Conspiracy trial for the murder of the president
Yüklə 2,75 Mb.
|
[350] “Pet has done his work well,” after their method of well-doing; and that his victim, Abraham Lincoln, is dead. That is the fact that he states: there is no contradiction there. “Now, sir, all eyes are on you. Who? “You.” “You must bring Sherman. Grant is in the hands of Old Gray ere this.” Who in America knew that, except a man in this conspiracy, on the 15th of April? Mr. Cox. We do not know that it was written on that day. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. We are taking things as we find them. “Red Shoes showed a lack of nerve in Seward’s case, but fell back in good order.” Who knew in what sort of order he fell back, except a co-conspirator? We know who Red Shoes was. He did fall back.
“Johnson must come. Old Crook has him in charge.” Who knew on the 15th of April who had him in charge? “Mind well that brother’s oath.” Who knew then about the oath? It is all abundantly proved here, however. “And you will have no difficulty. All will be safe, and enjoy the fruit of our labors.” That is, the price. “We had a large meeting last night. All were bent on carrying out the programme to the letter.” The gentleman says there is a contradiction. Wherefore? “The rails are laid for safe exit. Old ——, always behind, missed the pop at City Point. I say again, the lives of our brave officers, and the life of the South, depend on carrying this programme into effect.” [351] Which was the original design. “No. Two will give you this. When you write, sign no real name. I was in Baltimore yesterday. Pet had not got there yet.” The gentleman says there is a contradiction. Wherefore? Was not “yesterday” until midnight, at least of the 14th of April? “I was in Baltimore yesterday.” Assuming that he was in Washington on the 15th, he was in Baltimore the day before, the day of the murder. “Pet had not got there yet.” Where? At midnight yesterday, under cover of the same darkness which he sought when he inflicted the mortal wound upon Abraham Lincoln. If he had got the benefit of the trains, everybody knew he would have been there “yesterday.” Where is the contradiction? I submit to the Court, upon the showing of Mr. Ewing last stated, inasmuch as the motion now is not to obliterate this letter from the record, this is no time to decide its effect upon the case or upon the Court. That question will come up for full argument when the gentlemen state their defence; and I, for one, will be as ready, I trust, as any human being connected with this trial, to yield to any conviction that may be made upon my mind by the argument of the counsel (Mr. Ewing), that this evidence ought not to affect the client he represents, and that he so ably and earnestly and faithfully defends. But that does not end this question: the Government has the right to know who else is to be affected here. Mr. Cox. The argument of the learned counsel for the Government is, that the handwriting of a letter need not be proved when it is found in the custody of parties implicated in the conspiracy. That I may admit; but that assumes the whole question. The letter was not found in the custody of any person. It was found floating upon the water, and non constat that the letter may not have been written the very day when it was found, and a few minutes before it was found, and written by somebody who had possessed himself of sufficient knowledge of the facts charged against the conspirators to enable him to fabricate a letter, specious on its face, and appearing to have some bearing on the conspiracy itself. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. Pardon me for saying to the gentleman, that, while his statement is correctly made as [352] regards what I said, I did also say, in that connection, that we must lay a foundation, and show that it had been in the custody of one of the conspirators: I think we have done it by showing that “Pet” was the name of one of the party; by showing that the object of the conspiracy, as narrated in the letter, was the object agreed upon; by showing that that was not a matter of notoriety, nor a matter known to anybody except the conspirators themselves on the day of its date; and by showing that all the evidence in this case, so far as this letter can be understood to-day, corroborates the fact which I assert,—that the writer of the letter on the fifteenth day of April was a party to this conspiracy; a fact clearly shown, I think, to hang him if he were found with that paper in his pocket,—though no man knew his name, and no man ever testified about the writer,—unless he could explain how he came by it. The Commission overruled the motion of Mr. Ewing. Minnie Pole, a witness called for the accused, Samuel Arnold, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By Mr. Ewing: Q. State where you live. A. In Baltimore City. Q. Are you acquainted with the prisoner Samuel Arnold? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you state whether you saw him in March last? and, if so, when? A. Yes, sir; on the 20th, the 27th, and the 28th. Q. Where did you see him on the 20th? A. In the omnibus going to Hookstown. Q. Where did you see him on the 27th? A. At his uncle’s, about two miles from our house. Q. What time on the 27th? A. In the evening. It was at a party. Q. Was it near Hookstown? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you see on the 28th?
