referred to by Betty Washington. This matter is entitled to no further attention. It can satisfy no one, and the burden of proof is upon the prisoner to prove that he was not in Washington in January last. How can such testimony convince any rational man that Mudd was not here in January; against the evidence of an unimpeached witness, who swears that Samuel A. Mudd was in Washington in the month of January? Who, tbat has been examined here as a witness, knows that ho was not? The ltev. Mr. Evans swears that he saw him in Washington last winter, and that at the same time he saw Jaroee. the one coming out of, aud the other going into, a house on II street, which he was in.ormcd, on inquiry, was the housed Mrs. Surratt. Jarboe ii the only witness, called to contradict Mr. Evans, and he leaves it in extreme doubt whether he docs not co- roborate him, as he swears that he was here himself last winter or fall, but cannot state exactly the time, Jarboe's silence on questious touching his own%-edi- bility leaves no room ior any one to say that his testi mony could impeach Mr. Evans, whatever he might swear. , „ Miss Anna H, Surratt is also called for the purpose of impeaching Mr. Evans. It is sufficient to say of her testimony on that point that she swears negatively only, that she did not see either of the persons named at her mother's house. This testimony neither dis proves, nor does it even tend to disprove, the fact put in issue by Mr Evans. No one will pretend, whatever the form of her expression in giving her testimony, that she could say more than that she diet notknow the fact, asitwas impossible that she could know who was or who was not, at her mother's* house, casually, at a period so remote. It Is not my purpose, neither is it needful here, to question in any way the integrity of this young woman. It is further in testimony that Samuel A. Mudd waa here on the 3d day of March last, the day preceding the inauguration, when Booth was tostrikcthe traitor ous blow; and it was, f doubtless, only by the interpo- 194 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. sition ofthat God who stands within the shadow and keeps watch above His own, that the victim of this conspiracy wai spared that day from tbe assassin's hand, thathe might complete his work and see the salvation of his country iu the fall of Richmond and tn e surrender of its great army. Dr. Mudd was here on that day (the Rd of March), to abet, to encourage, to nerve his co-conspirator for the commission ot this great crime. He was carried away by the awful pur pose wbich possessed him, and rushed Into the roomof Mr. Norton, at the National Hotel, in search of Booth, exclaiming excitedly, "I'm mistaken; I thought this was Mr. Booth's room." 'He is told Mr. Booth is above, on the next floor. He is followed by Mr. Norton, be cause of his rudeand excited beaavior. and. being fol lowed, conscious ot his guilty errand, he turns away, afraid of himself and afraid to be found in concert with his fellow coniederate. Mr. Norton identifies the pri soner, and has no doubt that Samuel A. Mudd is the man. The Rev. Mr. Evans also swears that, after the 1st and belore tha 4ihday of March last, he is certain that within that time, and on the2d or 3d of M irch, he saw Dr. Mudd drive into Washington City. Tae endeavor is made by the accused, in order to break down this witness, by proviug another alibi. Tne si iter ot the accused, Miss Fanny Mudd. Is called. She testifies that she saw the prisoner at break Ustin her father's house on the 2d of March, about five o'clock in the morning, and not again until the 3d of March at noon. Mrs. Emily Mudd swears substantially to the same statement. Betty Washington .called for the accused, swears that h3 was at home all day at work witn her on the 2d of March, and toolc breakfast at home. Frank Washington swears that Mudd was at home all day; that he saw him when he first came outia the morning, about sunrise, from bis own house, and know3 that he was there all day with them. Which is correct, the t33timony of his sister3 or the testimony of servants? The sisters say that he was at their father's house for breakfast on the morning ofthe 2d of March; the servants say he was at home ior breakfast with them on that day. If this testimony u followed it proves one alibi too much. It is impossible, in the nature of things, that the testimony 01 all these four witnesses can be true. Seem? this weakness in the testimony brought to prove tois second alibi, the endeavor is next made to discredit Mr. N >rton for truth; and two witnesses, not more, arecalled, who testify that his reputation for truth has suffered by contested litigation between one of the impeaching witnesses and others. Four wit nesses are cai led, who testify that Mr. Norton's repu- tjtion for truth is very cjood; that he is a man ol'hi^h character for truth, and entitled to be believed whe ther he speaks under the obligation of an oath or not. The late Pustm aster-General, Hon. Horatio King, not only sustains Mr. Norton as a man of good reputation for Lruth, but expressly corroborates his testimony by stating that in March last, about the 4th of March Mr Norton totd him tbe same fact to which he swears here— that a man came into his room under excite ment, alarmed his sister, was followed out bv him self, and went down stairs Instead of going up; and that Mr. Norton told him this before the assassination, and about the time ofthe inauguration What motive had Mr. Norton at that time to fabri cate tins statement? It detracts nothing from his tes timony that he did not at that time mention the name of this man to his friend, Mr. Kin;:: bec U3P it appears frorn his testimony, and there is none toouestion the truthfulness of bis statement, that at that time he did not know his name. Neither dies it take from the fo.-ce of this testimony, tbat Mr. Norton did not, in communicating this matter to Mr. King, makemention ot Booth s name; because there was nothing in the transaction at the time, he being ignorant ofthe name pi Mudd, and equally ignorant of the conspiracy be tween Mudd and Booth, to give the least occasion for any mention of Booth, or of the transaction further than he detailed it. With such corroboration, whocan doubt the fact that Mudd did enter the roon of Mr. Norton, and vva3 followed by him. on the 3d of March last? Cauhebemistakenintheman? Whoevertooks at the prisoner carefully ouce will be sure to recognize hima^ain. For tae present I pass from the consideration of the testimony showing Dr. Mudd's connection with Booth In tbis conspiracy, with the remark that it is in evi dence, and 1 think established, both bv the testimony adduced by the prosecution and tbat by the prisoner, that since tae commencement of this Rebellion John H. Sarratt visited the prisoner's house; that he con cealed Surratt and other Rebels and traitors in the woods near his house, where for several days be fur nished tiiem with lbod and bedding; that the shelter of the woods by night and by day was the only shelter that the prisoner dare furnish those Jricnds of his; that In November Booth visited him and remained over night: that he accompanied Booth at that time to Gardners, from whom he purchased one of the horses used on the nightof the assassination to aid the escape of one of his confederates; that the prisoner had secret interviews with Booth and Surratt, as sworn to by the witness, Weichman, in the National Hotel, whether on tne 23d of December or in January, is a matter of entire Indifference; that he rushed into Mr. Norton a room on the 3d of March in search of Booth, and that he was here again on the 10th of April, four days be fore the murder of the President. Of his conduot after the assassination ofthe Presi dent, whlchisconlirmatory of all this; bis consp-ring with Booth, and his sheltering, concealing, and aid. ng the flight of his co-couspirator, this f*lon assassin, I shall speak hereafter, leaving him for the present with the remark tbat the attempt to prove hi3 character has resulted inshowing him in sympathy with the Re bellion, so cruel that he shot one of hisslaves, and de clared bis purpose to send several of tbem to work on the Rebel batteries in Richmond. What others, besides Sanuel A, Mudd and John H. SurrattandLewisP-iyn.sdid Booth. after his return from Canada, induce to join him in this conspiracy to murder the President, the Vice President, the Secre tary of State and the Lieutenant-General, with the in tent thereby to aid ihe Rebellion and overthrow the Government and laws o ' the United Spates? Gntoeioth of Febrnarv the prisoners Arnold and O'Laughlin came to Washington and took rooms in the bouse of Mrs. Vantyne; were armed; were there visited frequently by John Wilkes Booth, and alone; were occasionally absent when Booth called, who seemed anxious for their return; would sometimes leave notes for tbem, and sometimes a request that when they came in they should be told to come to the stable. On the 18th of March last, when Booth played in The Apostate, the witness, Mrs. Vantyne. received from O'Laughlin complimentary tickets, these persons remained there un-ii the^Otli of March. They were visited, so Jar as the witness know.?, during their stay at ber bouse only by Booth, save that on as. n;^le oc casion an unknown man came to see them, and re mained with them over night. They told the witness they were in the "oil business." With Mudd, the guilty purpose was sought to be coiicaaled by de claring that be was in the "land business;" with O'Laughlin and Arnold it was attempted to becon- ceaied'by pretense that they were in the ' oil busi ness." Booth, it is.proved, had closed up all connec tion witn tne oil business last September. There is not a word of testimony to show that the accused, O'Laughlin and Arnold, ever invested or sought to in vest, in any way or to any amount, in the oil business; their silly words betray them; they forgot when tbey uttered that false statement that tho truth is strong, next to the Almighty, and that their crime must fiud them out was the irrevocable and irresistible law of nature and oi nature's-God. One of their co-conspirators, known as yet only to the gudty parties to this damnable plot and to the In finite, who will unmask and avenge all blood-guilti ness, comes to near witness, unwittingly, against them. This unknown conspirator, who dates his let ter at South Branch Bridge, April 6, 1SG5, mailed and postmarked Cumberland, Maryland, and addressed to John Wilkes Booih. by his initials, "J. W, B., National Hotel, Washing-On, D. C." was also in the "oil specu lation." In that letter he says:— "Friend \Vdfce3: I received yours. of March 12, and reply as soon as practicable. I saw French, Brady, and others about the oil speculation. The subscription to the stock amounts to eight thousand dollars, and I add oue thousand myself, which is about all I can stand. Now, when you sink your well go deep enough; dont fail; everything depends upon you and your helpers. If you cannot get through on your flip, after you s:rike oil, strike through Thornton Gap and across by Capon, Romaey. and down the Branch. 1 can keep you safe irom a I hardship >i for a year. I am clear of all surveillance now that infernal Purdy is beat. ******** " I send this by Tom, and, if he don't get drunk, you will get it the Utb. At all events, it cannot be under stood if lost. ****** "No more, only Jake will be at Green's with the funds. DON." That this letter Is not a fabrication is made appa rent by the testimony of Purdy, whose name occurs in the letter. He testilied that he had been a detective in the Government service, and that he had beeu misely accused, as tae letter recites, and put under arrest; that there was a noted Rebel by the name of Green, living at Thornton Ga. ; that tture was a servant, who drank, known as "Tom." in the neighborhood of So nth Branch Briage: that there is an obscure route through the Gap, and as described in the letter; and that a man commonly called "Lon" lives at South Branch Bridge. If the Court are satisfied, and it is for them to judye, that this letier was written be. ore the assassina tion, as it purports to have been, aud on the day of its date, there can he no question with any one who reads it that the writer was in the conspiracy, and knew that the timeof its execution drew nigh. If a conspirator every word of its contents is evidence against every other party to this conspiracy. Who can fail to understand tbis letter? His words "go deen enough.' "don't fail," "everything depends ou you and your helpers," "if you can't get through on your trip after you strike oil, strike through Thornton Gap," die, and "I can keep you safe from all hard ships lor a year," necessarily imply that when he TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 195 ** strikes oil" there will be an occasion for a flight: that a trip, or route, bas already been determined upon; that lie nicy net be able to go through by tbr.t route; in which event he is to strike for Thornton Gap, and across by Capon and Romney, and down fhe Branch, forthe shelter which his co-conspirator offers him. ';i am clear ot all surveillance now." Does any one doubt that lhe man who wrote those words wished to assure Boo'h that be was no longer watched, and that Booth could safely hide with him from bis pursuers? Does anv one doubt, from the further expression in this letter. "Jake will be at Green's with tbe funds," that this wps a part of the price of blood, or tbat the eight thousand dollars subscribed by others, and the one thousand additional, subscribed by tbe writer, were also apart of the price to be naid? "The oil business" which was the declared business of O'Laughlin and Arnold, was the declared ousiness ofthe infamous writer of this letter; was thedeclared business of John II. Surratt: was the declared business of Booth himself, as explained to Chesterand Hess and Payne: was "the business" referred to In hist 'ograms to O'Laughlin, and meantthe murder ofthe President, of his Cabinet, and of General Grant, The first of these telegrams Is dated Washington, 13th March, and is ad dressed to M. O Laughlin, No. 57 North Exeter street, Baltimore, Maryland, and is as fo1 lows: "Don't you fear to neglect your business; you had better come on at once. J. Bostb." The telegraph operator, Hoffman, who sent this despatch from Washincton, swears that John Wilkes Booth delivered it to him in person on the day of its date; aud the handwriting of the original telegram is established beyond question to be that of Booth. The other telegram is dated Washinrrto i, March 27, addressed "M. O'Laughlin, Esq., 57 North Exetei street, Baltimore, Maryland," and is as fol lows:— "Get word to Sam. Come on with or without him on Wedne-dav morning. We sell that day sure; don't fail. J. Wilkes Booth." The original of ttv's telegram is also proved to be in the handwriting of Bocth. The sale referred to in this last telegram was doubtless the murder ofthe President and others, the ''oil speculation," in which the wrher otthe letter from South Branch Bridge, dated April 6, had taken a thousand dollars, and in which Booth said there was money, and Sanders said there was money, and Atzeroth said there was money. The words of this telegram, "get word to Sam." meaning Samuel Arnold, his co-conspirator; who had been with him during all his stay at Washington, at Mrs. Vantyne's. These parties to this conspiracy, after they had gone to Baltimore, had additional correspondence with Booth, wbich tbe Court must infer had relation to carrying out the purposes of their comederation and agreement. The colored witness. Williams, testifies that Joan WilUes Booth handed him a letter for Michael O'Laughlin. and anotiierfor Samuel Arnold, in Baltimore, sometime in March last; one of which he delivered toO' Laughlin at thetheatrein Baltimore. and the other to a lady at the door where Arnold boarded in Baltimore. Their agreement and co-operation in thecommon object having been thus established, the letter writ ten to Booth by tbe prisoner Arnold, dated March 27. 1S65, the handwriting of" which is proved before the Court, and which was found in Booth's possession alter the assassination, becomes testimony against O'Laughlin, as well as against the writer, Arnold, be cause it is an act done in furtherance of their combi nation. That letter is as follows:— "Dear John:— Was business so important that you could not remain in Baltimore till I saw you? I came in as soon as I could, but found vou had gone to Wash ington. I called also to see Mike, but learned irom his mother that he had gone out with you and had not re turned. I concluded, therefore, be had gone with you. How inconsiderate you have been! When I leit you, you stated that we would not meet in a month or so, and thereiore I made application fbr employment, an answer to which I shall receive during theweek. I told my parents I had ceased with you. Can I, then, under existing circumstances, act as you request? \ ou know full well that the Government suspicions some thing is going on there, therefore the undertaking 13 be coming more complicated. Why not, for the present, desist? For various reasons, wbich, if you look into, you can readily see without my making any mention thereof, you, nor any one, can censure me ior my pre sent course. You have been its cause, for how can I now come after telling them I had left you? Susp.ciou rests upon me now from my whole family and even parties in the country. , . . **I will be compelled to leave homeany how, and how soon I care not. None, no not one, were more in iavor ofthe enterprise than myself, aud to-day would be there, had you not done as you have. By this, I mean manner of proceeding. I am, as you well know, in need. I am, you may say, in rags, whereas, to-day. I ought to be well clothed. I do not feel right stalking about with means, and more from appearances a beggar. I feel my dependence. But, even all this would have been, and was, forgotten, for Iwas onevnthyou. Time more propitious will arrive yet. Do not act rashly or in haste: I would prefer your first, query, 'Go and see how it will be taken in Richmond,' and, ere long, I shall be hetter prepared to again bewithyou. I dislike writing. Would sooner verbally make known my views. Yet your now waiting causes me tbus to proceed Do not in anger peruse tills. Weigh all I have said, and, as a rational man and a friend, you cannot censure or up braid my couduct. Isincerely trust this, nor!aughtelse that shall or may occur, wfll ever be an obstacle to ob literate our former friendship and attachment. Wi ite me to Baltimore, asl expect to be in about Wednesday or Thursday; or. if you can possibly come on, I will Tuesday meetyou..at Baltimore at B. "Ever, I subscribe myself, your friend, "SAM." Here Is the confession of the nrisoner Arnold, that he was one with Booth in this conspiracy; the further confe slon thatthey are'suspected by the Go vernment of their country, and the acknowledgment that, since they parted, Booth had communicated, amongst other things, a sugeestion which leads to the remark in this letter, " I would prefer your first query, 'Go see how it will betaken at Richmond,' and ere long I shall be better prepared to again be with you." This is a declaration that afjects Arnold, Booth and O'Laughlin alike, if the court are satisfied, and It is diflicultt > see how they can have doubtion tbe subject, that the matter to be reierred to Richmond is the mat ter of the assassination of the President and others, to effect which these parties had previously agreed and conspired together. It is a matterio testimony, by the declaration of John H. Surratt, who is as clearly proved to have been in this Conspiracy and mur der as Booth himself, that about the very date of tnis letter, the 27th of March, upon the suggestion of Booth, and with his know ledge and consent, he went to Richmond, not only to see "bow.itwould be taken there," but to get funds with which to cany out the enterprise, as Booth nad already declared to Chester in one of his last inter views, when he said that he or ' some one of the party" would be constrained to go to Richmond for funds to carry out the conspiracy. Surratt returned from Richmond, bringing with him some part of the money for which be went, and was then going to Canada, and. as the testimony discloses, bringing with him tae despatches from Jefferson Davis to ni3 chief agents in Canada, which, as Thompson declared to Conover. made the proposed assassination "all right." Surratt, alter seeing the parties here, left immediately lor Canada, and delivered his despatches to Jacob Thompson, the agent of JefS?rson Davis. This was done by Surratt upon the suggestion, or in exact ac cordance with the suggestion, of Arnold, made on the 27tb of March, in his fetter to Booth, justread, and yet you are gravely told that four weeks before the 27th of March Arnold had abandoned the conspiracy. Surratt reached Canada with these despatches, as we have seen, about the 6th or 7th of April last, when the witness, Conover, saw them delivered to Jacob Thompson, aud beard their