Conspiracy trial for the murder of the president
Yüklə 2,75 Mb.
|
[364] has she ever failed to recognize you? or have you ever known of any weakness of the eyes, or defect of sight, on her part? A. No, sir: I never knew any thing about that. Q. Did she ever on any occasion fail to recognize you? A. No, sir. Q. Do you or not know that Mr. Booth visited at the house of Mrs. Surratt? A. I have seen him there frequently. Q. Where have you seen him in the house? A. In the parlor. Q. With whom? A. Mrs. Surratt and the young ladies would be there. Q. Did you ever know the prisoner Herold to call there? A. I never saw him at the house. I knew him previously: I knew him two years ago. Q. You never saw him at the house? A. No, sir. Q. You never heard it alluded to, by any member of the household there, that there was any defect in Mrs. Surratt’s eyesight? A. No, sir; not that I know of. Q. I will ask you if you ever saw, at Mrs. Surratt’s house, a woman by the name of Mrs. Slater; and about what time you met her there. A. I never saw Mrs. Slater there. Q. Did you ever see any person there whom you afterwards learned was Mrs. Slater? A. I saw a woman who left there; but I did not know she was Mrs. Slater until I saw the testimony of Mr. Weichmann, and he gave the name of the woman. Q. State the circumstances of your seeing the lady whom you did not then know. A. I was getting up one morning, dressing myself; and I saw a lady getting into an open carriage. Q. Who was with her? A. John Surratt. Q. What time was that? A. About half-past seven o’clock in the morning. [365] Q. What time in the month, and what month? A. I could not say. It was about two weeks previous to the assassination. Q. Where was Mrs. Surratt at the time these parties were in the carriage? A. She was on the pavement. Q. Doing what? A. I suppose she was talking to her, or something of that kind. Q. Was she or not talking to Mrs. Slater at the time she was getting into the carriage? A. She was talking to this lady. I did not know her name. Q. Was Mrs. Surratt doing any thing to her at the time, or did she aid her in any way? A. She may have spoken to her, or assisted her in the buggy: I do not know; I paid no particular attention. Q. Do you remember whether she gave any assistance to her in getting into the carriage? A. Possibly she did. Q. I want to know whether you remember the fact; not whether possibly she did or not. A. I cannot say positively. Q. They were all at the carriage together? A. Yes, sir. Q. They were getting ready to drive away? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mrs. Surratt, John Surratt, and this lady, were there together? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that was about two weeks before the assassination? A. I think it was. Q. Was that the last time you saw John H. Surratt at that house? A. No, sir. Q. When was the last time? A. On the 3d of April. Q. Did you know where he had returned from when he came back on the 3d?
Q. Did you learn, then or subsequently, where he had been? A. I did not learn until after the assassination where he had been. Q. Then how did you learn it? A. Through Mr. Weichmann: no, I am too fast; I learned it previous. Q. How did you learn it? A. Through Mr. Weichmann. Q. You learned it previous to the assassination, through Mr. Weichmann? A. Yes, sir. Q. But not from any member of the family? A. No, sir. Q. Was the time you saw John H. Surratt going into this buggy with this lady, and Mrs. Surratt there, the last time you saw him previous to the 3d of April? A. Yes, sir. Q. You saw him on the 3d of April? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long? A. The time I saw him did not occupy five minutes. Q. Where did you see him? A. I saw him in the house. He was to the door of my room, and rapped. I was in bed. Q. Was it in the morning, or evening? A. At night, about ten o’clock. Q. On the 3d of April? A. The night of the 3d of April. Q. How are you enabled to fix the day? A. It was the day news was received here of the evacuation of Richmond. I had arrived from Baltimore that day. I had had my family over to Baltimore. I went over there on Saturday, and came back on Monday morning. Q. You know that was the day the news arrived of the evacuation of Richmond? A. Yes, sir.