Q. Near Hookstown? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see him afterwards till now? A. No, sir.
A. Yes, sir: I have known him something less than a year. Q. Have you known him intimately? A. Not what you may call intimately. I have met him casually; and he has been quite friendly in his conversation with me,—quite communicative. Q. Do you know the reputation which he bears among those who know him? A. As far as my knowledge extends, he has always borne a good character; that is, as a moral young man. Q. And truth-telling? A. Yes, sir; as far as I know. I know nothing that would tell against his character for truth. Q. From the knowledge which you have of him, would you or not hesitate to believe him under oath? A. I would believe him under oath, or, in fact, whether he was under oath or not, as far as my knowledge goes. I should not suppose he would tell a falsehood. [354] Q. Have you any knowledge of his conduct and conversation and character, so far as the question of his loyalty is concerned? A. I only remember one conversation distinctly that he had with me that would bear on that question; and that was on the evacuation of Richmond. I happened to meet him at Willard’s, and we walked down together. Q. From the knowledge which you have got through your association with him, what is your estimate of him as a loyal man? A. That is the only conversation I remember hearing on political or loyal questions, although it is possible he spoke once or twice before about it: but it must have been in harmony with that conversation, or else it would have made a contrary impression on my mind; and at that time he expressed his— Mr. Ewing. I object to the witness stating what he said. The Judge Advocate. The witness has a right to state his impressions as to his loyal character. The Witness. My impressions on that conversation would be, that he rejoiced at the success of the Union, the restoration of the Union. Q. [By the Judge Advocate.] And in no part of his conduct or conversation previously to that do you remember any thing in conflict with that? A. No: I think, if there was, it would leave some impression: at least, I have no impression of any thing to the contrary on my mind.
A. We have met casually. They were casual meetings. I met him accidentally one day at a store where I used to purchase books and papers, and got introduced to him. I never visited him at his house. I was not what you would call a visiting friend. I would meet him casually on the street; and whenever we met he would speak to me quite friendly, and I to him. Q. Was he a clerk in the same department, with you? A. No, sir. [355] Q. In a different department? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you heard more within the last month than ever before of Mr. Weichmann’s character as an honest, veracious man? A. I have heard nothing within the last month, that I can remember, that would indicate that he was not an honest, veracious man; that is, if you do not want my opinion of his testimony here on the stand. I am speaking of what I have heard among those whom I know know him. I know parties he was intimate with, or at least had acquaintance with. Q. You cannot state positively that you ever heard him express a Union sentiment before the evacuation of Richmond? A. I cannot remember any distinct conversation, except that: but I think, as a general thing, whenever he spoke on political questions, or topics bearing on the war, they were in harmony with that conversation; that is, if he had spoken differently, I think it would have made an impression on my mind. Q. Was Mr. Weichmann a clerk in the War Department when you knew him? Did you know him as such? A. No, sir; only from his own representations that he was a clerk there. Q. Did he ever represent himself to you as being in confidential relations to that department as a detective? A. No, sir; he never did. Q. Did you ever hear of any such thing? A. No, sir; I never did. Q. On the whole, have you not heard quite as much said against Mr. Weichmann’s reputation as an honest man, and in regard to truth-telling, money-matters, and all that, as you ever heard in his favor? A. I have never heard any thing said against his character relative to money-matters, veracity, or any thing of that kind. I have my own private opinion of his testimony and of his connection with this affair; but I presume that is not relevant testimony, nor what I have heard said relative to his testimony. [356] Frank Stith, a witness called for the prosecution in rebuttal, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By the Judge Advocate: Q. Will you state to the Court whether or not you are acquainted with Louis J. Weichmann? A. I am.