contents stated by Thomp son, and the declaration from, bim that these des patches made it "all right." That Surratt was at that time in Canada, is not only established by the testi mony of Conover, but it is also in evidence thathe told Weichman, on the 3d of April, that he was going to Canada, and on that day left for Canada, and after wards two letters addressed by Surratt, over theflctir tious signature of John Harrison, to his mother and to Miss Ward, dated at Montreal, were received by them on the 14th of April, as testified by Weichman and by Miss Ward, a witness called ior the defense. Thus it appears that the condition named by Arnold in his let ter had been complied with. Booth had "gone to Richmond" in tbo person of Surratt, "to see how it would betaken." TheRebel anthori.ies at Richmond hadappproved it, the agent bad returned: and Ar nold was, in his own words, thereby the better pre pared to rejoin Booth in the prosecution of this con- SPTothis end Arnold went to Fortress Monroe. As his letter expressly declares. Booth said when they parted, "we would nol meet in a month or so, and there) ore! made application for employment-an answer to which I shall receive during theweek." Hedid re ceive the answer that week from Fortre s Monroe, and went there to await the "more propitious time," bearing with nim the weapon ot death which Booth had provided, and ready to obey his call, as the act had been approved at Richmond, and b?en made "all St" Acting upon thesamefact that the conspiracy had been approved in Richmond, and the/uncta pro ved? cVaughlin came to Washington to identity G-neral Grant, the person who was to become the victim of his violence in the final consummation of this rrime-General Grant whom, as is averred in the speeffication, it had become the part of O'Laughlin by his agreement in his conspiracy, to kill and mOndtehe evening preceding the assassination, the 13th of Anril by the testimony of three reputable, wit nesses against whose truthfulness not one word is ut- teVedhere or elsewhere, O'Laughlin went into the house of the Secretary of War, where General Grant then was,and placed himself in position in the hall where be coulcl see bim, having dec ared before he reached that point to one of these witnesses that he 196 TRIAL OP THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. wished to see General Grant. Tbe house was bril liantly illuminated at the time; two, at least, of the witnesses conversed with the accused, and the other stood very near to him, took special notice of his pon- duct, called attention to it, and suggested that he be Eut out otthe house, and he was accordingly put out y one ofthe witnesses. These witnesses are confident and have no doubt, and so swear upon their oaths. that Michael O'Laughlin is the man who was present on that occasion. There is no denial on the part of the accused that he was in Washington during the day and during the night of April 13, andalsoduring the day andduringthenight of the uth ; and yet, to get rid of this testimony, re course is had to that common device— an alibi: a de vice never, I may say, more frequently resorted to than in this trial. But what an alibi! Nobody is called to prove it, save some men who, by their own testinjony,were engaged i n a drunken debauch through the evening. A reasonable man who reads their evi dence can hardly be expected to allow it to outweigh the united testimony of three unimpeached and unim peachable witnesses, who were clear in their state ments, who entertain no doubt of the truth of what they say, whose opportunities to .know were full and complete, and who were constrained to take special notice of the prisoner by reason of his extraordinary conduct. These witn esses-describe accurately the appearance, stature ahd complexion of the accused, but, because they describe his clothing as dark orblack.it .is urged . that as part of his clothing although dark, was not black, tbe witnesses are mistaken. O'Laughlin and his drunken companions (one of whom swears that he drank ten times that evening) were strolling inthe streets and in the direction of the house of the Secre tary of War up the avenue: but you are asked to be lieve tbat these witnesses could not be mistaken in Baying they were not off tbe Avenue, above Seventh street, or onK street. I venture to say tbat no man who reads their testimony can determine satisfacto rily all the places that were visited by O'Laughlin and his drunken associates that evening from seven to eleven P. M. All this time, from seven to eleven P. M., must be accounted fbr satisfactorily before an alibi can be established. Laughlin does not account for ail the time, for be left O'Laughlin after seven o'clock, and rejoined him, as he says, "I suppose about eight o'clock." Grillet did not meet him uctil half-past ten, and then only casually saw him in pass ing the hotel. May notGrillethavebecn mistaken as to tbe fact, altnough he did meet O Laughlin after eleven o'clock, the same evening, as he swears? Purdy swears to seeing bim in the -bar- with Griliet about half-past 10, hut, as we have seen by Grillet's tes timony it must nave been after n o'clock. Murphy contradicts, as to time, both Grillet and Purdy. for he says it was half-past 11 or 12 o'clock when he and O'Laughlin returned to Rullman's from Platz's; and Early swears tbe accused went from Bull man's to Se cond street to a dance about a quarter past 11 o'clock, when O'Laugbliu took the lead in the dance, and stayed about one hour. I follow these witnesses no further. They contradict each other, and do not account for O'Laughlin all the time from 7 to 11 o'clock. I repeat that no man can read their testimony without finding contradictions most material as to time, and comingto the conviction that they utterly fail to account for O'Laughlin's whereabouts on that evening. To esta blish an alibi tbe witnesses must know tJie fact and tes tify to it. O'Laughlin. Grillet, Purdy, Murphy and Early utterly lail to prove it. and only succeed in show ing thatthey did not know where O'Laughlin was all this time, and that some of them were grossly mistaken in what they testified, both as to time andplacc. The testimony of J amea B. Henderson is equally un satisfactory. He is contradicted by other testimony of the accused as io place. He says O'Laughlin went up the avenue above Seventh street, but that he did notgo to Ninth street. Toe other witnesses swear he went io Ninth street. Heswearshe went to the Canterbury ab ut 9 o'clock, after going back from Seventh street to Rullman's. Laughlin swears that O'Laughlin was with him at the corner of the avenue and Ninth street at y o'c»ock, arid went from there to Canterbury, while Early swears that O'Laughlin went up as far as Eleven! ii street, and returned and took supper witn him at Weleker's about 8 o'clock. If these witnesses prove an aLbi, it is really against each other, Itisfoi y to pretend that they prove facts which make it impos sible that O'Laughlin could have been at the house of Secretary Man ton, as three witnesses swear he was, on the evening of the 13th of April, looking for General Grant. Has it not, by the testimony, thus reviewed, been es tablished pWma/arie that inthe months of February, March and April O'Laughlin had combined, confede rated and agreed with John Wilkes Booth and Samuel Arnold to kill and murder Abraham i.aiooln. William H. Seward, Andrew Johnson and Ulysses S. Grant? Is It not established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Booth had so conspired with the Rebel agents in Ca nada as early as October last; that he was in search of agents to do the work on pay, in the interests ot the Rebellion, and that in this speculation Arnold and O'Daugblin had joined as early as February, and then, and after, with Booth and Surratt, they were in the "oil business," which was the business of assassination by contract as a speculation? If this conspiracy on the part of O'Laughlin with Arnold is established even prinia facie, the declarations and acts of Arnold and Booth, the other conspirators, in furtherance of the common design, is evidence against O'Laughlin as well as against Arnold himself or the other parties. The rule of law is tbat the act or declaration of one conspirator, dont*in pursuance or furtherance of the common design, is the act or declaration of all the conspirators. (1 Wharton; 706). The letter, thereiore. of his co-conspirator, Arnold, is evidence against O'Laughlin, because it is an act in the prosecution of the common conspiracy, suggesting what should be done in order to make it effective, and which suggestion, as has been stated, was followed' out. The defense has attempted to avoid the force of this letter by reciting tbe statement of Arnold, made to Horner at the time he was arrested, in which he declared, among other things, that the purpose was to abduct President Lincoln and take him South; that it was to be done at the theatre by throwing the Presi dent out of the box upon the floor ot the stage, when the accused was to catch him. The very announce ment of this testimony excited derision that such a tragedy meant only to take the President and carry him gently away ! This pigmy to catch the grant as the assassins hurled him to the floor from an eleva tion of twelve feet! The Court has viewed the theatre, and must be sa tisfied that Booth, in leaping from the President's box, broke his limb. TheCourt cannot lail toconclude that this statement of Arnold was but another silly device, like that of "tbe oil business" which, for thej time being, he employed to hide from the knowledge" of his captor the fact that the purpose was to murder the President. No man can, for a moment, believe that anyone of these conspirators hoped or desired, by such a proceeding as tbat stated by this prisoner, to take the President alive, in the presence of thousands assembled in tbe theatre, after he had been' thus thrown upon the floor ofthe stage, much less to Carry him through the city, through the lines of your army, and deliver him into the hands ofthe Rebels. No such purpose was expressedor hinted at by the. conspirators m Canada, who commissioned Booth tolet these as sassinations on contract. I shall waste not a moment more in combatting such an absurdity. Arnold does confess ;that be was # conspirator with Booth in this purposed murder; that Booth had a let ter of introduction to Dr. Mudd \ that Booth, O'Laugh lin, Atzeroth, surratt, a man with an alias, " Mosby," and another whom he, does not know, and himself were parties to this conspiracy and that Booth had furnished them all with ar j.s. He concludes this re markable statement to Horner with the declaration that at that time, to wit: the first week of March, or four weeks before, he went to Fortress Monroe, he left the conspiracy, and tbat Booth told him to sell his arms if he chose. Tbis is sufficiently answered by the iact that four weeks afterwards, he wrote his letter to Booth, which was found in Booth's possession after the assassination, suggesting to him what to do in order to make the conspiracy a success, and by the further tact that at the very moment he uttered these declarations, part of his arms were found upon his person, and the rest not disposed of, but at his lather's house. A party to a treasonable and murderous conspiracy against the Government of his country cannot be held. to have abandoned it because he make3 such a declara-,: tion as this, when he is iu the hands of the officer of the law: arrested for his crime, and especially when "' hi? declaration is in conflict with and expressly con tradicted by his written acts, and unsupported by any conduct of his which becomes a citizen and a man. If lie abandoned the conspiracy, why did he not make known the fact to Abraham Lincoln and his constitutional advisers that these men, armed with the weapons of assassination, were daily lying iu wait for their lives? To pretend that a man who thus con ducts himself for weeks after the pretended abandon ment, volunteering advice for the .successful prosecu tion of the conspiracy, the evidence of which Is in writing, and about which there can be no mistake, bas, infant, abandoned it, is to insult the common under standing of men. O'Laughlin having conspired, with Arnold to do tbis murder, is, there ore, as much con cluded i y the letter of Arnold of the 27th of March as is Arnold himself. The further testimony touching O'Laughlin, that of Strertt.e.tablishos the iact that aboutthe 1st of April he saw him in confidential conversation with J. Wilkes Booth, in this city, on tne Avenue. Another man, whom the witness does not know, was in conversa tion. O'Laughlin called Street to one side, and told hi. n Bootn was bu sly engaged wit:i bis friend, was t ilking privately to his 'friend. ThLs remark of O'Laugh- hnsia attempted to be accuunted for, but the attempt failed: hiscouni^el taking the pains to ask what in duced O'Laughlin to make the remark, received the lit roplv— *T did not see the interior of Mr. O'Laugh lin smind; I cannot tell." It is the province of this Court to infer why that remark was made, and what it signified. That John H. Surratt, George A. Atzeroth, Mary K. TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 191 Surratt. David E. Harold, and Lewis Payne, entered into this conspiracy with Booth, is so very clear upon this testimony, that little time netd be occupied in b: logins again before the Court the evidence which establishes it. By the testimony of Weichman weflnd Atzeroth in February at the bouse ofthe prisoner, Mrs. Surratt. He inquired lor her or for John when he came, and remained over night. Alter this, and be fore, tbe assassination, he visited there frequently, and at that house bore the name of -'Port Tobacco." the name by which he was known in Canada among the conspirators there. The same witness testifies tnat he met him on the street, when he said he was going to visit Payne at the Herndon House, and also accom panied bim, along with Harold and John H. Surratt to the theatre in March, to see Booth play in the ApoUate. At the Pennsylvania House, one or two weeks pre vious to the assassination, Atzeroth made the state ment to Lieutenant Keim, when asking for his knife which he had left in his room, a knife corresponding in size with the one exhibited in Court, "Iwautthat; il one fails I want the other," wearing at the same time his revolver at his belt. He also stated to Greenawalt, of the Pennsylvania House, in March, that he was nearly broke, but had friends enough to give him as much money as would see him through, adding, "I am going away some of these days, but will return with as much gold as will keep me allmylLe- time." Mr. Greenawalt also says that Booth had fre quent interviews with Atzeroth, sometimes in tne room, and at other times Booth would walk in and immediately go out, Atzeroth following, John M. Floyd testifies that some six weeks before the assassination, Harold, Atzeroth and John H. Sur ratt came to his house at Surrattsville, bringing with them two Spencer carbines, with ammunition, also a rope and wrench. Surratt asked the witness to take care of them and to conceal the carbines. Surratt took him into a room in tbe house, it being his mother's house, and showed the witness where to put tbe car bines, between the joists on tbe second floor. The car bines were put there according to his directions and concealed. Marcus P. Norton saw Atzeroth In conver sation with Booth at the Natioual Hotel about the 2d or 3d of March; the conversation was confidential, and the witness accidentally heard them talking in regard to President Johnson, and say that "the class of wit nesses would be oi that character that there could be little proven by them." This conversation may throw some light on the fact that Atzeroth was found in pos session of Booth's bank book! Cofonel Nevens testifies that on the 12th of April last he saw Atzeroih at the Kirkwood House; tbat Atzeroth there asted him, a stranger, if he knew where Vice President Johnson was, and where Johnson's room was. Colonel Nevens showed him where the room of the Vice President was. and told him that the Vice President was then at dinner. Atzeroth then looked into the dining-room, where Vice President Johnson was diuing alone. Robert B. Jones, the clerk at the Kirkwood House, state, that on the 14th, theday of the murder, two days alter this, Atzeroth registered his name at the hotel. G. A. Atzeroth, and took No: 126, re taining the room tbat day, and carrying away the key. In this room, alter the assassination, were found the knile and revolver, with which he intended to murder the Vice President. The testimony of all these witnesses leavesno doubt tbat the prisoner, George A. Atzeroth. entered into this conspiracy with Booth; that he expected to re ceive a large compensation for tbe services tbat he would render in its execution; that he had undertaken the assassination of the Vice President for a price; tnat be, witn Surratt andHarold, rendered the impor tant service of depositing the arms and ammunition to be used by Booth and his contederates as a protec tion to their flight after tbe conspiracy had been exe cuted, and that he was careful to have his intended victim pointed out to him, and the room he occupied in the hotel, so that, when he came to perform his horrid work, he would know precisely where to go and whom to strike. I take no further notice now of the preparatiou which this prisoner made for the successful execution of this part ol the traitorous a d murderous design. The question is. did he enter into this conspiracy? His language, overheard by Mr. Norton, excludes every other cuiiclusion. Vice President Johnson's name was mentioned in that secret conversation with Booth, and the very suggestive expression was made between them that "little could be proved by the witnesses." Hisv coniession in his delense is conclusive of his guiit. That Payne was in this conspiracy is confessed iu the delense made by his counsel, and is also evi dent from tbe facts proved, that when the conspi racy was being organized in Canada, by Thomp son, Sanders. Tucuer, Cleary, and Clay, this man Payne stood at the door of Thompson: was recom mended and endorsed by Clay with the words. '•We trust him;" that after coming hither be first reported himself at the house of Mrs. Mary E. Surratt, inquired for her and for John H. Surratt, remained there lor four days, having conversation with both ot them; having provided himself with means of disguise, was also nupplied with pistols and a knile, such as he atterwaras used, and spurs, preparatory to bis flight; was seen with John H. Surratt. practicing with knives such as those employed in this deed of assassination, and now belore the Court; was aiterwards provided with lodging at the Herndon House, at the instance of Surratt: was visited thereby Atzeroth, attended Booth and Surratt to Ford's Theatre, occupying with those parties the box. as I be'.ieveand which we may readily infer, in which the President wasalterwards murdered. If further testimony be wanting that be had entered into the conspiracy, it may be found iu the fact sworn to by Weichman, whose testimony no candid man will discredit, that about tbe 20th ot March Mrs, Surratt. in great excitement, and weeping, said that herson Jobn had gone away not to return, when about three hours subsequently, in the afternoon of the same day, Jobn H. Surratt reappeared, came rushing in a state of frenzy into the room, in his mother's house, armed, de claring he would shoot whoever came into the room, and proclaimiug that his prospects were blasted and his hopes gone; that soon Payne came into tbe same room, also armed and under great excitement, and was immediately followed by Booth, with his riding whip in his hand, who walked rapidly across tbe floor from side to side, so much excited that for some time he did not notice the presence of the witness. Observ ing Weichman, the parties then withdrew, upon asug- gestion from Booth, to an upper room, and there had a private interview. From all that transpired on tbat occasion itis apparent that when these parties left the house that day it was with the full purpose of com- ple ing some act essential to the final execution of the work of assassination, iu conformity with their pre vious confederation and agreement. They returned foi.ed, from what cause is unknown, dejected, angry aud covered with confusion. It is almost imposing upon the patience of the Court to consume time in demonstrating lhe iact, which none conversant with the testimony of this case can for a moment doubt, that John H. Surratt and Mary E. Surratt were as surely in the conspiracy to murder the President as John Wilkes Booth himself. You have the frequent interviews between John H. Sur ratt and Booth; bis intimate relations with Payne; bis visits from Atzeroth and Harold; his deposit oi the arms to cover their flight after the conspiracy should have been executed; his own declared visit to Bich mond to do what Booth himself sa.d to Chester must be done to wit:— That he or some or" the party must go to Bichmond