A. I cannot say: I only saw him for about five minutes. Q. You did not see him afterwards, and have not seen him since? A. No, sir. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham: Q. Did you exchange money with him? A. Yes, sir. Q. How much? A. When he rapped at my door, he told me [he] wanted to see me— Q. I do not ask what he said to you. Did you exchange money with him? A. Yes, sir: I did. Q. How much? A. I gave him sixty dollars in paper, and he gave me forty dollars in gold. Q. That was on the 3d of April? A. Yes, sir. By Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett: Q. Did you notice whether he had more gold than the amount you exchanged with him? A. He told me he had some gold, and that he wanted some greenbacks. Those were the words he used. He said he wanted to go to New York, and that he could not get it discounted in the morning, as he wanted to take the early train in the morning. Q. Did you see him have any more gold than the amount he exchanged with you? A. No, sir: he only pulled out that amount. Q. Did he say whether he had more? A. No, sir. Q. He simply made that statement? A. That is all. Cross-examined by Mr. Aiken: Q. When Mr. Atzerodt came to the house, was it not his custom to visit Mr. Weichmann? [368] A. I could not say who he came there to visit at all. He was usually at the table when I saw him. Q. Do you recollect for whom he called when he first came to the house? A. No, sir: I do not. Q. Have you no means of knowing? A. No, sir. Q. Did you learn any thing while you were boarding at Mrs. Surratt’s of the displeasure it gave the family to have Atzerodt there? A. I recollect Mrs. Surratt saying— Q. You need not state any thing Mrs. Surratt said about it, but state what you know. A. I do not know any thing about it, except what I have heard them say in the house. I had very little communication with any one in the house; only when I would go down to the table at my meals. I was but very little time in the house. Q. Can you state to the Court from your own knowledge whether or not you knew it was unpleasant to the family to have Atzerodt there? A. I could not state any thing to my own knowledge; only from information I had from the family. Q. Did he or not go by a nickname while he was there? A. He did. Q. Was not fun made of him while he was there? A. Yes, sir.
A. That is all. Q. Do you know whether or not, during this visit of Payne, he saw Weichmann at the house? A. I have no knowledge of that at all. Mr. Weichmann was at the table. Q. Can you state from your own knowledge whether or not Mr.
A. I have no knowledge of it at all. Q. In regard to Mrs. Surratt’s eyesight, was it not your custom, while you were boarding at the house, generally to be away in the evening? A. Yes, sir. Q. And therefore you have no means of knowing whether she was able to read or sew by gas-light or not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did I understand you to state to the Court that Mrs. Surratt was at the door on that morning when the lady whom you suppose to have been Mrs. Slater went away? A. Yes, sir. Q. On further reflection, do you not think Mrs. Surratt was at church the morning that Mrs. Slater went away with John H. Surratt? The Witness. Mr. Aiken, you know me very well; well enough to know that I am not a man to tell an untruth. You have known me for several years. Mr. Aiken. I place implicit confidence in every word that Mr. Holohan says. The Witness. I have told you that I saw Mrs. Surratt there that morning, and she could not have been at church if she was there. By Mr. Aiken: Q. Do you know whether she had been at church that morning or not? A. That is more than I am able to say. Q. Do you know whether she went to church after they went away, or not? A. I do not know. Q. Can you state to the Court whether Weichmann gave himself up after the assassination, or whether he was taken to Superintendent Richard’s police-department, and whether Weichmann was not under arrest some before he knew it?