Q. How long and how intimately have you known him? A. I have known him about sixteen months. Q. Intimately? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know the reputation he bears as an honest, truthful man? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you state what that reputation is? A. It is very good indeed, as far as I have heard. Q. You have never heard him questioned as an honest and truthful man? A. No, sir; I have not. Q. Were you not both in the public service, in the same office? A. Yes, sir. Q. What reputation did he bear in the public service while you were associated with him, so far as loyalty is concerned? A. Excellent. Q. Was he open and outspoken in his friendship for the Government? A. Always, so far as I know. Q. Do you know whether or not he had any connection with some military organization here, organized for the defence of the city? A. Yes, sir; I know he had. Q. Was he a member of it? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was a voluntary association, was it not? A. Yes, sir. [357] Cross-examined by Mr. Aiken: Q. Did you make your acquaintance with Mr. Weichmann as a clerk in the War Department? A. Yes, sir; in the office of the Commissary-General of Prisoners. Q. Were your relations to Mr. Weichmann intimate outside of the office? A. Not very. Q. Did you ever know him as a detective in the War Department? A. No, sir. Q. You never heard of his being a detective? A. Never. Q. Will you state the character of that military organization to which you belong? A. It was an organization for the defence of the capital, I believe. Q. Was it not an organization composed exclusively of clerks in the department? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was it not considered, at the time that the organization was formed, equivalent to a dismissal from office not to join that organization? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was Mr. Weichmann in the habit of wearing blue pantaloons about his office always after that? A. Not always. He did not always wear them. Q. Did you ever see those blue pantaloons on Mr. Weichmann on any other than rainy days, except on days of drill? A. I cannot say as to that. Q. Would he not go home to put on his blue pantaloons, and, after the drill, retire, and immediately put on his citizen’s clothes, making hateful expressions with reference to them? A. I do not recollect about that. James P. Young, a witness called for the prosecution in rebuttal, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— [358] By the Judge Advocate: Q. Are you in the public service in this city? A. Yes, sir. Q. In what position? A. In the War Department; General Meig’s office. Q. Will you state to the Court whether or not you are acquainted with Louis J. Weichmann? and, if so, how long you have known him? A. I am very intimately acquainted with him. Q. For how long a time? A. I have known him for many years; since 1856. Q. Do you know the reputation which he bears as an honest and truthful man? and, if so, will state what that reputation is? A. It is very excellent. I was a college classmate of Mr. Weichmann. He and I entered the Central High School of Philadelphia in the summer of 1856. He remained in that college for two or three years. He then left, and went to Maryland,—to another college, I believe,—and I heard frequently from him. Several years afterwards, about eighteen months ago, I met him in this city. I have been very intimate with him while in this city. I have met him frequently. Q. You say his character as an honest and truthful man is very good? A. Unquestioned. Q. Without any reproach whatever? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you state what character he bears as a loyal citizen? A. I have had many conversations with him on that point, and heard him express himself very freely. I regard him as a very radical loyal man. I suppose I may state that he is a member of the Union League. I am a member of that body. Q. Has he or has he not at all times been perfectly frank and unhesitating, in his intercourse with you, in his expressions of loyalty to the Government? A. Yes, sir; unequivocal. [359] Cross-examined by Mr. Aiken: Q. What year was it when you were at the Central High School in Philadelphia? A. 1856.
Q. Is that a college, or a high school for boys? A. It is both: it is called the People’s College. Q. I suppose you mean to give us to understand, then, that there are different grades of classes in the school? A. Yes, sir. Q. What grade was Mr. Weichmann in when you were there? A. He and I entered what is called Division H, at first. Division G. and H in the Central High School of Philadelphia correspond to the freshman-year in other colleges. Q. Did Mr. Weichmann at that time ever declare to you his intention to become a minister? A. No, sir. Q. Were you a member of the same military organization with Weichmann? The Witness. To what military organization do you refer? Q. I mean to the organization formed of clerks here. A. I belong to General Meigs’s office battalion. Q. Was it not equivalent to a dismissal from office to refuse to become a member of that military organization? A. I could not state. Q. When did Weichmann join the Union League? A. I could not state. Q. Do you know that he ever did join it? A. I know that he was a member. Q. How do you know it? A. I am also a member. Q. But how do you know that Weichmann was a member? A. I know it by unmistakable evidences. Q. We are anxious to know a little something of what that evidence of being a member of the Union League consists. A. There are certain signs, of course, which members use, by which they know each other. [360] Q. What sign did Weichmann ever give to you indicating that he was a member of the Union League? A. He gave me the signs which are peculiar to the Union League. Q. Did he give you that sign since or before the assassination of the President? A. He gave it to me before. I have met him at the Union League rooms frequently. Q. Is that all the evidence you have of the fact that Mr. Weichmann is a member of the Union League, because he gave you a sign? A. Not only one sign, but many. Q. Are those signs indubitable evidence that a man is a member of the Union League? A. I should say they were. Q. What are the signs?