in order to get funds to carry out the conspiracy; that he brought hack with him gold, th© priceot blood, confessing himsell that he was there; that he immediately went to Canada, delivered des patches in cipher to Jacob Thompson from Jefferson Davis, which were interpreted and read by Thompson in the presence ot the witness Conover, andin which the conspiracy was approved, and in the language of Thompson me proposed assassination was "made all righ t. ' ' One other fact, it any other fact be needed, and I havedonewiththeevidence wbich proves thatJohn H. Surratt entered into this combination; that is, that it appears by the testimony ot the witness, the cashier of the Ontaiio Bank, Montreal, that Jacob Thompson, about theday that these despatches were delivered, and while Surratt was then present in Canada, drew from that Bank of the ltebel funds there on deposit, the sum of one hundred and eighty thousand dollars. This being done, Surratt finding it saler. doubtless, to go to Canada lor the great bulk of funds, which were to be distributed amongst these hired assassins than to attempt to carry it tnrough our lines direct from Bichmond, immediately returned to Washington, and was present in this city, as is proven by the testimony of Mr. Keid, on the afternoon of the lith of April, the day of the assassination, booted and spurred, ready ior the flight whenever the fatal blow should have been struck if he was not a conspirator and a party to this great crime, how comes it that from that hour to this no man has seen him in the Capital, nor has be been reported anywhere outside of Canada, having arrived at. Mon treal, as the testimony shows, on the 18th of Aprll.four days alter the murder. Nothing but his conscious cowardly guilt could possibiy induce him to absent himself from his mother, as he does, upon her trial. Being one of these conspirators, as charged, every act of his in the prosecution ot this crime is evidence agaiust the other parties to the conspiracy. That Mary E. Surratt is as guilty as her son of hav ing thus conspired, combined and confederated to do this murder, in aid of this Rebellion, is clear. First, her house was the head-quarters of Booth, John H. Surratt, Atzeroth, Payne and Harold. She is inquired for by Atzeroth; sue is inquired for by Payne, and she is visited by Booth, and Lolas private conversations with him. His picture, together with that ot the chief conspirator, Jefierson Davis, is lound in her house. She sends to Booth tor a carriage to take her, on the 11th of April, to Surrattsville, lor the purpose ot perfecting the arrangement deemed necessary to the success! ul exe cution of the conspiracy, and especially to iacilitate and protect the conspirators in their escape from jus- 198 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. tlce. On that occasion Booth, having disposed of his carriage, gives to the agent she employed ten dollars with which to hirea conveyance for that purpose. And yet tbe pretence is made that Mrs. Surratt went on the llth to Surrattsville exclusively upon her own private and lawful business. Can any one tell, if that be so, how it comes that she should apply to Booth for a conveyance, and how it comes that he, of his own accord, having no cunveyance to furnish her, should send her ten dollars with which to procure it? There is not the slighest indication that Booth wa3 under any obligation to her, or that bhe had any claim upou him, either for aconveyance or for themeans with which to grocure oue. except thathe was bound to contribute, eing the agent of the conspirators in Canada and Richmond, whenever money might be necessary to tbe consummation of this infernal plot. On that day, the llth of April. John H. Surratt had not returned from Canada with the funds furnished by Thompson. Upon that journey of the llth, the accused, Mary JE. Surratt, met the witness, John M. Floyd, at Union- town, she called mm, he got out of his carriage and came to her, aud she whispered to him in so Iowa tone tbat her attendant could not hear her words, though Floyd, to whom they were spoken, did dis tinctly near them, and testifies that she told him he should have those "shooting irons" ready, meaning the carbines which her son and Harold and Atzeroth had deposited with him, and added the reason, "for they would soon be called for." On the day of the as sassination she again sent for Booth, had an interview wiLhhiminher own house, and immediately went again to Surrattsville, and then, at about 6 o'clock in the afternoon, she delivered to Floyd a field-glass, and told him to **have two buttles of whisky and the car bines ready, as they would be called for that night." Having thus perfected the arrangement, she re turned to Washington to her own house, at about half- past eight o'clock in the evening to await the final re sult. How could this woman anticipate on Friday af ternoon, atsix o'clock, thatthesearms would be called ior and would be needed that night, unless she was in the conspiracy audknew that thebioW was to bestruck, and the night of the assassins attempted, and bv that route? Was uot the private conversation wuich Booth held with her inher parlor on the a teruoon of theHth of April, justbeforesheleiton this business, iurelation to theorders she should give to have the arms ready? An endeavor is made to impeach Floyd. But the Court will observe that no witness has been called who contradicts Floyd's statement in any material manner, neither has his general character for truth been as sailed. How then is be impeached? Is it claimed that his testimony shows that he was a party to the con spiracy? Tnen it is conceded by those who set up any such pretense that there was a conspiracy. A conspi racy between whom? There can be no conspiracy without the co-operation or agreement oi two or more Sersons. Who were the other parties to it? Was it Lary E. Surratt? Was it John I-L. Surratt, George A. Atzeroth, David E. Harold? These are the only per sons, so iaras his own testimony or the testimony of any other witness discloses, with whom he had any communication whatever on any subject immediately or remotely touching this conspiracy before the assas sination. His receipt aud concealment of the arms are, unexplainea, evidence that he was in the conspi racy. T*»e explanation is that he was, dependent upon Mary E. mrratt; was ber tenant; and his declaration given in evidence by the accused himself, is that "she had ruined him, and brought tbis trouble upon him." But because he was weak enough, or wicked enough, to become the guilty depository of these arms, and to deliver tnem on the order of Mary F. Surratt to the assassins, it does not follow that he is not to be believed on oath. It is, said that he concealed the tacts that the arms had been leit and called lor. He so tes tifies himself, but he e;ives the reason tbat he did it only Irom apprehension of danger to his lite. If he were in the conspiracy, his general credit being unchallenged, his testimony being uncontradicted in any materiaLmatter, he is to be believed, and cannot be disbelieved, if his testimony is substantially corro borated by other reliable witnesses. Is he not corro borated touching the deposit ot arms by the fact that the arms are produced? in Court? one of which was found upon the person of Booth at the time he was overtaken and slain, and which is identified as the same which had been left witb Floyd by Harold, Surratt and Atzeroth ? Is he not corroborated in the Jactol the first interview with Mrs. Surratt by the joint testimony of Mrs. Offut and .Lewis J. Weich man, each oi whom testified, and they are contradicted by no one, that on Tuesday, tbe 1Kb day of April, at Uniontown, Airs. Surratt called Mr. Floyd to come to her, which he did, and she held a secret conversation with him? Is he not corroborated as to the last con versation on the 14th of April by the testimony of Mrs. Oftut, wno swears that upon the evening of the 14th of April she saw the prisoner, Mary E. Surratt, at Floyd's house, approach and hold conversation with him? Is he not corroborated in the fact to which he swears, that Mrs. Surratt delivered to him at that time the field-glass wrapped in paper, by the sworn statement of Weichman, that Mrs. Surratt took with her on that occasion two packages, both of which were wrapped in paper, and one of which he describes as a small package, about six inches in diameter? The attempt was made by calling Mrs. Offut to prove that no such package was delivered but It failed; she merely states that Mrs. Surratt delivered a package wrapped in paper to her alter her arrival there, and before Floyd came in, which was laid down in the room. But whether it was the package about which Floyd testifies, or the other packaged' the two about which Weichman testifies, as havingbeen carried there that day by Mrs. Surratt, does not appear. Neither does this witness pretend to say that Mrs. Surratt, atter she had delivered it to her, and the witness had laid It down in the room, did not again take it up, ir it were the same, and put it in the hands of Floyd. She only knows that she did not see that done; but she did see Floy i with a package like the one she received in the room before Mrs. Surratt left. How it came into his possession she is not able to state; nor what the pack age was that Mrs. Surratt first handed her; nor which ofthe packages it was she afterwards saw in the hands ofFloyd. But there is one other fact in this case that puts for ever at rest the question of the guilty participation of the prisoner, Mrs. Surratt, in this conspiracy and mur der; and that is that Payne, who had lodged four days in her house; wno during all that time had sat at her ta ble, and who had often conversed with her; when the guilt of his great crime was upon him. and he knew not where eise he could so safely go to find a co-con spirator, and he could trust none that was not like himself, guilty, with even the knowledge of his pre sence; under cover of darkness, after wandering for three days and nights, skulking before the pursuing officers of justice, at the hour of midnight, round hts way to the door of Mrs. Surratt, rang the bell, was ad mitted, and upon being asked, "whom doyou want to see?" replied, "Mrs. Surratt." He was then asked by the officer, Morgan, what he came at that time of night lor? to which he replied, "to dig agutter in the morn ing; Mrs. Surratt had sent for him." Afterwards he said "Mrs, Surratt knew he was a poor man, and came to him." Being asked where he last worked, he replied,. "sometimes on I street;" and where he boarded, he re plied, "he had no boarding-house, and was a poor man who got his living with the pick." which he bore upon his shoulder, having stolen it from the intrenchments of tbe capital. Upon being pressed again why he came there at that time of night to go to work, he an swered that he simply called to see what time he should go to work in the morning. Upon being told by the officer who fortunately had preceded hfm to this house that he would have to go to the Provost Marshal's office, he moved and did not answer, where upon Mrs. Surratt was asked to step into the hall and state whether she knew this man. Raising her right hand she exclaimed, "Before God, sir, I have not seen that man before; I have not hired him; I do not know anything about him." The hall was brilliantly lighted. If not one word had been said, the mere act of Payne in flying to her house fbr shef ter would have borne witness against her strong as proofs Irom Holy Writ. But when she denies, alter hearing his declarations that she had sent for him, or that she had gone to him and hired him, and calls her God to witness that she bad never seen him, and knew nothing of him, when, inpointof fact, she had seen him tor four successive days in her own house, in the same clothing which ho then wore, who can resist for amoment the conclusion that these parties were alikeguilty? The testimony of Spangler's complicity is conclusive and brief. It was impossible to hope for escape after assassinating tbe President, and such others as might attend him in Ford's Theatre, without arrangements being first made to aid the flight ofthe assassin, ahd to some extent prevent immediate pursuit. A stable was to be provided close to Ford's Theatre, in which Lhe horses could be concealed and kept ready for the assassin's use whenever the murderous blow was struck. Accordingly, Booth secretly, through Maddox, hired a stable in rear of the theatre and con necting with it by an alley, as early as the 1st of Janu ary last; showing that at that time he had concluded, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, to murder the President in Ford's Theatre and pro vide tne means for immediate and successful flight Conscious of his guilt he paid the rent lor this stable through Maddox, month by month, giving him the money. He employed Spangler, doubtless for the rea son that he could trust him witb the secret, as a car penter to fit up this shed, so that it would furnish room for two horses and provided thedoor with lock and key. Spangler did this work for him. Then it was necessary that a carpenter, having access to the thea tre, should be employed by the assassin to provide a bar for the outer door of the passage teading to the Presidents box, so that when he entered uuon his work of assassination, he would be secure from inter ruption from the rear. By the evidence, it is shown that Spangler was In the box in which the President was murdered on tbe after noon ofthe 14th of April, and when there damned the President and General Grant, and said thePresident ought to be cursed, he had got so many good men TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 199 killed; showing not only his hostility to the President' but the cause of it, that he had been faithful to bis oath and had resisted that great Bebellion iu the interest of which his lite was about to be sacrificed by this mau and his co-conspirators. In performing the work which had doubtless beeu intrusted to him by Booth, amoriicewascutin the wall. A wooden bar was pre pared, one end of which could bereauily Inserted in the mortice and the other pressed agaii.stthe edge of the door on t he inside so as to prevent its b?ing opened. Spangler had the skill and opportunity to do that work and all tiie additional work that was to bedone. It is in evidence that the screws in "the keepers" to the locks on each of the inner doors of the box occu pied by the President were drawn. The attempt has been made, on behalf ofthe prisoner, to show that this was done some time before, accidentally, and with no bad design, and had not been repaired by reason of in advertence; but that attempt has utterly failed, be cause the testimony adduced for that purpose relates exclusively to but one of the two inner doors, while thefact is, tbat the screws were drawn in both, and the additional precaution taken to cut asmall hole through one ot these doors through which the party approach ing and while in the private passage would be enabled to look into tbe box and examine the exact posture of tbe President before entering. It was also deemed es sential, in the execution of this plot, that some one should watch at the outer door, in the rear of the the atre, by which alone the assassin could hope for es cape. It was for this work Booth sought to employ Chester in January, offering §3000 down of the money of his employers, and the assurance that he should never want. What ^Chester refused to do Spangler undertook and promised to do. When Booth brought his horse to the rear door ofthe theatre, on the evening of the murder, he called for Spangler, who went to him, when Booth was heard to say to him. "Ned, you'll help me all you can, won't you." To which Spangler replied, "On, yes." When Booth made his escape, it is testified by Col. Stewart, who pursued him across the stage and out through the same door, thatas he approached it some one slammed it shut. Bitterspaugh, who was stand ing behnid the scenes when Booth tired the pistol and fled, saw Booth run down the passage toward the back door, and pursued him: but Booth drew his knile upon him and passed out, slamming the door after him. Bitterspaugh opened it and went through, leaving it open behind him, leaving Spangler inside, and in a position from which he readily could have reached tbe door. Bitterspaugh also states that very quietly after he had passed through this door he was followed by a large mau, tbe first who followed him, and who was, doubtless, Colonel Stewart. Stew art is very positive that he saw this door slammed: that he himself was constrained to open it, and had some difficulty in opening it. He also testifies thatas be approached the door a man stood near enough to have thrown it to with his hand, and this man, the witness believes, was the pri soner Spangler. Bitterspaugh has sworu that he left the door open behind him when he went out, and that he was followed by tne large man. Colonel Stewart. Who slammed that door behind Bitterspaugh ? it was not Bitterspaugh ; it could not have been Booth, for' Bitterspaugh swears that Booth was mounting his horse at the time, aud Stewart swears that Booth was upon his horse when he came out. Thhtitwas Span gler who slamined the door a! ter Bitterspaugh may not only be inferred from Stewart's testimony, but it is made very clear by his own conduct afterward upon the return of Bitterspaugh to the stage. The door being then open aud Bitterspaugh being asked which way Booth went, had answered. Bitterspaugh says : 14 Then I came back on the stage, where I had left Ed ward Spangler ; he hit me on tbe face with his hand, and said. ' Don't say which way he went.' I asked him what be meant by slapping me in the mouth? He said, ' For God's sake, shut up. The testimony of Withers is adroitly handled to throw doubt upon these facts. It cannot avail, for Withers says he was knocked in the scene by Booth, and when he "come to" he got a aide view of him. A man knocked down and senseless, on "coming to" might mistake anybody by a side view, for Booth. An attempt has been made by the defense to dis credit this testimony of Bitterspaugh, by showing his contradictory statements to Gifford, Carlan and Lamb, neither of whom do in fact contradict him, but sub stantially sustain him. None but a guilty man would have met the witness with a blow for stating which way the assassin had gone. A like confession of guilt was made by Spangler when the witness, Miles, the same evening, and directly after the assassination, came to the back door, whero Spangler was standing with others, and asked Spangler who it was that held the horse, to which Spangler replied:— "Hush; don't say anything about it." He confessed his guilt again when he denied to Mary Anderson the fact, proved here beyond all question, that Booth had called him when he came to that door with bis horse, using the emphatic words, "No, he did not; he did not call me." The rope comes to bear witness against him, as did the rope which Atzeroth and Harold and John H. Sur ratt had carried to Surrattsville and deposited there with the carbines. It 13 only surprising that the ingenious counsel did not attemptto explain tbe depositor' the rope at Sur rattsville by the same method that he adopted iu ex planation of the deposit of this rope, some sixty feet long, found in the carpet-sack of Spangler, unac counted for save by some evidence which tends to show that he may have carried it away from the theatre. It is not needful to take time in the recapitulation of the evidence, which shows conclusively that David E. Harold was one of these conspirators. His continued association with Booth, with Atzeroth, his visits to Mrs. Surratt's, his attendance at the theatre with "" Payne, surratt and Atzeroth, his connection with At zeroth on the evening of the murder, riding with him on the street in the a'irectioii of and near to the theatre at the hour appointed lor the work of assassination, and his final flight and arrest, show that he, in com mon with all the other parties Oh trial, and all the parties named upon your record pot upon trial, had combined and con ederafed to kill and ¦-murder In the interests of the Bebellion, as charged and specified against them. That this conspiracy was entered into by all these parties, both present and absent, is thus proved by the acts, meetings, declarations and correspondence of all the parties, beyond any doubt whatever. True it is circumstantial evidence, but the Court will remember the rule before recited that circumstances cannot lie; thatthey are held sufficient in every court where jus tice is judiciously administered to establish the fact of a conspiracy.I shall take no further notice of tbe remark made by the learned counsel who opened for the defense, and which has been followed by several of his associates, that, under the Constitution, it requires two witnesses to prove the overt act of high treason, than to say, this is not a charge of high treason, but of a treasonablecon- spiracy, in aid of a rebellion, with intent to kill and murder the Executive