The question was waived. Q. [By Mr. Aiken.] Did you accompany Mr. Weichmann on his way to Canada? Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett objected to the question, and it was waived. [371] Q. [By Mr. Aiken.] Who were the first parties who entered Mrs. Surratt’s house the night after the assassination? Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett objected to the question, and it was waived. Q. Did you ever hear loyal sentiments expressed freely and fully by Mr. Weichmann? A. I never heard any political discussion in the house while I was there. Q. Did you ever learn any thing while you were in the house, of any plan, plot, or conspiracy to capture the President? A. No, sir; I never did. If I had, I should have prevented it. Q. Or any plan, plot, or conspiracy to assassinate the President or any members of the Government? A. I never did. Q. If you had heard of any such thing, would you not have given the information at once to the proper authorities? A. I think I should. Q. You stated to the Court that you had not seen Mr. Surratt since the 3d of April? A. I have not seen him since. Q. Have you any knowledge of his being in the city since that time? A. No, sir. Q. Did you see Mr. Weichmann at three o’clock on Saturday morning, April 15? A. I did. Q. Where was he? A. He was in the house. Q. Was he dressed, or undressed? A. He was dressed when I saw him. Q. Had he risen from his bed? Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. It is not important whether he had been in his bed at all or not. Mr. Aiken. It is very important. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. Why? [372] Mr. Aiken. To show you that he was ready to take his flight, to run away. Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett. This is all outside of a proper cross-examination. If the counsel desired to ask those questions, they should have called the witness themselves. He has been in the city all the time, subject to their call. If there was any thing in that matter that was important to them, they should have made him their witness, and then he would have been competent to prove it; but this not a legitimate cross-examination. All these questions latterly are not legitimate: but I have kept silent, holding that these questions on immaterial matters would come to an end; but, if not, we may as well interpose our objections. Mr. Aiken. We are perfectly willing, may it please the Court, to abide by the strictest rules of evidence. At the same time, the Court will bear the counsel for the accused witness that they have objected to nothing legal or illegal, in the way of its presentation, that could possibly affect any conspiracy, co-conspirator, or any one who had any knowledge of the terrible crime which has placed our country in the very attitude of the Niobe of nations. On the other hand, while we are doing whatever we can to shield and protect the innocent, and to clear them from the awful charges laid against them, we feel that it our right, owing to the range which the Government have taken in their examination of witnesses, to be allowed the same room, the side wide range, the same permission to make examinations over field that are not legitimate in evidence, for the purpose of throwing around, and bringing to full view before the Court every thing that will add strength to the position of the accused in their defence, and to shield them from the crime with which they are charged. That is my excuse for propounding at this time the questions to the witness that I have. Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett. Certain it is the desire of the Government to give the accused every opportunity to present their defence. They have asked for no process to any part of this land that the arm of Government has not been reached out to try to bring that witness here. Every effort has been made to aid the defence in making the guilt of the accused disappear if possible, and their innocence appear. But the witness now on the [373] stand has been here in this city all the time, a personal acquaintance of the counsel himself, all these facts known to him; and now for him continue this examination after he could have brought him for himself, and call him as his witness; now to prolong this case; to raise new questions that there is no opportunity for the Government to meet; to try to cast reflections upon a witness in reference to whom he said his testimony was closed,—is unfair: it is certainly prolonging the case to no purpose. We simply desire that justice and fairness may prevail, and that this case may some time come to a close. The gentleman cannot complain that any unfairness has been exercised, or that the Government has been strict in her rules against him. It is certainly a very weak argument for counsel to say that he permitted illegitimate matter, and therefore that illegitimate matter should be permitted for him. It is his duty, under his oath, to see that his client has the rights of law; and it is an admission that I certainly would not make to this Court, that I had not maintained the rights of my client. He is to blame, and no one else, if such has been case, which I most certainly deny. This case we conduct according to the rules of law. The question was waived. Mr. Ewing. I have two or three questions to ask the witness. It is not properly a cross-examination; but I propose to treat him as my witness, if there is no objection. Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett. The gentleman announces that he desires to ask some questions, making the witness his own, enabling us to rebut it; to which there is no objection. By Mr. Ewing: Q. Do you know Judson Jarboe? A. I know a Mr. Jarboe: I don’t know his Christian name. Q. You do not know whether it is Judson Jarboe or not? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know of his ever having come to Mrs. Surratt’s house while you were there? A. I never saw him there. Q. Did you ever hear of his being there?
