Conspiracy trial for the murder of the president
Yüklə 2,75 Mb.
|
[154] Charles Dawson, recalled for the prosecution. By the Judge Advocate: Q. Are you a clerk at the National Hotel in this city? A. Yes, sir. Q. [Exhibiting a letter to the witness.] Look at that letter, and see whether it was received at the hotel, and under what circumstances. A. That letter was found amongst the initial letters, the letter B, about a couple of days before I was here last week: that would be about last Wednesday. I noticed it in looking for a letter for a gentleman whose name commences with B. The initial rather struck me as being peculiar. Q. You do not know when it was received? A. No, sir: I do not. That was the first I saw of it, and I brought it down here. Q. It is now in the envelope in which you brought it here? A. Yes, sir: that is the envelope. I do not know any thing about the contents. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. I will state that I opened it myself: it was not opened when it was handed to me. A. It was not. The letter was read as follows:— Envelope. J. W. B.
P. O. Stamp. Washington, D.C.
May 8.
April 6, 1865. Friend Wilkes,—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 $8,000; [155] and I add $1,000 myself, which is about all I can stand. Now, when you sink your well, go deep enough. Don’t fail: every thing depends on you and your helpers. If you can’t get through on your trip after you strike ile, strike through Thornton Gap, and cross by Capon, Romney’s and down the branch; and I can you safe from all hardships for a year. I am clear of all serveillance, 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 shade; but he suspects to (too) damn much now. Had he better be silenced for good? I send this up by Tom; and if he don’t get drunk, you will get it 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 highfalutin next time. No more, only Jake will be at Green’s with the funds. Burn this. Truly yours, Lon. Sue Guthrie sends much love.
A. The only that I can remember at present is J. Wilkes Booth. I do not know of anybody else now to my knowledge. Q. There was no other Wilkes in the house that you know of last spring? A. No, sir. By the Court: Q. Suppose Mr. Booth had been at the hotel, and inquired for a letter, would you have handed him that one? A. Hardly. Mr. Booth, having a room at the hotel at the time, his letters, if addressed to his name in full, would have been put in his box. These being mere initials, the letter was put in with sundry letters,—those that have no rooms in the house. It was not till a few days before I came down here, that a gentleman, whose name began with a B, asked me for a letter; and, looking over them, I saw that, and the initials struck me as rather singular. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham: Q. You mean you would not have thought of looking in the initial letter B for a letter for Booth, under the circumstances? [156] A. That is what I mean. Joseph T. Nott recalled by consent for cross-examination. By Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett: Q. I believe you were the bar-keeper or one of the attendants at the hotel at Surrattsville? A. Yes, sir; part of the time. Q. How long was that your employment? A. I was there from some in January, I think, until I was arrested on the 16th of April, I believe. I was away, though, sometimes. I was away a week at one time: sometimes I would be away a day or two together. Q. I believe you were called the other day as a witness on the part of Mrs. Surratt, in reference to Mr. Lloyd? A. Yes, sir. Q. I desired to ask you then, but omitted to do so, what your attitude has been towards the Government, whether friendly or otherwise, during this struggle. A. I have never done any thing against it. Q. Have you ever said any thing against the Government? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Or against the Union party in Maryland? A. No, sir. Q. Have you never taken sides with the secession element there? A. No, sir. Q. Never said any thing against the officers of the Government, or the Executive? A. No, sir. Q. Do you recollect having had a conversation with a man named Smoot, the next day after the murder of the President? A. Mr. Smoot was very often there. Q. Do you know Mr. Smoot? A. I do.
Q. What is his first name? [157] A. Edward, I think. Q. Do you recollect any of the conversation you had with him on the 15th April last? A. Indeed I do not. I do not recollect even seeing him on the 15th, but it might have been. Q. Do you remember Mr. Smoot coming to the bar-room, and saying to you that it was supposed John H. Surratt was one of the murderers? A. Indeed I do not recollect that. Q. Do you remember saying to him that John H. Surratt was undoubtedly in New York by that time? A. Indeed I do not. Q. Did you or did you not, make such a statement to him? A. I may, or may not, have done so. I do not recollect any thing of the kind. Q. Did you, or did you not, at that time, state to him, “John knows all about this matter”? A. I might have done so; but I do not recollect it. Q. Did you, or did you not? Can you remember whether you had any conversation about John H. Surratt? A. I do not recollect seeing Mr. Smoot on that day at all. I do not recollect when as the last time he was there. He may have been there that day; but I do not recollect. Q. Did you, or not, on that occasion say that you could have told all about this matter, and it would occur, six months ago? A. I have no recollection on God’s earth of it. Q. Could you not remember it if you had said any thing of that kind to Mr. Smoot? A. I think I should. Q. Did you, or did you not, say so? A. I do not think I did. Q. Did you not say to him that you could have told this thing six months ago? A. I have no recollection on God’s earth of having said it. Q. Did you at that time tell him not to mention any thing about the conversation you had with him? A. Indeed I do not know that.