officer of the United states, and commander of its armies, and of the murder ofthe President in pursuance of that conspiracy, and with the intent laid. &c. Neither by the Constitution, nor by the rules of the commou law, is any iact connected with this allegation required to be established by the testimony of more than one witness. I might say, however, that every substantive averment against each of the parties named upon this record has been established by the testimony of more than one wit- That the several accused did enter into this con spiracy with John Wilkes Booth and John H. Surratt to murder the officers of this Government, named upon the record, in pursuance of the wishes of their em- plovers and instigators iu Kicbinond and Canada, and wilh intent thereby to aid the existing Bebellion, aud subvert the Constitution and laws ot ttie United States, as alleged, is no longer an open question. The intent as said, was expressly declared by San ders in the meeting of the conspirators at Montreal, in February last; by Booth In Virginiaand New York, and bvThompson to Conover and Montgomery; butif there were no testimony directly upon this point, the law would presume the intent, for the reason that such was the natural aud necessary tendency and manifest de sign of the act itself. The learned gentleman (Mr. Johnson) says the Go vernment has survived the assassination of the Pre sident, and thereby would have you infer that this conspiracy was not entered into and attempted to be executed with the intent laid. With as much show ot reason it might be said that because the Govern ment of the United States has survived this unmatched Bebellion, it therefore results thatthe Kebel conspira tors waged war upon the Government with no purpose or intent thereby to subvert it. By tbe law we have seen that without any direct evideuceof previous com bination aud agreement between these parties, the conspiracy might be established by evideuceof the acts of tbe prisoners, or of any others with whom they co-operated, concurring in the execution ol the com mon design. (Etoscoe, 416.) Was there co-operation between the several accused in the execution of this conspiracy? That there was is as clearly established by tbe testimony as is the tact tbat Abraham Lincoln was killed and murdered by John Wilkes Booth. The evidence shows that all of the accused, save Mudd and Arnold, were in Washing ton on the 14th of April, the day of the assassination, together with John Wilites Booth and John H. Surratt; that on that day Booth had a secret interview with the prisoner Mary E. Surratt; that immediately there after she went to Surrattsville to periorm her part of the preparation necessary to the successful execution of the conspiracy, and did make that preparation: that John H. Surratt had arrived here from Canada, notify ing the parties that the price to be paid for tbis great crime had been provided for, at least in part, by the deposit receipts of April 6, for §180,000, piocured by Thompson of the Ontario Bank, Montreal, Canada; that he was also prepared to keep watch, or strike a blow, and ready forthe contemplated flight; that At zeroth on the afternoon ofthat day, was seeking to obtain ahorse, the better to secure his own safety by 200 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. flight after he should have performed the task which he had voluntarily undertaken, by contract, in the conspiracy— the murder of Andrew Johnson, then Vice President oi the United states; that he did procure a horse for that purpose at Naylor's, and was seen, about nine o'clock in the evening, to ride to the Kirkwood House, where the Vice .President then was. dismount and enter. At a previous hour Booth was in the Kirkwood House: and left his card, now in evidence, doubiless intended to be sent to the room ofthe Vice President, and was in these words : " Don't wish to disturb you. Are you at home? J. Wilkes Booth." Atzeroth, when be made application at Brooks' in the aiternoon for the horse, said to Weichman, who was there, he was going to ride in the country, and that "he was go- ingto get a hor.se and serid for Payne." He did get a horse lor Payne, as well as for himself; for it is proven that on the 12th he was seen in Washington, riding the horse whicb.bad been procured by Booth, in company with Mudd, last November, from Gardner. A similar horse was tied before the door of Mr. Seward on the night of the murder, was captured after the flight of Payne, who was seen toride away, and which horse is now identified asthe Gardner horse. Booth also pro cured a horse on the same day, took it to his stable in the rear of the theatre, where he bad an interview with Spangler, and .where he concealed it. Harold. too, obtained a horse in the afternoon, and was seen between nine and ten o'clock, riding with Atzeroth down the Avenue from tbe Treasury, then up Four teenth and down F street, passing close by Ford's Theatre. O'Laughfin had come to Washington the day before, had sought out his victim (General Grant) at the house ot the Secretary of War, that he might be able with certainty to identify him, and at the very hour when these preparations were going on, was lying in wait at Bullman's, on the Avenue, keeping watch, and declaring, as he did at about ten o'clockP. M., when told that the fatal blow had be^n struck by Booth, "I don't believe Booth did it." During the day, and the night before, he had been visiting Booth, and doubt less encouraging him, and at that very hour was in po sition, at a convenient distance, "to aid and protect him in bis flight, as well as to execute his own part of the conspiracy by inflicting death upon General Grant, who happily was not at the theatre nor in the city, having left the city that day. Who doubts that Booth, having ascertained in the course of the day that General Grant could not be present at the theatre, O'Laughlin, who was lo murder General Grant, instead of entering the box with Booth, was detailed to lie in wait, and watch and support him. His declarations of his reasons lorchanging his lodg ings here and in Baltimore, after the murder, so ably and so ingeniously presented in the argument ot his learned counsel (Mr. Cox), avail nothing before the blasting fact, that he did change his lodgings, and de clared "he knew nothing ot the affair whatever." O'Laughlin, who lurked here, conspiring daily with Booth and Arnold for six weeks lo do this murder, de clares "he knew nothing ofthe affair." O'Laughlin, who says he was "in the oil business." which Booth and Surratt, and Payne and Arnold, have all declared meant tbis conspiracy, says "he knew nothing of the affair." O'Laughlin, to whom Booth sent the despatches of the 13th and 27th of March; O'Laughlin, who is named in Arnold's letter as one of the conspirator*, and who searched for General Grant on Thursday night, laid in wait for him on Friday, was defeated by that Providence " which shapes our ends." and laid in wait to aid Booth and Payne, declares "he knew no thing of the matter." Such a denial is as false and in excusable as Peter's denial of our Lord. Mrs. Surratt had arrived at home from the comple tion of her part, of the plot, about half-past eight o'clock in the evening. A few moments afterwards she was called to the parlor, and there had a private Interview with some one unseen, but whose retreating footsteps were heard by the witness Weichman. TV.i's was doubtless the secret and last visit of John H. Sur ratt to his mother, who had instigated and encouraaed him to strike this traitorous and murderous blow against his country. While these preparations were going on, Dr. Mudd was awaiting the execution of the plot, ready faith fully to perform his part in securme the safe escape of the murderer. Arnold was at his post at Fortress Monroe, awaiting the meeting referred to in his letter of March 27th, wherein he savs they were not to "meet for a month or so, which month had more than ex pired on the day of the murder, for bis letter and the testimony disclose that this month of suspension be gan to run from about the first week in March. He stood ready with the arms which Booth had fur nished him to aid the escape ofthe murderers by that route, and secure their communication with their em ployers. He had given the assurance In that letter to Booth, that, although the Government "suspi- cionedthem" and the undertaKing was "becoming complicated," yet "a time more propitious would arrive" forthe consummation of this conspiracy, in which he "was one" witb Booth, and whSn he would 'be better prepared to again be with him." Such were the preparations. The horses were in readiness for the flight; the ropes were procured, doubt less for the purpose of tying the horses at whatever poiutthey mightbe constrained to delay and secure their boats to their moorings in making their way across the Potomac. The five murderous camp-knives, the two carbmes, the eight revolvers, the Derringer, in Court aud identified, all were ready ior the work of death. The part that each had played has already been in part stated in this argument, and needs no repetition. Booth proceeded to the theatre about rine o'clock in the evening, at the same time that Atzeroth, and Payne and Harold were riding the streets, while Sur ratt, having parted with his mother at the brief inter view in her parlor, from which his retreating steps were heard, was walking the Avenue, booted and sourrcd, and doubtless consulting with O'Laughlin. When Booth reached the rear of the theatre, he called Spangler to him (whose denial of that fact, when charged with it, as proven by three witnesses, is very significant), and received from Spangler his pledge to help him all he could, when witb Booth he entered the theatre by the stage door, doubtless to see that the way was clear from the box to the rear door of the theatre, and look upon their victim, whose exact po sition they could study from the stage. After this view Booth passes to the street, in front ofthe theatre, whereon the pavement, with other conspirators yet unknown— among them one described as a low browed villain— he awaits the appointed moment. Booth himself, impatient, enters the vestibule of the theatre from the front, and asks the time. He is re ferred to the clock, and returns. Presently, as the hour often o'clock approached, one of his guilty asso ciates called the time: they wait: again, as the mo ments elapsed, this conspirator upon watch called the time; again, as the appointed hour draws nigh, he calls the time; and finally, when the fatal moment arrives, be repeats in a louder tone, "Ten minutes past ten o'clock." Ten minutes past ten o'clock! The hour has come when th e red right hand of these murderous conspirators should strike, and the dreadful deed of assassination be done. Booth, at the appointed moment, entered the thea tre, ascended to the dress circle, passed to the right paused a moment, looking down, doubtless to see if Spangler was at his post, and approached the outer door of the close passage leadin ; to the box occupied by thePresident; pressed it open, passed in. and closed the passage door behind him. Spangler's bar was in its place, and was readily adjusted by Booth in the mortice, and pressed against tbe inner side ofthe door so that be was secure from interruption from without' He passes on to the next door, immediately behind the President, and there stopping, looks through the aper ture in the door into the President's box, and delibe rately observes the precise position ofhis victim, seated in the chair which had been prepared by the conspira tors as the altar for the sacrifice, looking calmly and quietly down upon the glad and grateful people, whom, by his fidelity, he had saved from the peril which had threatened the destruction of their Government, and all they held dear this side of the grave, and whom be had come upon invitation to greet with his presence, with the words still lingering upon his lips which he had uttered with uncovered head and uplifted hand belore God and his country, when on tbe 4th of last March he took again the oath topreserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, declaring that he entertd upon the duties of his great ohioe "with malice toward none, with charity ,or all." In a moment more, strengthened by the knowledge that his co-conspirators were ail at their posts, seven at least of them present in the city, two of them, Mudd and Arnold, at their appointed places watching for bis coming, this hired assassin moves stealthily through the door, the fastenings of which had been removed lo facilitate his entrance fires upon his victim, and the martyr spirit ot Abraham Lincoln ascends to God. Treason has done his worst; nor steel, nor poison, Malice domestic, foreign levy, nothing Can touch him further. At the same hour, when these accused and their co conspirators in Bichmond and Canada, bv the hand of John Wilkes Booth inflicted this mortal wound which deprived the Republic of its defender, andlilled this land irom ocean to ocean with a strange great surrow, Payne, a very demon in human form wi'th the words of falsehood upon his lips, tbat he was the bearer of a message from the physician of tne venera ble Secretary of State, sweeps by his servant, encoun ters his son, who protests that tbe assassin shall not disturb his father, prostrate on a bed of sickness and receives for answer the assassin's blow from tie re volver in his band, repeated again and again rusi ei into the room, is encountered by MajorSeward ,'inflicis wound after wound upon him with his murderous knife, is encountered by Hansell and Bobinson each ot whom he also wounds, springs upon the defenseless and feeble Secretary of State, stabs first on one side of his throat, then on the other, again in the face and Is only prevented from literally hacking out his life bv the persistence and courage of the attendant Robinson He turns to flee, and his giant arm and murderous TRIAL OF THE ASSASSIN^ AT WASHINGTON. 201 hand for a moment paralyzed by the consciousness of guilt, he drops his weapons of death, one in the housei tne other at the door, where they were taken up. and are here now to bear witness against him. Heat- tempts escape on the horse which Booth and Mudd had procured of Gardner, with what success has already been stated. Atzeroth, near midnight, returns to the stable of Naylor the horse which he had procured for this work of murder, having been interrupted inthe exe cution of the part assigned him at the Kirkwood House by the timely coming of citizens to the defense ofthe Vice-President, and creeps into thePennsyvania House at 2 o'clock in the morning with another of the conspirators, yet unknown. There he remained until 5 o'clock, when he left, found his way to Georgetown, pawned one of his revolvers, now m Court, and fled northward into Maryland. He is traced to Montgomery county, to the house of Mr. Metz, on the Sunday succeeding the murder. where, as is proved by the testimony of three wit nesses, he said that if the man that was to follow General Grant had followed him, it was likely that Grant was shot. To one of these witnesses (Mr, Lay- nian) hesaid hedid not think Grant had been killed; or if he had been killed he was killed by a man who got on the cars at the same time that Grant did; thus disclosing most clearly that one of his co-conspirators was assigned the task of killing and murdering Gene ral Grant, and that Atzeroth knew that General Grant had left the city of Washington, a fact which is not disputed, on the Friday evening of the murder, by the evening train. Thus this intended victim of the con spiracy escaped, for that night, the knives and revol ver tof AtzeroLh, aud O'Laughlin, and Payne, and Harold,, and Booth, and John H. Surratt, and, per chance, Harper and Caldwell, and twenty others who were then here lying in wait for his life. In the meantime, Booth and Harold, taking the route before agreed upon, make directly after the assassina tion for the Anacostia bridge. Booth crosses first, gives bis name, passes the guard, and is speedily fol lowed by Harold. Tbey make their way directly to Surrattsville, where Harold calls to Lloyd, "Bring out those things," showing that there had been com munication between tbem and Mrs. Surratt after her return. Both the carbines being in readiness, accord ing to Mary E. Surratt's directions, both were brought out. They took but one: Booth decifned to carry the other, saying that his limb was broken. They then de clared that they bad murdered the President and the Secretary of State. They then made their way directly to the house of the prisoner Mudd, assured of safety and security. They arrived early in the morning be fore day, and no man knows at what hour they left. Harold rode toward Bryantown with Mudd about three o'clock that afternoon, in the vicinity of which place he parted with him, remaining in the swamp, and was afterward seen returning the same afternoon in the direction of Mudd's house; about which time, a little be fore sundown, Mudd returned from Bryantown toward his home. This village at tbe time Mudd was in it was thronged with soldiers in pursuit of the murderers of the Presi dent, and although great care has been taken by the defense to deny that any one said in the presence of Dr. Mudd, either there or elsewhere on that, day, who had committed the crime, yet it is in evidence by two witnesses whose truthfulness no man questions, that upon Mudd's return to his own house, that af ernoon, hestatedthat Booth was the murderer of thePresi dent, and Boyle the murderer of Secretary Seward, but took care to make the further remark, that Booth had brothers, and he did not know which ofthem had done the act. When did Dr. Mudd learn that Booth had brothers? And what is still more pertinent to this in quiry, from whom did he learn that either Jobn Wilkes Booth or any of his brothers had murdered the Presi dent? It is clear that Booth remained in his house until some time in the afjernoon of Saturday; that Ha rold leit the house alone, as one ofthe witn esses states' being seen to pass the window; that he alone of these two assassins was in the company of Dr. Mudd on his way to Bryantown. It does not appear when Harold returned to Mudd's house. It is a confession of Dr. Mudd himself, proven by one of tbe witnesses, that Booth left his house on crutches, and went in the di rection ofthe swamp. How long he remained there, and what became of the horses which Booth and Harold rode-to his house, and which were put into his stable, are facts nowhere disclosed by tbe evidence. The owners testify that they have never seen the horses since. The accused give no explanation of the matter, and when Harold and Booth were captured they had not these horses in their possession. How comes it that on Mudd's return from Bryantown, on the evening of Saturday, in his conversation with Mr. Hardy and Mr. Farrell, the witnesses before referred to, he gave the name of Booth as the murderer of the President and that ot Boyle as the murderer of Secretary Seward and his son and carefully avoided intimating to either that Booth had come to his bouse early that day and had remained there until tbe afternoon; that he left him in his house and had furnished him with a razor with which Booth attempted to disguise himseli by shaving off his moustache? How comes it. also, that, upon be ing asked by those two witnesses whether the Booth who hilled the President was the one who had been there last fall, he answered that he did not know whether it was that man or one of his brothers, but he understood he had some brothers, and added, that If it was the Booth who was there last tall, he knew that one, but concealed the fact that this man had been at his house on that day and was then at his house, and had attempted, in his presence, to disguise his person? He was sorry, very sorry, that the thing had oc curred, but not so sorry as to be willing to give anv evidence to these two neighbors, who were manifestly honest and upright men, that the murderer had been harbored in his house all day, and was probably at that moment, as his own subsequent confession shows, lying concealed In his house or near by, subject to his call. Tbis is the man who undertakes to show by his own declaration, offered in evidence against my pro test, of what he said afterward, on Sunday afternoon, tbe 16th, to his kinsman, Dr. George D. Mudd,towbom he then stated that the assassination of tbe President was a most damnable act, a conclusion In which most men will agree with him, .and to establish which his testimony was not needed. But it is to be remarked tbat this accused did not intimate that the man whom he knew the evening before was the murderer had found refuge in his house, had disguised his person, and sought concealment in the swamp upon the crutches which he had provided for him. Why did he conceal this fact from his kinsman? After the church services were over, however, in another conversation on their way home, he did tell Dr. George Mudd that two suspicious persons had been at his house, who bad come there a little before day break