Q. Nor of any man by the name of Jarboe? A. No, sir. Q. Will you state between what streets Mrs. Surratt lived when you went there first? A. When I went there first, as when I left there last, her house was on the south side of H Street, about forty-five feet from Sixth Street. It is the first house from the corner of Sixth Street. Q. How long has she been living there? A. That is more than I am able to say. A year or two, I guess, to my knowledge. Q. What kind of a house is it?—What is the description of the front of the house? A. It is a brick house, painted lead or drab color. There is a basement; and there is a porch going up to the entrance, some eight or ten steps,—a side-porch runs up. It is adjoining the house of Hugh B. Sweeney. Q. Did you ever know, while, you were there, of the accused, Samuel A. Mudd, going to the house? A. I never heard Samuel Mudd, or any Mudd, mentioned in the house at all. Q. You have no knowledge of his ever having gone there? A. No, sir. Q. What time did you go there? A. About the first week of February last. Q. And remained there how long? A. I remained there until the Sunday morning after the assassination. I was in the house afterwards, but my family had left on that Saturday morning. Q. Will you state whether Mr. Weichmann gave himself up after the assassination of the President? Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett. You need not state that. Mr. Ewing. The testimony of Mr. Weichmann, may it please the Court, bears pretty strong evidence upon its face that he was either a conspirator (and, if he was, we have a right to show that, to [375] impair the weight of his testimony), or else that many of the statements which he made are wholly untrue. I wish to show, by this question and by other questions, to the Court, that he acted very much as if he considered himself implicated in the crime of the assassination. Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett. It is an old maxim, that the law is the perfection of wisdom. The rule of law is, that a cross-examination shall be confined to the matters called out in the examination in chief; and the longer any lawyer serves in the harness of the law, the more beautiful appear the rules of the law, and the better and more clearly appears the adaptation of the rules of law to the end desired,—to the maintenance and defence of an accused, and to the purpose of getting at the exact truth in any given case. Now, then, that this matter was entered upon in chief is not claimed. The counsel attempt to take this matter up on cross-examination. They have stated to this Court openly, that, as to the attack on Weichmann, it was closed. This witness is our witness. We cannot bring witnesses here to contradict him: that would be contrary to the rules of law. I am not saying but what he might state the exact truth; but that has nothing to do with the matter in issue, which is this,—that they have no right to enter upon this attack upon Mr. Weichmann at this time. We cannot meet it. That question was closed. We are now upon our rebutting testimony, and they should be confined to that in the cross-examination. If they had not closed, it would be perfectly legitimate for them to show it. It is due to the witness Weichmann himself that he shall not be illegitimately attacked. It is what we owe to every man that we put upon this stand, that his character shall be maintained, or that he shall have the rights of the law and its guaranties thrown around him; that he shall not be surreptitiously attacked; and we are bound to maintain him according to the rules of law. That is our objection to this testimony: not that we fear its result; but it is illegitimately prolonging the contest, and raising new issues. Mr. Ewing. I should like to inquire of the Assistant Judge Advocate whether I said I had closed upon any single point of my [376] defence: not one. I have reserved all the rights in regard to my clients to introduce any testimony that is admissible. Before I took this witness, I stated that I did not claim the right to cross-examine him, but indicated to the Judge Advocate that I would take him in chief to save recalling him. Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett. This matter is very plain. The gentleman who appears for Mrs. Surratt, whose case is affected by this, undertook to ask these questions. I objected to them, and he withdrew them, without having the Court pass upon them. This gentleman (Mr. Ewing), whose case had not been closed, and who had not announced, as he states to the Court, that he had closed,—to him is passed the paper containing the very same questions to aid Mrs. Surratt. This a species of financiering that I hardly consider legitimate. When the counsel for Mrs. Surratt fails in his attack upon this man Weichmann in this illegitimate mode, he simply uses another person, who does not stand in the same attitude towards the case, to achieve the same end. Will that be allowed by this Court? Certainly the rule of law is with us, and certainly all rules of fairness are with us. Mr. Ewing. I beg leave to say to the Assistant Judge Advocate, that I have as keen a sense of the rules of propriety as he has, and that I think that his volunteer reprimand is entirely unnecessary, and exceedingly out of place. This witness I made my witness. I waived no rights in regard to my client, whose case is affected by the character of Mr. Weichmann. If these questions were in the hand of Mr. Aiken, is that the business of the counsel for the Government? Is it the business of Court where I get my questions? I do not propose to open my means of information to the scrutiny or the censure of the Assistant Judge Advocate. He is stepping beyond the proprieties of his position when he undertakes to state how I get the information upon which I examine my witnesses; and he enters upon a line of censure to which I will not submit, because it is unmerited, and because he is not in the position to censure me. But I will state to the Court that these questions were mine; that I handed them to Mr. Aiken; and, upon his being ruled out upon the technical ground that he had no right to ask them on Yüklə 2,75 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|