The Judge Advocate. The witness has stated that he saw Mr. Weichmann in the Union League rooms, acting with others as a member. General Foster. The counsel has no right to take up the time of the witness and of the Court with such questions. Mr. Aiken. I do not wish to expose the secrets of the Union [361] League. If there is a record with Mr. Weichmann’s signature to it, showing that he is a member of it, that would be evidence. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. The Union League will take care of itself; but this point about it is wholly immaterial. The question was waived. By Mr. Aiken: Q. Have you ever known Mr. Weichmann as a detective in the employ of the Government? A. No, sir. P. T. Ransford, a witness called for the prosecution in rebuttal, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By the Judge Advocate: Q. Will you state to the Court whether you are acquainted with Louis J. Weichmann? A. I am.
Q. How long have you known him? A. I have known him since last September. Q. Have you known him intimately or otherwise? A. About as intimately as young men usually know each other when acquainted. Q. Were you associated with him in the public service? A. I am a clerk in the War Department, and he was a clerk in another branch of the War Department. I have known him outside. He has visited me at my rooms. Q. Do you know his reputation for integrity and truth? A. I have always regarded it as being very good indeed. Q. Do you state that to be his character? A. That has always been my impression of his character. Q. And on the score of loyalty how do you regard him? A. I have had but little conversation with him on political matters; so little, indeed, that I do not think I am competent to give an opinion as to his loyalty. [362] Cross-examined by Mr. Aiken: Q. Are you a member of the same military organization that Mr. Weichmann belonged to? A. I do not know what organization Mr. Weichmann belongs to. I used to belong to a military organization called the War-Department rifles. I presume it is the same one. I have not been drilling with them for some time; but I did belong to it. Q. Was not a refusal to become a member of that organization equivalent to a dismissal from office? A. I understood so at the time the organization was being raised in the War Department. Q. You said that you know nothing of Mr. Weichmann’s loyalty. Have you never heard any expressions of his on that subject? A. I said that I had had such very little political conversation with him, that I could not hazard an opinion about that. I know his character to be very good, though, so far as I have heard and know. Q. Did you ever have any transactions with him yourself? A. No, sir; except as a friend, meeting him once in a while. Q. Did you ever know of his having dealings and transactions with anybody else? A. No, sir. Q. Then, in fact, you have no means of knowing much about him? A. Only as a friend. He visited me, and I am acquainted with a great many of his friends. Q. I suppose you simply met him as a friend and acquaintance. A. Simply as a friend. John T. Holahan, a witness for the prosecution in rebuttal, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett: Q. State to the Court where you now reside, and have resided for the last three years. A. I reside in Washington, and have resided there all my lifetime. [363] Q. State where you boarded during the last winter and spring. A. I commenced boarding with Mrs. Surratt the first week of February. Q. And left there when? A. The last time I slept in the house was on the Saturday night after the assassination. Q. During the time you were boarding there, state whether you ever saw any of the accused there; and, if so, what ones? A. I saw Mr. Atzerodt; I did not know him by that name at that time; and I saw Mr. Payne there once. Q. State where you saw them in the house; what part of the house. A. I saw Mr. Atzerodt there several times at meals. I saw Mr. Payne there once at breakfast. I did not know his name was Payne then. His name was Wood when I knew him. Q. You saw him there as Wood? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did Mr. Atzerodt go there to see, so far as you learned? Who was he with? A. He was with John Surratt the principal time. They were all in together; that is, when I would to go the table. I would see them there; and I would leave them at the table, and go up to my room. Q. During the time they were at the table, did Mrs. Surratt and the parties at the table engage in general conversation? What was the fact about that? A. There was no general conversation that I know of but what would occur at the table,—passing the compliments of the day, or something of that kind. Q. You did not see Mr. Wood, as you then knew him, in the parlor, the evening before, with Mrs. Surratt? A. No, sir: I only saw him once at table. Q. And that was at breakfast, or dinner? A. At breakfast. Q. You do not know how long he remained at Mrs. Surratt’s? A. No, sir. Q. During all the time that you were at Mrs. Surratt’s house, Yüklə 2,75 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|