on Saturday morning; that one of them had a broken leg, which he bandaged; that they got some thing to eat at his house; that they seemed to be labor ing under more excitement than probably would re sult from tbe injury; that they said they came from Bryantown, and inquired tbe way to Parson Wilmer's; that while at his house one of them called for a razor and shaved himself. The witness says : "I do not re member whether he said tbat this party shaved off his whiskers or moustache, but he altered somewhat or probably materially his features." Finally, the pri soner, Dr. Mudd, told this witness tbat he, in company with the younger of the two men, went down the road toward Bryantown in search of a vehicle to take the wounded man away from his house. How comes it that he concealed in his conversation the tact proved that he went witb Harold toward Bry antown, and left Harold outside of the town? How comes it that in this second conversation, on Sunday, insisted upon here with such pertinacity as evidence for the defense, but which had never been called for by the prosecution, he couceaied from his kinsman the tact which he had disclosed the day before to Hardy and Farrell, tbat it was Bootn who assassinated the President, and the fact which is now disclosed by his other confessions given in evidence for the prosecu tion, that it was Booth whom he had sheltered, con cealed in his house, and aided to his biding place in the swamp? He volunteers as evidence his further statement, however, to this witness, that on Sunday evening he requested the witness to state to the mili tary authorities that two suspicious persons had boen at his house, and see if anything could be made of it. He did not tell the witness what became of Harold and where he parted with him on the way to Bryantown. How conies it that when he was in Bryantown on the Saturday evening before, when he knew that Booth was then at his house, and that Booth was the mur derer of the President, he did not himself state it to the military authorities then in that village, as he well knew ? It U difficult to see what kindled his suspicions on Sunday, if none were in his mind on Saturday, when he was in possession of the fact that Booth had mur dered the President, and was then secreting and dis guising himself in the prisoner's own house. His conversation with Gardner on the same Sun day at the church is also introduced here, to relieve him from the overwhelming evidences of his guilt. He communicates nothing to Gardner of the fact that Booth had been in his house; nothing of the fact that he knew the day before that Booth had murdered the President; nothing of the fact that Booth had disguised or attempted to disguise him self- nothing of the fact that he had gone with Booth's associate, Harold, in search of a vehicle, tbe more speedily to expedite their flight: nothing of the faci that Booth had tbund concealment in the woods and swamp near his house, upon the crutches which hehad furnished him. He contents himself with merely stating "that we ought to raise immediately a home guard to hunt up all suspicious persons pass ing through our section of country, and arrest them, foi; there were two suspicious persons at my house yesterday morning." . It wouid have looked more like aiding justice and arresting felons if he had put in execution his project of a home guard on Saturday, and made it effective by tbe arrest of the man then in his house who had lodged with him last fall; with whom he had gone to purchase one ofthe very horses employed in hl3 flight after the assassination; whom he had yisited last winter in 202 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Washington, and to whom he had pointed out the very route by which he had escaped by way of his house; whom he had again visited on the 3d of last March. preparatory to the commission of this greatCrime: aud who he knew, whenhesheltered and concealed him in the wood-* on Saturday, was not merely a suspicious person, but was, in fact, the murderer and assassin of Abraham Lincoln. While I deem it my duty to say here, as I said before, when these declarations, uttered by the accused on Sunday, the 16th, to Gardner and George D. Mudd, were attempted to be ofleredon the part ofthe accused, that they are in no sense evidence, and by the law where wholly inadmissible, yet I state it as my conviction, that, being. u\ on. The record upon motion of the accused himself, so lar as these declara tions to Gardner and George D. Mudd go, they are ad ditional indication-; ot the guilt of the accused, in this, that they aio manifestly suppressions of truth and sug gestions of falsehood and deception; they are but the utterances and confessions of guilt. To Lieutenant Lovett. Joshua Lloyd and Simon Gavican, who, in the pursuit of the murderer, visited his house on the 1bth of April, the Tuesday after the murder, he denied positively, upon inquiry, that two men had passed his house, or had come to his house on the morning after the assassination. Two of these witnesses swear positively to his having made the de nial, and the other says he hesitated to answer the question he put to him; all of them agree that he af terwards admitted that two men had been there, one of whom bad a broken limb, which he had set: and when asked by this witness who that man was, he said he did not know; that the man was a stranger to b/jn, and that the two had been there but a short time. Iif jyd asked him if he had ever seen any of the par ties, Booth, Harold and Su_ratt; he said he had never seen them while it is positively proved that he was acquainted with John 11. Surratt, who had been in his house; that he knew Booth, and had introduced Booth to Surratt last winter. Afterwards, on Friday, the 2lsc, he admitted to Lloyd that he had been introduced to Booth last fall, and that this man who came to his house on Saturday, the I5th, remained there from abnnt four o'clock iu the morning until about four in the afternoon; that one of them left his house on horseback and the other walking. In the first conver sation he donied over havinerseen these men. Colonel Weds also testifies that, in bis conversation with Dr. Mudd ou Friday, the 2lst, the prisoner said that he had gone to Bryantown. or near Bryantown, to see some friends on Saturday, and that as became back to his own house he saw the person he afterwards supposed to bo Haruiu passing to the left of his house towards the barn, but that, he did not seethe other person at all after he leit him in his own house, about one o'clock. If this statement be true, how did Dr. Mudd see the same person leave his house ou crutches? He further stated to this witness that he returned to bis own house about 4 o'clock in tbe afternoon; that he did not know this wounded man: said he could not re cognize him from the photograph which is of record here, but i.dinittcd that he had mot Booth some time in November, when he had some conversation with him about lands and uorses; that Booth had remained with him that night in November, and on the next day had purchased a horse. He said he had not again seen Booth from toe timeof the introduction in No vember up to his arrival at his house on the Saturday morning after the assassination. Is not this a confes sion that he did see J ohn Wilkes Booth on that morn ing at bis house, and knew it was Booth? If he did hot know him, how came he to make this statement to the witncss^that "he had not seen Booth after November prior to his arrival there on the Saturday morning?" He had said before to the same witness he did not know the wounded man. lie said further to Colonel Wells, that when be went up stairs alter their arrival, he noticed that the person he supposed to be Booth, had shaved off his moustache. It is not iuferubfe from this declaration that he then supposed bim to.be Booth? Yet he declared the same afternoon, and while Booth was in bis own bouse, that Booth was the murderer ofthe President. One of the most remark able statements made to this witness by the prisoner was that he heard for the first time on Sunday i orn- Ing, or late in the evening of Saturday, that the Presi dent had been murdered. From whom did he hear it? The witness (Colonel Wells) volunteered his " impres sion" that Dr. Mudd had said he had heard it alter the person had left his bouse. If tho " Impression" of the witness thus volunteered is to be taken as evidence, and tbe counsel for the accused, judging from their manner, seem to think It ought to be, let this question be answered, bow could Dr. Mudd have made that impression upon any body truthfully, when it is proved by Farrell and Hardy that on his return from Bryan town, on Saturday afternoon, he not only stated that the President, Mr Seward and his son had been assas sinated, but that Boyle had assassinated Mr. Seward, .and Eooth had assassinated the President? Add to ihls the fact that he said tu this witness tbat he left liis own house at one o'clock, and when he returned the men were gone; yet it is in evidence, by bis own declarations, that Booth loft nis house at four o'clock on crutches, and he must have been there to have seen it, or he could not have known the fact. Mr. Williams testified that he was at Mudd's house on Tuesday, the I8th of April, when he said that strangers had not been that way. and also declared that he heard, for the first time, of the assassination of the Presidenton Sunday morning, at church; after wards, on Friday, the 2lst. Mr. Williams asked him concerning the men who had been at his house, one of whom had a broken limb, and he confessed they had been there. Upon being asked if they were Booth and Harold, hesaid tbey were not; that he knew Booth. I think it is fair to conclude that he did know Eooth, when we consider the testimony of Weichman, or Norton, of Evans, and all the testimony just re ferred to, wherein lie declares, himself, that he not only knew him, but that he had lodged witb him, and that he had himself gone with him when be pur chased his horse from Gardner last fall, for the very purpose of aiding the flight of himself, or some of his confederates. All these circumstances taken together, which, as we have seen upou high authority, are stronger as evi dences of guilt than even direct testimony, leave no further room for argument, and no rational doubt that Doctor Samuel A. Mudd wasascertuinly in this con spiracy as were Booth and Harold, whom he sheltered and entertained; receiving them, under cover of dark ness on the morning after the assassination, conceal ing them throughout that day from the hand of of fended justice, and aiding them by every endeavor, to puisuetheir way successfully to their co-conspirator, Arnold, at Fortress Monroe, and which direction he fled until overtaken aud slain. We next fina Harold and his confederate, Booth, af ter their departure from the house of Mudd, across the Potomac, in the neighborhood of Port Conway, on Monday, the 24th of April, conveyed in a wagou. There Harold, in order to obtain the aid of Captain Jett, Bug gies and Bainbridge, of the Confederate army, said to JeLt, "Wo are the assassinators ot the President;" that this was his brother with him, who, with himself, be longed to A. P. Hill's Corps; that his brother had been wounded at Petersburg; that their names were Boyd. He requested Jettand his Bebel companions to take them, out of the lines. After this, Booth joined these parties, was placed -on Buggies' horse, and crossed the liaopahannock Biver. They then proceeded to the house of Garrett, in the neighborhood of Port B,oyal, and nearly midway be tween Washington City and Fortress Monroe, where they were to have joined Arnold. Before tnese Rebel guides and guards parted with them, Harold con fessed that they were traveling under aspumed names: that his own name was Harold, and that the name of the wounded man was John Wilkes Bootn, "who had killed ihe President.'- Theltebels leit Booth at Gar rett's, where Harold revisited him from time to time, until tbey were captured. At two o'clock on Wednes day morning, the 26th, a party of "United States officers and soldiers surrounded Garrett's barn, where Booth and Harold lay concealed, and demanded their sur render. Booth cursed Harold, calling himacoward, and bade himgo, when Harold c. me out and surren dered himself, was taken into custody, and is now brought into Court. The barn wa-* then set on fire, when Booth sprang to his feet, amid the flames that werekindling about him, carbine in band, and ap proached the door, seeking, by the flashing light of the fire, to find some new victim for his murderous hand, when he was shot, as he deserved to be, by Ser geant Corbett, in order to save bis comrases from wounds or death by the hands of this desperate assas sin. Uppn his person was found the following bill of exchange:— "Wo.^1432. The Ontario Bank, Montreal Branch Exchange for £61 12s. lOd. Montreal. 27th October. ]fcii4. Sixty days alter sight oi'this first of exchange, second andtbirdof tae same tenor and date, pay to theorder of. J. Wilkes Booth £til 12s. lOd. sterling, value re ceived, and charge to the account of this office. H. Stan us, manager. To Messrs. Glynn, Mills «te Co,, London." Thus fell, by the hands of one of tbe defenders ofthe Kepubhc, ibis hired assassin, who, for a price, mur- deied Abraham Lincoln, bearing upon his person, as this bill of exchange testifies, additional evidence of the fact tnat he had undertaken, in aid of rebellion, this worn; of assassination by the hands of himself and his confederates, lor such sum as the accredited agents of Jederson Davis might pay him or them, out of thefnnds of the Coutederacy, which, as is m evi dence, they bad in "any amount" in Canada forthe purpose of rewarding couspirators, spies, poisonprs and assassins, who might take service under their false commissions, and do tbe work of the incendiary and the murderer upon the lawful representatives of the American people, to whom had been entrusted the care of the Republic, the maintenance ot the Constitu tion and the execution of the laws. The Court will remember that it is In the testimony ofMerritt.and Montgomery, and Conover, that Thomp son, and Sanders, and Cay, and Cleary, made their boasts tbat they had money in Canada for this very purpose, Nor is it to be overlooked or forgotten that TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 203 the officers of the Ontario Bank at Montreal testify that during the current year of this conspiracy and as sassination Jacob Thompson had on deposit in that bank the sum of six hundred and forty-nine thousand dollars, and that these deposits to the credit oi Jacob Thompson, accrued Irom the negotiation of bills oi ex change drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury of the sn-called Confederate Mates on Fraser, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool, who were known to be the financial agents of the Confederate Slates. With an undrawn deposit in this bank of lour hundred aud fifty-five dol lars, which has remained to his credit since October last, and with an unp lid bill of exchange drawn hy tbe same bank upon London, in his possession and found upon his person. Bjoth ends his guilty career in this work of conspiracy and blood in April, 18ii5, as he be gan it in October. » 18(14, in combination with Jefferson lidvis. Jacob Thompson, George N. Sanders. Clement C. Clay. William C. Cleary, Beverly Tucker and other co-conspirators, making use of the money ofthe Kebel Confederation to aid in the execution and in the flight, bearing at the moment of his death upon his person their money, part of tbe price which they paid for his great crime, to aid him in its consummation, and se cure him alterwards from arrestand the Just penalty which by the law of God and the law of man is de nounced against treasonable conspiracy and murder. By all the testimony in the case, it is, in myjudg- ment, made as clear as any transaction can be shown bv human -testimony, that John "Wilkes Booth and John H. Surratt, and the several accused. David B Harold, George A. Atzeroth, Lewis Payne, Michael O'Loughlin, Edward Spangler, Samuel Arnold. Mary K. Surratt, and Samuel A. Mudd, did, with intent to aid the existing Rebellion and to subvert the Constitu tion and laws of the United States, in the month ot October last and thereatter, combine, confederate and conspire with Jefferson Davis, George N, Sanders, Beverly Tucker, Jacob Thompson, William C. Cleary, Clement C. Cily, George Harper, George Yonng, and Others unknown, to kill and murder, within the mili tary department of Washington, and within the in trenched fortifications and military .lines thereof. Abraham Lincoln, then President ot the United States, and Commandei-in-Chiel'of tho army and navy there of; Andrew Johnson, Vice President of the United States; William H. Seward, Secretary of State:, and U.ysses S; Grant, Lieutenant-General in command of the armies of the United States; and that Jefferson Davis, the chief of this Bebillion . was the instigator and procurer, through his accredited agents in Canada, of the treasonable conspiracy. . ft is also submitted to the Court that it is clearly es tablished by the testimony that John Wilkes Booth, in pursuance of this conspiracy, so entered into oy him and the accused, did, on the night of the 14th ot April, 1805, within the military department of Washington, and the intrenched fortifications and military lines thereof, and with the intentlaid, inflict amortal wonnd upon Abraham Lincoln, then President and Com mander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States, whereof he died; that in pursuance of the same conspiracy and within tbe^said department and in- treuched lihes, Lewis Payne. assaulted, with intent to kill and murdeiyWilllam H. Seward, then Secretary of State ofthe United States; that George A. Atzeroth. in pursuance ofthe same conspiracy, and wjthin.the.said department, laid in wait, with intent to kill and murr der Andrew Johnson, then Vice-President of the United States; that Michael O'Laughlin, withm said department, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, laid iuwait to kill and murder Ulysses S. Grant, then in command of the armies of the United States: and that MaryE. Surratt, David E. Harold. Suinuel Arnold, Samuel A. Mudd, and Edward Spanglerdid encourage, ad and abet the commission of said several acts in the prosecution of said conspiracy. ,.h If this treasonable conspiracy has not been wholly executed.; ilf the several executive officers of the United States and the commander of its armies, to kill and murderwnom the said several accused thus con federated and conspired, have not each and all fallen by the hands ot these conspirators, thereby .leaving the people of the United States without a President or Vice President; without a Secretary of State, who alone is clothed with authority by the law to call an election to fill the vacancy, should any arise, in the offices of President and Vice President, and without a lawful commander of the armies of the Bepublic. it is only because the conspirators were deterred by the vigilance and fidelity of the executive ofheers, whose lives were mercifully protected on that night of murder by the care of the Infinite Being, who has Sus lar saved the Republic and crowned its arms with V1Tf'rWs conspiracy was thus entered into by the ac cused- if °Snn Wilkes Booth did kill and murder Abraham LiScoln in pursuance thereof: if Lewis Pavnedid- Id T pursuance of said conspiracy, assault Court or not, are alike guilty of the several octs done by each in the execution of thecommon design. "What these conspirators did in the execution of this con spiracy by the hand of one of their co-conspirators, they did themselves; his act, done in the prosecution of the common design, was the act of all the parties to the treasonable combination, because done in exe cution and furtherance of their guilty and treasonable agreement. As we have seen, this is the rule, whether all the conspirators are indicted or not; whether they are all on trial or not. "It is not material what the nature of the indictment is, provided the offense involve a con spiracy. Upon indictment for murder, for instance, if it appear that others, together with the prisoner, con spired to pernetrate the crime, the act of one done in pursuance ofthat intention, would becvidence against thereat." {I "Whar.,706.) To the same effect are the words of Chief Justice Marshall, before cited, that whoever leagued in a general conspiracy, performed any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, are guilty as principafs. In this treasonable conspiracy, to aid the existing armed Re bellion, by murdering the executive officers ofthe United States and the commander of its armies, allthe parties io it must beheld as priacipals, and the act of one. in the prosecution of the common design, the act of all. I leave tbe decision of this dread issue! with the Court, to which alone it belongs. It is for you to say, upon your oaths, whether the accused are guilty. I am not conscious that in this argument Ihave made any erroneous statement of the evidence, or drawn any, erroneous conclusions; yet I pray the Cpurt, out of tender regard and jealous care-for tne rightsof theaccused, toseethatno error of mine, if any there be, shall work them harm. The past ser vices of tbemembeis ot this honorable Court give as surance that, without fear, favor, or affection, they will discharge with fidelity the dutyenioined upon them by their oaths. Whatever else may befall, I trust in God .that in this, as in every other American Court, tbe rights of tne whole people will be respected, and tbat the Republic in this, its supreme hourof trial, will be true to itself and just to alt— ready to protect the rights of the humblest, to redress every wrong, to avenge every crime, to vindicate the majesty of law, and to maintain inviolate the Constitution— whether it be secretlvor openly assailed by hosts, armed with gold or armed with steel. JOHN A. BINGHAM, Special Judge Advocate. Washington, June 28.— The Military Commission met this day, with closed doors, in secret session, to deliberate on the testimony and finding of a verdict for or against the conspirators, and after a session of six hours duration, not coming to a decision in all the cases, adjourned till the next day, Thursday, June29th, "Washington, June 29.— The Military Commission met this morning in secret session, with closed doors, and after being In session some hours found a verdict in the case'of each of the conspirators, when a record was'made up and forwarded to the War Department for review, from whom it will be sent to the President, who will examine the whole of the voluminous testi mony closely before rendering his decision on the findings of the Military Commission. Washington, July 6.— In accordance with the findings and sentences of the Military Com mission, which the President approved yester day, David E. Harold, Lewis Payne, Mrs. Sur ratt and George A. Atzeroth are to be hung to morrow, by the proper military authorities. Dr. Mudd, Arnold and O'Laughlin are to be imprisoned for life, and Spangler for six years, all at hard labor, in the Albany Penitentiary. The Official Order. Washington, July 6.— The following import ant order has just been issued:— War Department, Adjutant- General s Office. Washington, July. 5. 1865.— To Major- General W S. Hancock, United States Volun teers, commanding the Middle Military Divi sion, Washington, D. C. . . Whereas By the Military Commission ap pointed in paragraph 4, Special Orders No. 211, dated War Department, Adjutant-General's Of- ficT Washington, May 6, 1865. and of which Ma- ior-benerar David Hunter, UniteaStates Volun teers was President, the following persons were tried' and, after- mature consideration of evi dence adduced in their cases, were found and sentenced as hereinafter stated, as follows;— 204 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Harold's Sentence. First. David E. Harold.— Finding of the speci fication, guilty, except combining, confederat ing and conspiring with Edward Spangler, as to which part thereof, not guilty; of the charge guilty, except the words of the charge, that he combined, confederated and conspired with Edward Spangler, as to which part of the charge not guilty. Sentence.— And the Commission does, there fore, sentence him, the said David E. Harold, to be hanged by the neck until he be dead, at such time and place as the President of the United States shall direct, two-thirds of the Commission concurring therein. Atzerotn's Sentence. Second. George A. Atzeroth.— Finding of speci fication, guilty, except combining, confedera ting and conspiring with Edward Spangler; of this, not guilty. Of the charge, guilty, except combining, confederating and conspiring with Edward Spangler; of this, not guilty. Sentence.— And the Commission does there fore sentence him, the said George A. Atzeroth, to be hung by the neck until he be dead, at su< h time and place as the President of the United Statesshall direct, two-thirds of the Commission concurring therein. Payne's Sentence. Third. Lewis Payne.— Finding of the speci fication, guilty, except combining, confederat ing and conspiring with Edward Spangler; of this, not guilty. Of the charge, guilty, except combining, confederating and conspiring with Edward Spangler: of this, not guilty. Sentence.— And the Commission does therefore sentence bim, the said Lewis Payne, to be hung by the neck until he be dead, at such time and place as the President of the United States shall direct, two-thirds of the Commission concurring therein. Mrs. Snrratt's Sentence. Fourth. Mary E. Surratt.— Finding of the specification guilty, except as to receiving sus taining, hapbormg and concealing Samuel Ar nold and Michael O'Lauehlin, and except as to combining, confederating and conspiring with Edward Spangler; of tins not guilty. Of the charge guilty, except as to combining, confede rating and conspiring with Edward Spangler; of this not guilty. . Sentence.— And the Commission does, there fore, sentence her, the said Mary E. Surratt, to be hung by the neck until she be dead, at such time and place as the President of the United States shall direct, two-thirds of the members of the Commission concurring therein. President Johnson's Approval. And "Whereas, The President of the United States has approved the foregoing sentences in the following order, to wit: — Executive Mansion, July 5, 1865.— The fore going sentences in the cases of David E. Harold, 6. A. Atzeroth, Lewis Payne and Mary E. Sur ratt, are hereby approved; and it is ordered that the sentences in the cases of David E. Harold, G. A. Atzeroth, Lewis Payne and Mary E. Sur ratt be carried into execution by the proper mi litary authority, under the direction of the Se cretary of War, on the 7th day of July, 1865, be tween the hours of 10 o'clock A. M. and 2 o'clock P. M. of that day. (Signed) Andrew Johnson, President. Therefore you are hereby commanded to cause the foregoing sentences in the cases of David E. Harold, G. A. Atzeroth, Lewis Payne and Mary E. Surratt to be duly executed, in accordance with the President's order. By command of the President of the United States. E. D. Townsend, Assistant Adjutant-General. In the remaining cases of O'Laughlin Spangler, Arnold, and Mudd, the findings and sentences are as follows: — WILaughliu's Sentence. Fifth. Michael O'Laughlin.— Finding of the specification guilty, except the words thereof, as follows:— And in the words thereof as follows:— And in the further prosecution of the conspiracy afore said, and of its murderous and treasonable pur poses aforesaid, on the nights of the 13th and 14th of April, 1865, at Washington City, and within the military department, and military lines aforesaid, the said Michael O'Laughlin did there and then lie in wait for Ulysses S. Grant, then Lieutenant-General and Commander of the armies of the United States, with intent then and there to kill and murder the said Ulysses S. Grant, of said words not guilty, and except combining, confederating and conspiring with Edward Spangler, of this not guilty. Of the charge, guilty, except combining, confede rating and conspiring with Edward Spangler; of this not guilty. Sentence.— The Commission sentence O'Laugh- in to be imprisoned at hard labor for life. Spangler's Sentence. Sixth. Finding.— Edward Spangler, of the specification, not guilty, except as to the words "thesaid Edward Spangler, on said 14th day of April, A. D. 1865, at about the same hour ofthat day, as aforesaid, within said military depart ment and the military lines aforesaid, did aid and abet him (meaning John Wilkes Booth) in making his escape after the said Abraham Lin coln had been murdered in manner aforesaid," and of these words, guilty. Ofthe charge not guilty, but guilty of having feloniously and traitorously aided and abetted John Wilkes Boothin making his escape after having killed and murdered Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, he, the said Edward Spangler, at the time of aiding and abet ting as aforesaid, well knowing that the said Abraham Lincoln, President as aforesaid, had been murdered by the said John Wilkes Booth as aforesaid. The Commission sentenced Span gler to hard labor for six years. Arnold's Sentence. Seventh. Samuel Arnold Of the specifica tions guilty, except combining, confederating, and conspiring with Edward Spangler, of this not guilty. Of the charge guilty, except com bining, confederating and conspiring with Ed ward Spangler, of this not guilty. The Commis sion sentenced him to imprisonment at hard labor for life. Dr. Mndd's Sentence. Eighth. Samuel A. Mudd.— Of the specification guilty, except combining, confederating and conspiring with Edward Spangler; of this not guilty; and excepting receiving and entertain ing and harboring and concealing said Lewis Payne, John H. Surratt, Michael O'Laughlin. George A. Atzeroth, Mary E. Surratt and Samuel Arnold, of this not guilty. Ofthe charge guilty, except combining, con federating and conspiring with Edward Span gler. of this not guilty. The Commission sen tenced Mudd to be imprisoned at hard labor for life. The President's order in these cases is as fol lows:— It is further ordered that the prisoners, Sa muel Arnold, Samuel A. Mudd, and Miohael O'Laughlin, be confined at hard labor in the Penitentiary at Albany, New York, during the period designated in their respective sentences. Andkew Johnson, President. Washington, July 6.— The announcement and findings of the Military Commission in the cases of the conspirators, made to-day about noon, -completely absorbed public attention during the remainder of the day. Scarcely anything else was talked of in the streets, hotels and in every place where citizens mostly con gregate. The general sentiment seemed to justify the findings of the Commission, but the short pe riod of time allowed tne prisoners between the announcement of the sentence and their exe cution did not generally appear to meet the public approval. This, however, is in accord ance with the practice of courts-martial, sen tences in such cases being executed almost im mediately after the findings are officially pub lished. TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 205 Judge Holt witb tne President. The President having nearly recovered from his indisposition, yesterday invited Judge Ad vocate-General Holt to the White House, and after mature deliberation, the President ap proved the findings aud sentences in each case as rendered by the Commission. ; Tne Sentences Read to tbe Prisoners. About noon to-day General Hancock, who is charged with the execution of the sentences, proceeded to the Penitentiary, and in company ¦with Major-General Hartranft visited the cell of each prisoner and informed each what ver dict had been rendered. No one was present at this interview but the two Generals and the turnkey. Mrs. Snrratt, On learning her fate, was extremely depressed, and wept bitterly. She was alone, her daughter having left her a short time before, not know ing the sentence was to be announced to her mother to-day. Payne. Seemed to regard it as a foregone conclusion. and manifested little or no emotion. He has evidently nerved himself to meet his death with firm resolution. Atzerotb Was violently agitated and almost paralyzed with fear. Ho evidently hoped for a different result, but it is difficult to see how he couldhave expected it to have been otherwise. Harold Listened to the reading of the order in his case with boyish indifference, but soon after became impressed witnHhe solemnity of his situation and appeared more serious, asking that his sisters might be allowed to visit him. Payne asks for a Baptist Clergyman. Payne asked that Dr. Stracker, a Baptist clergyman of Baltimore, be sent for, which was done, and that gentleman arrived here this evening, and is in attendance upon the prisoner. Mrs. Snrratt's, Spiritual Advisers. Mrs. Surratt asked that Fathers Walter and Wiget, Catholic priests of Baltimore, be sent for. Her wish was immediately complied with, and both the clergymen arrived this evening, and were admitted to her cell. Rev. Dr. Butler Attends Atzerotb. Atzeroth could name no clergyman he wished to attend him; but upon General Hartranft naming Rev. Mr. Butler, a Lutheran clergyman of Washington city, the prisoner desired he might be sent for, and he was in attendance upon the prisoner early this afternoon. ¦- Harold's Sisters Visit Hi an. Five of Harold's sisters visited him this after noon at the prison and the scene was truly dis tressing. After they left him tbey wept bitterly, in the entrance room down stairs. Two are grown ladies and the others young misses. But they all seemed to realize the dreadful situation of their brother. One of themjbrought a small basket of cakes and little delicacies for the prisoner, which was left in charge of General Hartranft to be ex amined before being given to him. One of the elder sisters sat down and wrote a note to her brother, which was also left in charge of General Hartranft to give Harold. Tbe Scaffold Is being built this afternoon, in the south yard ofthe prison, and will be large enough to exe cute all at one time. The coffins and burial clothes are being prepared this afternoon and evening at the arsenal.A False Enmor. An Impression appears to prevail throughout thecity that Mrs. Surratt will not be executed, that the President will commute her sentence to imprisonment. In less than an hour after the findings had been announced this rumor was on the street, and it was asserted .that many who had been most strenuous in asking for severe punishment upon the conspirators were willing to unite in an effort to have the sentence in Mrs. Surratt's case changed to impjsonment. This rumor was wide spread, but had no foundation in fact, The wish was evidently father to the thought. No Executive Clemency. Harold's sisters'called at the White House this afternoon, pleading for mercy, and Father Wklker and Mr. Aiken, one of Mrs. Surratt's counsel, also called on behalf of Mrs. Surratt, but the President declined to see any of them, and referred them all to Judge Holt. It would seem to be the determination of the President to decline interfering in the matter, and there is no doubt but all those condemned to death will be executed to-morrow, Mrs. Surratt among the number. Aiken says he has some after-discovered tes timony to offer, favorable to her case. But it is not probable the President will relent to-mor row. Payne, Atzeroth, Harold and Mrs. Surratt are hung ! Washington, July 9, 1865.— To-day the last scene of the terrible tragedy of the 14th of April took place. Lewis Payne, David B.Harold, George A. Atzeroth, and Mary E. Surratt, the ringleaders in the murderous plot to assassinate the heads of the Government, and throw the land into anarchy and confusion, paid the penalty of their crime upon the gallows. The execution was comparatively a private one. The following is the form or order which was impera tively required to secure admission to the scene of the execution :— Head-quarters, Middle Military Division, "Washington, D. C, July 7, 1865.— Major-General J. F. Hartranft, Military Governor of Military Prisons:— Admit — - , Beporterot The Philadelphia In quirer, to the Military. Prison this day. WINFIELD S. HANCOCK, Major-General Volunteers Commanding. On the reverse was written "between 10 and i P. M." Each pass was registered with the rank and station of the officer and the paper to which the representative belonged. Only one hundred were issued, and one-fourth of these were to representatives of the press. Over.a thousand applications were made to General Hancock for passes from various sources, but he conducted the whole affair with the most commendable propriety, and squelched completely the "Secesh" sympathizers who wished to witness the execution. Those who came from mere personal curiosity were all denied. TUB© Weather. Tne snn shone with its intensest rays, and had it not been for a breeze at intervals the thermometer would have stood at 100. EarHy in the Morning. At as early an hour as eight A.M. people commenced to wend their woy down to the prison, and the boats to Alexandria, which ran close by the jail, were crowded all dav by those who took the trip in hopes-of catching a glimpse ofthe gallows, or of the execution, but it was alTin vain. The only position outside of the jail that could be used as an observatory, was the large building upon the leit side ofthe Arsenal, which had about fifty spectators upon it, who had a good view of the whole. The Array Officers. Between nine and ten o'clock in the morning the three ante-rooms of the prison, on the first floor, were thronged with army officers, principally of Hancock's corps, anxious to get a view of the execution from tbe windows, trom which the scaffold conld be plainly seen. The Newspaper Reporters i Soon began to congregate there also, and in a few minutes not less than a score were in attendance, waning to pick up the smallest item of interest. No newspaper man was allowed to seethe prisoners in their cells before they were led out to execution, and General Hartranft was very decided on this point. The Clergy. "While waiting here for over two hours, the clergy men passed in and out through the heavily riveted doors leading to the prisoners' cells, which creaked heavily on its hinges as it swung to and fro, and the massive key was turned upon the inner side with a heavy sound as a visitor was admitted within its por- BErs. Surratt's Daughter Passed Into the ante-room, accompanied by a lady, who remained seated, while the daughter rapidly en tered the hall, and, passing through the heavy door, is soon in tho corridor where her mother is incarcerated 206 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. The Counsel for the Prisoners. Messrs. Cox, Doster, Aiken and Clampitt, counsel for'the prisoners. are specially passed in lorashort interview, and in a few minutes they return againto the ante-rooms. Timefliesrapidly, and no1 a moment is to be lost. No use.ess words are to be spoken, but earnest, terse sentences are Irom necessity employed when conversing wi h .the doomed prisoners, whose lives are now measured" by minutes. Aiken,and Clampiit are both here. They walk im patiently up and down the room, whispering a word to each other as to the prospects of Mrs. Surratt's be ing reprieved through the operations of the habeas corpus. which, Aiken confidently tells us, has been granted by Justice Wylie, and from which he antici pates favorable results. Strange infatuation! It was the last straw to which, like drowning men, they clutched with the fond hope that it was to rescue their client from her imminent peril. Atzerotb in His Cell. Atzeroth passetl tbe night previous to the execution without any particular manifestations. He prayed and cried alternately, but made no other noise that at tracted the attention of his keeper, On the morning of the execution he sat most of the time on the floor of his cell in his shirtsleeves. A mysterious Visitant. He was attended by a lady dressed in deep black, who carried a prayer book, and who seemed more exercisediu spirit than the prisoner himself. Who the lady was could not be ascertained. She left him at half-past twelve o'clock, and exhibited great emotion at parting. During the morning Atzeroth was greatly composed, and spent part of the time in earnest conversation with his spiritual adviser, Rev. Mr. Butler, of St. Paul's Lu theran Clrarcb, Washington. He occupied cell No. 151 ou the ground floor to-day, which was directly in view of the yard, where he could-see the gathering crowd and soldiery, although he could not seethe scaffold. He sat in the corner of his cell on his bed, and when his spiritual adviser would go out for a few minutes and leave his testament in his hands, his eyes would be dropped to it in a moment, and occasionally wander with a wild look towards the open window in front of his cell. His Costume. He wore nothing but a white linen shirt and a grey Eair of pants. The long irons upon his hands, which e had worn during the trial, were not removed. A Partial Confession. A.tzeroth made a partial confession to the Rev. Mr. Butler, a few hours- before his execution. He stated that he took a room at the Kirkwood House on Thurs day afternoon, and was engaged in endeavoring to get a pass to Bichmond. He tben beard the President was to be taken to the theatre and there captured. He said heunderstood that Booth was to rent the theatre ior the purpose of carrying out the plot to capture the then President. He stated that Harold brought the p:stol and knife to the Kirkwood House, and that he (Atzeroth) had nothing to do with the attempted assas sination of Andrew Johnson. Harold to Have Murdered Mr. Johnson. Booth intended that Harold should assassinate Johnson, and he wanted him, Atzeroth. to back him. up and give bim courage. Booth thought that Harold had more pluck than Atzeroth. The Original Plot. He alluded to the meeting at the restaurant aboutthe middle of March. He said Booth, Harold, Payne. Arnold and himself were present and it was tben con certed that/Mr.Lincoln should be captured and taken to Richmond. They heard that Lincoln was to visit a camp near Washington, and the plan was that they should pro ceed there and capture the coach and horses contain ing Lincoln, and run him through Prince George's county aud Old Fields to G. B. There they were to leave the coach and horses and place the Presiflent'in a buggy which Harold would have.-on hand, and thus convey him to a boat to be in read in ess, and run him by some means to Richmond. He denies that he was m favor of assassinating Lincoln, but was willing to as sist in his capture. His I'Ino wlcdgrcof the Assassination. He stated, however, that he knew Lincoln was to be assassinated about hall-past eight o'clock on the even ing of the^occurrence, but was afraid to make it known as he feared Booth would kill him if hedid so. The Influence of Slavery. He said that slavery caused his sympathies to be with the South. He had heard a sermon preached which stated that a curse on the negro race had turned them black. Healways hated the negroes, and thought they should be kept in ignorance. Booth had promised him that if their plan succeeded for the capture of Lincoln they should all be rich men, and they would become great. The prisoners would all be exchanged, and the independence of the South wou'd be recognized and their cause be triumphant. He had never received any money as yet. Eleven O'clock. The crowd increases. Reporters are scribbling In dustriously. A suppressed whisper is audible all over the room and the hall as the hour draws nearer, and the preparations begin to be more demonstrative. The rumbling sound of the trap as it falls in the course ofthe experiments which are being made to test it, and to prevent any unfortunate accident occur ring at the critical moment, is heard through the win dows, and all eyes are Involuntarily turned in that direction, for curiosity is excited to the highest pitch to view the operations of the fatal machinery. There are two or three pictorial papers represented. One calmly makes a drawing of the scaffold for the next issue of his paper, and thus the hours till noon passed away. Twelve O'clock. The bustle increases. OfHcers are running to and fro calling for orderlies and giving orders. General Har tranft is trying to answer twenty questions at ouce from as many different persons. The sentry in the hall is be coming angry because thecrowd will'keep intruding on his beat, when suddenly a, buggy at the door, announ ces the Arrival of General Hancock. He enters the room hurriedly, takes General Hart ranft aside, and a few words pass between them in a low tone, to which Hartranft nods acquiescence: then. in a louder voice. Hancock says. "Get ready, General- I want to have everything put in readiness as soon' as possible." This was tl« signal for the interviews ot the clergymen, relatives and friends of the pri soners to cease, and lor the doomed to prepare for execution. The bustle increases. Mr. Aiken approaches Gen. Hancock and a few minutes' conversation passes be tween them. Aiken's countenance changes percep tibly at Gen. Hancock's words. The reason is plain; there is no hope for Mrs. Surratt. Tne habeas corpus movement, irom which he expected so much, has tailed, and Aiken, in a voice tremulous with emotion. said to your correspondent, "Mrs. Surratt will be The bright hopes he had cherished had all vanished. and the dreadful truth stood before him in all its hor- 501i- S'S"?1"' t00' t,u General Hancock arrived, in dulged the hope that the habeas corpus would effect a respite for three or four days. ©ne O'clock. Three or four of Harold's sisters, all in one chorus of weeping, come through the prison door into the hall. They had left their brother and spoken to him the last words, and heard li is voice for the last time Ai5,fteen, minutes after one o'clock General Hart ranft blandly iniorrns the "press gang" to be in readi ness for the prison doors to he opened, when they can pass into the prison yard, from whance a good view of a??«pf?oeSASLoa??nibe,o::'talnea a3it Passes by to the nS^°f'nd;v,£b01£tll-A-M-tne P^on yard was thrown open to those having passes, and about fifty entered. ine first object in view was . The Scaffold, Which was erected at the northeast corner of the Peni tentiary yard, and consisted of a simple wooden struc ture of very primitive appearance, faced about due west. The platform was elevated about twelve feet Irom the ground, and was about twenty feet square Attached to the main platform were =h"^<=. The Drops, &c, Two in number, on which the criminals stood. At the moment of execution these drops were connected with the main platform by means of large hinges, lour to each drop. ® ' The drops were supported by a post which rested on a heavy piece of timber placed on the ground, and so arranged that two soldiers stationed at the rear of tuescaffold instantaneously detached the supports from their positions by means of pressing two poles! w^c& i).c?uSle(i h. norlzoutal position, the action of tWea^hViro3pds8toifihlf.PrOP30f the SOaaokl ™* P«mi<- The gallows proper was divided into two parts by means of a perpendioular piece of timber, resting on l^nS'fF0^ and reacunlng UP «o the cross-beam of the gallows. 1 wo ropes hung on either side of the piece of timber mentioned. They were wound around the cross-beam, and contained large knots and nooses at ".ie'owerend The platform was ascended by means ota flight of steps, thirteen in number, erected at the rear of the i scaffold, and guarded on f either side by ¦£ railing, which also extended around the platform lhe platform was sustained by nine heavy uprights about which rose the two heavy pieces of timber which supported the cross-beam ana constituted the gallows, the entire platform.was capable of holding conveniently about thirty people, and was about naif full at the time of the execution. TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 207 Tbe Executioners. "Wm. Coxhell. D. F. Shoupe, G. F. Taylor and F.B. Haslett, all of Company F, Fourteenth Veteran Be- Berves were detailed to act as executioners. They were all fine stalwart specimens of Union soldiers and did their work well. The rope was furnished from the Navy Yard, and was one-and-a-half inches in circum ference and composed of twenty strands. Tbe Graves, Four in number, were dug close to the scaffold and next to the prison wall. They were four in number, and were about three feet and a half deep, lu a dry clayey soil, and about seven feet long and throe wide. Four pine boxes, similar to those used for packing guns in, stood between the graves and the scaffold. These were for coffins, both being in full view of tho prisoners as they emerged Irom their cells, and before them until they commenced the dreadful ascont of those thirteen steps. About a thousand soldiers were inthe yard and upon the high wall around it, which is wide enough for sen tries to patrol it. The sun's rays made it very oppres sive, and the walls kept off the little breeze that was stirring. There was no shade, and men huddled to gether along the walls and around the pump to discuss with one another the prospect of a reprieve or delay for Mrs. Surratt. But lew hoped ior it, though some were induced by Mrs. Surratt's counsel to believe she wou Id not be hung to-day. When one of them came out and saw the four ropes hanging irom the beam he ex claimed to one ot the soldiers, "My God, they are not going to hang all four, are they?" But th^re are times when it is mercy to hang crimi nals, and that time was drawing nigh, it seemed, for those who have been used for years to apologizing for the Bebellion. and its damning acts, to be brought to believe tbat any crime is to bo punished. Of such ma terial were the prisoners' counsel. El e ven - 1 b i riy. The drops, at eleven-thirty, are tried with three hun dred pound weights upon them, to see if they will work. One falls all right; one hangs part way down, and the hatchet and saw were brought into play. The next time they were all right. The rattle echoes around the walls, it reaches the prisoners' cellsclose by. and pene trates their inmost recesses. All is quiet in the yard save the scuffle ofthe military, and the passing to and fro of a few civilians. Twelve-forty. Four arm chairs are brought out and placed upon the scaffold, and the moving around of General Hartranft indicates the drawing near of the time. The news paper correspondents and reporters are admitted to a position about thirty feet from the gallows, and about one o'clock and ten minutes, the heavy door in front of the cells is swung upon its hinges for the hundredth time within an hour, and a few reporters, with Gen. Hancock, pass in and through to the yard, and the big door closes with a slam behind them. All take posi tions to get a good view. Gen. Hancock tor the last time takes a survey of the preparations, and being sa tisfied that everything is ready, he re-enters the pri son building, and in a few minutes Tbe Solemn Procession Marched down the steps of the back door down into the yard, in the following order:— The condemned, Mrs. Surratt, supported by Lieutenant-Colonel Mc- Call, Two-hundredth Pennsylvania Regiment, on her left 3ide, and Sergeant W. B. Kenney, Company A, Twelfth Veteran Beserve Corps; Fathers Walker and "Weigel walking together. Harold, accompanied by Sergeant Thomas, Company B, Eighteenth Veteran Beserve Corps, and an officer attached to Col. Baker s Detective force. Payne, accompanied by Sergeant Grover, Company D, Eighteenth Veteran Beserve Corps, and one of Colonel Baker's detectives. Atzeroth, attended by Sergeant White, Fourteenth Veteran Beserve Corps, and one of Baker's detectives. Mrs. Surratt, on emerging from the back door, cast her eyes upward upon the scaffold for a few moments with a look of curiosity, combined with dread. One glimpse, and her eyes tell to the ground, and she walked along mechanically, her head drooping, and if she had not been suppoited would have fallen. Appearance and Demeanor of Mrs. Sur ratt. She ascended the scaffold, and was led to an arm chair in which she was seated. An umbrella was held over her bvthe two holy fathers, to protect her from the sun. whose rays shot down like the blasts from a ilery furnace. She was attired in a black bom bazine dress, black alpaca bonnet, -with black veil, which she wore over her face till she was seated on the chair jjuring the reading ofthe order ior the execu tion by Generll Hartranft, the priests held a small crucifix beiore her, which she kissed fervently several times. She first looked around at the scene before her, then closed her eyes and seemed engaged in silent prayer. The reading and the announcement of the clergymen in behalf of the other prisoners having been made, Colonel McCall, assisted by the other officers, pro ceeded to remove her bonnet, pinion her elbows, and tie strips of cotton stuff around her dress below the knees. This done, the rope was placed around her neok and her face covered with a white cap reaching down to the shoulders. When they were pinioning her arms she turned her head and made some remarks to the officers in a low tone, which could not be heard. It appeared they had tied her elbows too tight, for they slackened the bandage slightly, and then, awaited the final order. All the prisoners were prepared thus at the same time, and the preparations of each were completed at about the same moment, so that when Mrs. Surratt was thus pinioned she stood scarcely ten seconds, supported by those standing near her, when General Hartranft gave The SSg-nal, By clapping his hands twlc6 for both drops to fall, and as soon as the second and last signal was given both f 11, and Mrs. Surratt, with a jerk, fell to the full length of the rope. It was done as quick as lightning. She was leaning over when the drop fell, aud this gave a swinging motion to her body, which lasted several minuLes before it assumed a perpendicular po sition. Her death was instantaneous; she died with out a struggle. The only muscular movement discern- ablewas a slight c ntraction ofthe left arm, which she seemed to try to disengage from behind her as the drop fell. After being suspended thirty minutes, she was cut down and placed tin a square wooden box or coffin, in the clothes in which she died, and was interred in the prison yard. The rope madoaclean cut around her neck fully an inch in diameter, which was black and discolored with bruised blood. The cap was not taken offheriace, and she was laid in the coffin with it on, and thus has passed away from the face of the earth Mary E. Surratt. Her body.it is understood, will be given to her family for burial, Tbe Bearing- of Payne on tbe Scaffold. Payne died as he has lived, at least as he has done since his arrest, bold, calm and thoroughly composed. The only tremor exhibited by this extraordinary man during the terrible ordeal of the execution was an in voluntary vibration ofthe muscles of his legs after the fatal drop fell. Hewasnext in order to Mrs. Surratt in the procession of the criminals from their cells to the place ot execution. He was supported on one side by his spiritual ad viser and on the other by a soldier, although he needed no such assistance, for he walked erect and upright and retained the peculiar piercing expression ofthe eye that has ever characterized him. He was dressed in a blue flannel shirt and pants of thesame material. His brawny neck was entire^ exposed, and he wore a new straw hat. He ascended the steps lead ing to the scaffold with the greatest ease, and took his seat on the drop with as much sangfroid as though he was sitting down to dinner. Once or twice he addressed a few words in an under tone to persons close by him, and occasionally glanced at the array of soldiers and civilians spread out beiore him. A puff of wind blew off his hat, and he instantly turned around to see where it went to. When it waa recovered and handed to him, he intimated by ges turing that he no longer required it, and it was laid aside. During the reading of the sentence by General Hart ranft, just previous to the execution, he calmly lis tened, and once or twice glanced upwards„at the gal lows as if inspecting its construction. He submitted to the process of binding his limbs very quietly, and watched the operation with attention. His spiritual adviser, Bev. Dr. Gillette, advanced, a few minutes previous to thp execution, and made some remarks in Payne's behalf. He thanked the different officials for the attention and kindness be stowed on Payne, and exhorted the criminal in a few impassioned words to give his entiro thoughts to his futurestate. Paynestood immovable as a statue when the drop fell. Although next to Harold who died the hardest, he exhibited more bodilycontortions than the others while suspended. While the noose was being adjusted to his neck Payne raised his head and evi dently desired to assist the executioner in that delicate operation. The lLast Moments of Harold. Probably no one ofthe criminals felt as great a dread of the terrible ordeal through which they were to pass as young Harold. From the time he left his cell until his soul was sent into the presence ofthe Almighty, he exhibited the greatest emotion, and seemed to tho roughly realize his wretched condition. His face wore an indefinable expression of anguish, and at times he trembled violently. He seemed to desire to engage in conversation with those around him while sitting in the chair awaiting execution, and his spiritual adviser, 208 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. Bev. Mr. Old, was assiduous in his attentions to the wretched man. Harold was dressed in a black cloth coat and light pants, and wore a white shirt without any collar; he wore also a black slouch hat, which he retained on his head until it was removed to make room for the white cap. At times he looked wildly around and his face had a haggard, anxious, inquiring expression. When the drop fell he exhibited more tenacity of life than any of the others, and he endeavored several times to draw himself up as if fur the purpose of relieving himself Irom the rope by which he was suspended. Atzerotb on the Scaffold. He ascended the steps of the scaffold without diffi culty and took his seat at the south end ofthe drop without exhibiting any particular emotion. He was dressed in a dark grey coat and pants and black vest and white linen shirt without any collar; on his feet he wore a pair of woolen slippers and socks. He sat in such a position that be could see the profiles of his fellow prisoners, and hehad his bands pinioned be hind him. He wore no hat, had a white handkerchief placed over his head, with a tuft of hair protruding from it and spreading over his forehead. Directly behind him stood his-splritual adviser, who held an umbrella over him. to keep off the burning rays of the sun. During the reading ofthe sentence by General Hartranft he kept perfectly quiet, but his face wore an expression of unutterable woe, and he listened attentively. He wore a thin moustache and small goatee and his face was pale and sallow. Once and once only he glanced around at the assembled throng, and occasionally muttered incoherent sen tences, but he talked, while on the scaffold, to no one immediately around him. Just before his execution his spiritual adviser. Mr. Butler, advanced and stated that Atzeroth desired to return his sincere thanks to Generai Hartranft and the other officials for the many acts of kindness extended towards him. He then called on God to forgive George A. Atzeroth for his many sins, and, turning to Atze roth, reminded him that while the wages of sin were death, tbat whomsoever placed their hope in the Lord Jesus Christ were not forgotten. He hoped that God would grant him a full and free forgiveness, and ended by saying '-May the Lord God have mercy on you and grant you his peace." The handkerchief was tben taken from his head, and he stood up, facing the assembled audience, di rectly alongside of the instrument of his death. His knees slightly trembled, and his legs were bent for ward. He stood ior a few moments the very em bodiment of wretchedness, and then spoke a few words in an undertone to General Hartranft, after which he shook hands with his spiritual adviser and a few others near him; while he was being secured with bands tied around his legs and arms he kept mutter ing to himself as if engaged in silent prayer. Suddenly he broke forth with the words, "Gentle men, beware who you— " and then stopped as if with emotion; as tbe white cap was being placed over his head, hecried. Then he said, "Good bye, gentlemen, who are beiore me now, may we all meet in the other world ; God take me now." He muttered something loud enough for them close by him to hear, just as the drop fell, evidently not anticipating such an event at that moment. He died without apparent pain, and his neck must have been instantly broken. Alter hanging a few seconds his stomach heaved considerably, and subsequently his legs quivered a little. His death appeared to be the easiest of any of the criminals, with the exception of Mrs. Surratt, who did not apparently suffer at all. After hanging a- half an hour, Atzeroth's body was taken down, it being the first one lowered, and an examination made by Sur geons Otis, Woodward and Porter. Incidents at the White House. About half-past eight o'clock this morning, Miss Sur ratt, accom panied by a female friend, again visited the White House, having been there last evening for the purpose of obtaining an interview with thePresident. President Johnson having given orders that he would receive no one to-day, the door-keeper stopped Miss Surratt at the loot of tbe steps leading up to the Presi dent's office, and would not permit her to proceed further. She then asked permission to see General Mussey. the President's Military Secretary, who promptly answered the summons, and came down stairs where Miss Surratt was standing. As soon as the General made his appearance, Miss Surratt threw herself upon her knees before him, catching him by the coat, with loud sobs and streaming eyes, implored him to assist her in obtaining a hearing with the President. General Mussey, in as tender a manner as possible, informed Miss Surratt that he could not comply with her request, as President Johnson's orders were im perative, and he would receive no one. Upon General Mus&ey's returning to his office Miss Surratt threw herself upon the stair steps, where she remained a considerable length of time, sobbing aloud in the greatest anguish, protesting her mother's inno cence, and imploring every one who came near her to intercede in her mother's behalf. While thus weeping , she declared her mother was too good and kind to be 1 guilty of the enormous crime of which she was con victed, and asserted that if her mother was put to death she wished to die also. The scene was heart-rending, and many of those who witnessed it, including a number of hardy soldiers, were moved to tears. Miss Surratt having become quiet was finally persuaded to take a scat in the East Boom, and here she remained for several hours, jump ing up from her seat each time the front door of the mansion was opened, evidently in hopesof seeingsome one enter who could be of service to her in obtaining the desired interview with the President, or that they were the bearers of good news to her. Two of Harold's sisters, aressed in full mourning and neaviiy veiled, made their appearance at the White House shortly after Miss Surratt, for the pur pose of interceding with the President in behalf ot" their brother. Failing to see the President, they addressed a note to Mrs. Johnson, and expressed a hope that she would not turn a deaf ear to their pleadings. Mrs. Johnson being quite sick it was thought expedient by the ushers not to deliver the note, when, as a last expedient, the ladies asked permission to forward a note to Mrs. Patterson, the President's daughter, which privilege was not granted, as Mrs. Patterson is also quite indisposed to-day. Mow tbe Prisoners Si>f*nt the 3£ig-bt. Payne, during the night, slept well for about three hours, the other portion of the night being spent in conversation with Bev. Dr. Gillette, of the First Bap tist Church, who offered bis services as soon as he was informed of the sentence. Payne, without showing any particular emotion, paid close attention to the ad vice of Dr. Gillette. Up to ten o'clock this morning, no relations or friends had been to see Payne. Atzeroth was very nervous throughout the night, and did not sleep, although he made several attempts. His brother was to see him yesterday afternoon, and again this morning. His aged mother, who arrived during the night, was also present. The meeting of the condemned man and his mother was very affect ing, and moved some ot the officers of the prison, who have become used to trying scenes, to tears. Bev. Dr. Butler, of the Lutheran Church, was sent for last night, and has been all night ministering to Atzeroth. Harold was visited yesterday by Bev. Mr. Olds, of Christ Episcopal Church, and five of his sis ters, and this morning the minister and the entire family of seven sisters were present with him. Ha rold slept very well several hours during the night. Miss Surratt was with her mother several hours last night, as also Bev. Fathers Wiget and Walter, and Mr. Brophy. who were also present this morning. She slept very little if any, and required considerable at tention, suffering with cramps and pains the entire night, caused by her nervousness. The breakfast was sent to the prisoners at the usual hour this morning, but none eat, excepting Payne, who ate heartily. disposition of the Military. Major-General Hartranft made the following dispo sitions of the military on the occasion:— The Sixth Begiment Veteran Volunteers, Major Lawner, were stationed on Four-and-a-half street, from the gate of Penitentiary grounds to Pennsylvania avenue; the First Begiment Veteran Volunteers, Colonel Bond, were on duty inside the Penitentiary yard, and formed the guard around the gallows. The Fourth Begiment Veteran Volunteers were stationed on the wall surrounding tbe yard, and the Eighth Begiment Veteran Volunteers, Colonel Price, werestationed along the Potomac Biver, to prevent the landing of boats on the shore of the Penitentiary grounds. The Sixteenth New York Cavalry were also on duty near the Penitentiary building. About three thousand troops were employed in eoiarding the build ing and its surrounding. The Execution Ground Was a large square inclosure, called the Old Peniten tiary Jail yard, directly south of the Old Penitentiary building. It comprises probably three acres of ground, surrounded by a brick wall, about twenty feet in height. This wall is capped with whitestone and surmounted with iron stakes and ropes to prevent the guard from falling off while patrolling the tops of the wall. The Sixth Begiment Veteran Volunteers were formed on the summit of the wall during the execution, and they presented ouite a picturesque appearance in their ele vated position. The gallows occupied a position inthe angle of the inclosure formed by the east wall and tbe Peniten tiary building on the north. The First Begiment Veteran Volunteers were posted around the gallows. two sides being formed by the east wall and the Peni^ tentiary building. The Spectators, About two hundred iu number, were congregated di rectly in front ofthe gallows, tbe soldiers forming a barrier between them and the place of execution. The criminals were led to the scaffold from a small door about one hundred feet from the place of execution. But for a small projection that runs south of the Peni- TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. 209 tentiary building, the gallows would be in plain view otthe prisoners' cells, which are all on the first floor of tbe building. It was a noticeable incident of the execution that scarcely any Government officials or citizens were present, the spectators being nearly all connected with the trial in some capacity, or else representatives of the press. A Heart-rending1 Scene. By permission of the authorities, the daughter of Mrs. Surratt passed the night previous to the execu tion with her mother, in her cell. The entire interview was of a very affecting character. The daughter re mained with her mother until a short time before the execution, and when the time came for separation the screams of anguish that burst from tho poor girl could be distinctly heard all over the execution ground. During the morning the daughter proceeded to tbe Metropolitan Hotel, and sought an interview with General Hancock. Finding him, she implored in piti able accents to get a reprieve for her mother. Tbe General, of course, had no power to grant or obtain such a favor, and informed the distressed girl in as gentle a manner as possible. General Hancock, with the kindness that alwavs characterizes his actions apart from the stern duties of his noble profession, did his best to assuage the men tal anguish of the grief-stricken girl. The Remaining1 Prisoners, Arnold, Dr. Mudd, O'Laughlin and Soangler have not yet been informed of their "respective sentences, nor do they know that their companions have been executed. Tbe After Discovered Testimony. The alleged important after discovered testimony which Aiken, counsel for Mrs. Surratt, stated would prove her innocence.wassubmitted to Judge Advocate- General Holt last night, and after a careful examina tion, he failed to discover anything in it having abear- ingon the case. This was communicated to the Presi dent and doubtless induced hira to decline to interfere in the execution of Mrs. Surratt. Scenes at the Surratt House. The residence of Mrs. Surratt, on H street, north, near Sixth, remained closed yesterday after the an nouncement of her fate bad become.known. In the evening but a single dim light shone from one of therooms, while within the bouse all was as quiet as death up to about eight o'clock, at which hour Miss Annie E. Surratt, who has been in constant attend ance upon her mother, drove up to the door in a hack, accompanied by a gentleman. She appeared to be perfectly crushed with grief, and as she alighted from the carriage some ladies standing near were moved to tearaof sympathy with the un fortunate girl whose every look and action betrayed her anguish. Miss Surratt, after gaining admittance to the house fainted several times, causing great bustle and excite ment among the inmates, who were untiring in their efforts to console the almost heart-broken young lady. From early in the evening until a late hour at night, hundreds of persons, old and young, male and female, visited the vicinity of Mrs. Surratt's residence, stop ping upon the opposits side ofthe street, glancing over with anxious and inquiring eyes upon the house in which the conspirators met, commenting upon the fate of the doomed woman, and the circumstances con nected tnerewith. During the evening not less than five hundred per sons visited the spot. THE HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION. At about 1% o'clock this morning the counsel for Mrs. Surratt applied to Judge Wylie, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, for a writ of habeas corpus, to be directed to Major-General W. S. Hancock, to bring into Court the body of the prisoner. The Petition. The following is a copy of the petition:— To the Hon. Andrew Wylie, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court ofthe District of Columbia.— The petition of Mary E. Surratt, by her counsel, F. A. Ai ken and John W. Clampitt. most respectfully repre sents unto your Honor, that on or about the 17th day of April, A. D. 1865, your petitioner was arrested by themilitary authorities of the United States, under tbe charge of complicity with the murder ot Abraham Lincoln, late President of the United States, and has eversincethat time been and is now confined on said charge under and by virtue of the said military power of the United States, and is in the special cusiocly of Maior-General W. S.Hancock, commanding Middle Military Division; that since her said arrest your peti tioner bas been tried, against her solemn protest. bv a military commission, unlawfully and with out warrant, convened by the Secretary of War, as will appear fro j paragraph 9, special orders, No. 211, dated War Department. Adjutant-tJeneral's Office, Washington May the Cth, 18i>5, and by said Commission, notwithstanding her formal plea to the jurisdiction of the said Commission, is now unlawfully and unjustifiably detained in custody and sentenced to be banged on to-morrow, July 7, 1865, between the hours of ten A. M. and two P. M.; your petitioner shows unto your Honor that at the time of the commission of the said offense she was a private citizen uf the United States, and in no manner connected with the military auihority of thesame, andthat said offense was com mitted within the District of Columbia, said District beingjit the time within the lines of the armies of the United States, and not enemy's territory, or under the control of a military commander for the trial of civil causes. But on the contrary, your petitioner alleges that the said crime was an offence simply against tbe peace of the United States, properly and solely cogni zable under tbe Constitution aud laws- of the United States, by the Criminal Court of this Disirict, and which said court was and is now open for the trial of such crimes and offenses. Wherefore, inasmuchlas the said crime was only an offense against the peace of the United States, and not an act of war. inasmuch as your petitioner was a private citizen of the same, and not subject to military jurisdiction, or in any wise amena ble to military law; inasmuch as said District was the peaceful territory of the United States, and that all crimes comm Itted within such territory are, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, to be tried only before its criminal tribunals, with the right of public trial by jury. Inasmuch as said Commission was a Military Commission, organized and goverened by the laws of Military Court-Martial, and unlawfully convened without warrant or authority, andwhen she had not the right of public trial by jury as Ruarantied to her by the Constitution and laws of the United States, that, therefore, her detention and sentence are so with out warrant against positive law and unjustifi able: wherefore she prays your honor to grant unto her the United States, most gracious writ of habeas corpus commanding the said Major- General W. S. Hancock to produce before your Honor the body of your said petitioner, witb the cause and day of her said detentiou, to abide, &c. and she will ever prav. MABY E. PUBBATT, By Feedeeick A. Aiken, Jno. W. Clampitt. Indorsement hy the Conrt. Indorsed— "Let the writ issue as prayed, returnable before the Criminal Court of the District of Columbia, now sitting, at the hour of ten o'clock A. M., this seventh day of July, 18C5. " ANDBEW WYLIE, "A Justice of the Supreme Court of tbe District of Columbia, July. 7th. 1865." The writ was accordingly issued and at 8^ o'clock A. M. the Marshal returned the same served. The Mar shal reported that General Hancock had not yet ap peared and it was now past the hour for his appear ance. The District Attorney suggested certain objec tions to the proceedings. The counsel for Mrs. Surratt stated that if his client was guilty of any crime, it was cognizable by this Court, and not by a military tribunal. District Attor ney Carrlngton, after reading the certificate of the Marshal, setting forth that he had served the writ at half-past eight o'clock, said he was only to defend the act ofthe Marshal, and the duty required of him by direction ofthe Court, and he found that the Marshal had performed his duty. The Court said:— The case is now here on its merits on the petition ofthe party. This morning at an early hour I directed this writ of habeas corpus to issue. The writ was issued, and was served on General Hancock, who has the custody of Mrs. Surratt. the party on whose behalf the writ was obtained. The writ re quired him to have the body of Mrs. Surratt, with the cause of her detention, before this Court this morning at ten o'clock. He has neglected to obey the order of the Court, and the question now before us is. "what is the Court to do under the circumstances?" That is the only question before the Court at this time. Any discussion on the merits involved would now be out of place. The Court acknowledges that its powers are inadequate to meet the military power possessed by General Hancock. If the Court were to decide at this moment that General Hancock was in contempt the only process which it would issue would be an attachment lor the disregard of its authority. But why issue an attachment against the whole mih> 210 TRIAL OF THE ASSASSINS AT WASHINGTON. tary power of the United States? This Court acknow ledges tbat the laws are silent, and that it is without power in the premises, and therefore declines to make any order whatever. If there be a disposition on the part of tbe military power to respect the authority of the civil courts they will respect the writ which has already been served. If, on the other hand, it is their determination to treat the authority of this Court with contempt in this mat ter, they have the power and will to treat witb equal contempt any other process which the Court might order. The Court, therefore, must submit to the su preme physical force which now holds the custody of . the petitioner, and decline to issue an attachment or to make any other order in this case. General Hancock Appears. At 11J£ o'clock Major-General Hancock, to whom the writ was addressed, came into Court accompanied by Attorney-General Speed. The trial of Miss Mary Harris, charged with the murder of Mr. Burroughs, a clerk in the Treasury Department, which was then pending, was immediately suspended, when Attorney- General Speed addressed the Court as follows:— Address of Attorney-General Speed. May it please tbe Court:— In regard to the writ of ha beas corpus directed to General Hancock, I desire to say, by way of apology for his not sooner making a return, that the process was not served upon him until about breakfast time this morning, and that owing to his having a great many persons to see, a great many important matters requiring immediateattention, and his distance from the court house, he was not abla to get here at an earlier hour. I wish to assure the Court that no disrespect was in tended to it by tbe delay to which it has been una voidably subjected. The Court declined to make any order in the case. The Attorney-General and General Hancock, in obedience to the writ, makes the follow ing return:— Head-quaetees Middle Militaby Division, Washington, D. C, July 7, 1865.— To Hon. Andrew Wylie, Justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia : — I hereby acknowledge the service of the writ hereto attached, and return thesame, and respectfully say that the body of Mary E. Surratt is in my possession, under and by virtue of an order of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, for the purposes in said order expressed, a copy of which is hereto attached and made part of this return; and that I do not produce said body by reason of the order of the President of the United States, indorsed upon said writ, to which reference is hereby respectfully made, dated July 7, 1865. WINFIELD S. HANCOCK, Maj.-Gen. U. S. Vols., Commanding Middle Div. Tne President's Indorsement. Executive Office, July 7, 1865, 10 A. M.— To Major- General Wt. S. Hancock, Commander, &c— I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do hereby declare that the writ of habeas corpus has been here tofore suspended in such cases as; this, and I do hereby especially suspend this writ, and direct that yon pro ceed to execute theorder heretofore given upon the judgment- of the Military Commission, and you will give this order inreturn to the writ. ANDBEW JOHNSON, President. The Court.— This Court finds itself powerless to take any further action In the premises, and therefore de clines to make orders which would be vain for any practical purpose. As regards the delay, it having been fully accounted for, the Court has no fault to attach to the respondent in that respect. Attorney-General Speed.— It may not be out of order for me to say here, that this whole subject has, of course, had most earnest and anxious consideration of the Executive, and of the war making power of the Government. Every man upon reflection, and particularly every lawyer knows that war cannot be fought by due pro cess of law, and armies cannot be maintained by due process of law. There must be armies There must be battles: if war comes the law of war, and usage per mits battles to be fought, permits human life to be taken without the judgment of tbe court, and without the process ofthe court. It permits prisoners to be taken, and prisoners to be held, and your honor will not undertake to discharge them, although the Constifu- tutionsays that human lifeshall not liu t a ken, or roan be deprived of his liberty or property without due process of law. Conflict of necessity comes up when war comes between the Executive and the Judicial, if tbe war power or war does not transcend the civil. War Is made for the maintenance of the civil power, that is when peace comes for the purpose of giving us the benefit of the civil. This countrp is now in the midst of a great war, and the Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the United States was slain in the discharge of his duties, and if the armies ofthe United States cannot, under thelawa of war protect their Commander-in-Chief from assassi nation, and if the laws and usages of war cannot pro tect, by military law, the Commander-in-Chief from assassination and destruction, what has the Govern ment come to? The thing appears to me to be too plain for conside ration. But as your Honor has disposed of thecase, I only make these remarks for the purpose of satisfying your Honor that we have anxiously, and I think most maturely considered this matter, giving your Honor credit for having done what you regard to be your duty in this matter, and are very glad to hear that your Honor gives us credit for having done what we have done, and regarded to be our duty. The Court— The writ was applied for, and I had no authority to refuse to grant it. It is a writ dear and sacred to every lover of liberty, indispensable to the protection of citizens, and can only be constitutionally set aside in times of war and insurrection, when the public safety requires it, and in regard to offenses committed in connection with the army or the militia when called into active service. With reference to the merits of this case, which has occupied so much ofthe attention ofthe public, and in fact of the whole civilian world, it would be out of place for the Court to express any opinion. The case is not before it. The Court can only say that it has no doubt that the gentlemen connected with the Govern ment who have had the duty of conducting tbis trial, are truly convinced in their own minds as to the man ner in which they have performed their duties. I do not feel at liberty; I could not; I dared not refuse to grant the writ. The return which has been made to the writ is from the President of the United States, and declares that the writ of habeas corpus is to be suspended in this case as has been in other and similar cases. The Court has no further power in the case; if the Government desires to carry out its purpose in regard to the peti tioner, the Court cannot prevent it; and I do not know that it would be possible, ever hereafter. to bring the case for argument in this Court, for if the petitioner be executed this day, as designed, the body cannot be brought into Court, and therefore is an end to the case. The jurisdiction of this Court yields to the suspension ofthe writ ot habeas corpus from the Presi dent of the United States. General Hancock then asked leave to retire, which was granted, and he left in company with Attorney- General Speed. THE END. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 01377 1994 lllll.UBlLI.'JlJIMMIjIWIMM^WMIM^^