A. I do not recollect seeing Mr. Smoot. It might have been, though. Q. You say you did not, to the best of your recollection, state any thing of this kind to Mr. Smoot? A. I do not recollect it. Q. To the best of your recollection at this time, did you, or did you not, state any thing of the kind, that you could have told all about this murder, and that it would take place, six months ago? A. I never heard of such a thing as that. Q. Did you say any thing of the kind? A. I do not think I could have said any such thing. Q. You have never said any thing against the Government? A. No, sir. Q. Never been in hostility to it? A. No, sir. Q. Never taken the side of the rebels in any way? A. No, sir: I never have. By Mr. Aiken: Q. I understand you to state that you did not see Mr. Smoot on Saturday, the 15th of April last. A. I say I have no recollection of it. Q. And you have no recollection of having had any such conversation with him? A. I have no recollection of it on God’s earth. Q. Where were you six months ago? A. I was living at Mrs. Ward’s. Q. In what county is that? A. The same county,—Prince George’s. By the Court: Q. Where were you at the first battle of Bull Run? A. I have had no particular home since the death of my wife, [159] eight years ago. I have been working about in the country. I think I was at Mr. Hill’s place, in Prince George’s at that time. Q. Did you not rejoice at the success of the rebels at the first battle of Bull Run? A. I do not think I did. Q. Do you not know that you did? A. I do not. Q. What church do you belong to? A. When I belong to any church at all, I belong to the Catholic Church.
A. I have not belonged to church for about seven years. Q. It is only occasionally that you belong to church at all? A. I have not belonged for seven years. Thomas J. Raybold recalled for the accused, Edward Spangler. By Mr. Ewing: Q. Have you, since you were upon the stand to-day, visited Ford’s Theatre? A. I have. Q. Have you examined the keepers of the locks of boxes 7 and 8? A. Yes, sir. Q. State the condition in which you found the locks of those boxes. A. Box 8—the box that this morning I testified to forcing—is in the condition that I stated. It has been forced, and the wood has been split by forcing the lock. Box 7 has been forced; and you can take the screw out with your finger, and push it in and out. Both have been forced; but I was not aware of it. I knew nothing about them, except the one I testified to, until I saw them there now. Q. Did you ascertain the condition of the screws in the keeper in box 8?
Q. But the wood into which the screws of the keeper of box 8 were screwed is split? A. Yes, sir; that is split: the screw is not drawn; the keeper is forced aside,—a thing that would be done by force. It is forced aside: it is not completely pushed out. Q. Could you say, from your examination, whether or not that had been done by any instrument? A. I cannot say as to an instrument. It must have been done by force: I know that one was, and the other has every appearance of it. Q. By force applied to the outside of the door? A. Yes, sir.
A. Not a particle. Q. What is the reason you say it has every appearance of having been forced from the outside? A. If a screw was drawn by a screw-driver, when it went back again it would have to be put pack by a driver; but when force has been used, you can put it in or out. Q. If an instrument had been used, would it not probably have left it so that it would work just as it does work? A. Yes, sir: anybody could draw a screw out, and put any thing else in; but then it would make a hole much larger. By Mr. Ewing: Q. In forcing the lock, if the screws were forced out straight, they would tear the wood, would they not? A. Yes, sir. Q. It would enlarge the hole?
A. No, sir: I do not know any of them [pointing to the prisoners] except Spangler: he is the only one of them I ever saw, that I know of, except one, whom I knew when he was quite a boy. Joseph P. K. Plant, a witness called for the accused, Edward Spangler, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By Mr. Ewing: Q. State your residence and occupation. A. My occupation is that of a dealer in furniture, at present. My trade is that of a paper-hanger. My residence is 350, D Street, between Ninth and Tenth Streets, in Washington. Q. Have you been engaged at any time in cabinet-work? A. Ever since I was about fourteen years old, more or less. Q. State whether or not you have visited Ford’s Theatre today. A. I have. Q. State whether you examined the keepers of the locks on any of the private boxes; if so, which ones, and what condition you found them in. A. I examined the keepers on boxes 7 and 8. To all appearances, they had both been forced. The woodwork in box 8 is shivered and splintered by the screws. In box 7, I could pull the screw with my thumb and finger; the tap was gone clear to the point. I could force it back with my thumb. In box 4, which is directly under box 8, the keeper is gone entirely. Q. State whether or not, according to your professional opinion, the keepers of the locks in boxes 7 and 8 were made loose by an instrument, or by force applied to the outside of the doors. A. I should judge, by force. [162] Q. Is there any appearance of an instrument having been used to draw the screws in any of those boxes? A. I could see no such evidence. Q. You say the wood into which the screw of box 8 goes is splintered? A. Yes, sir. Q. Apparently by pressure from without against the door? A. I should so suppose. According to my judgment, it was done by that means. Q. State whether you noticed a hole in the wall in the passage which leads behind the boxes. A. Yes, sir. Q. State whether that hole has any appearance of having been covered. A. It certainly has been covered with a piece of something, I could not say what, because there has been no remnant of it left. Q. How large a piece? A. I did not charge my memory exactly with that, but I should suppose about five by seven and half or eight inches in size,—an oblong piece. Q. Did you notice a hole in the door of either of those two boxes? A. There is a hole in the door of box 7. Q. What sized hole? A. A little more than a quarter of an inch in diameter. It is larger on the outside, I think, than it is on the inside,—a sort of wedge-shaped. Q. Could you tell how that had been made? A. I should judge it was with some instrument. One part of it felt to me as if shaved by a knife. Q. Which side was that? A. At the right hand of the door, and at the bottom of the hole, on the outside of the moulding. Q. Did any part of it look as if it had been made by a gimlet? A. That is a hard question to answer. There is one part of the hole, to the left, which feels rough, as if cut by a gimlet, or caused, [163] by the working of a gimlet after the hole was bored; but this lower part of it, on the right-hand side, appears to have been trimmed with a penknife, or some sharp instrument of that kind. Q. Do you think, then, a gimlet was used in making the hole? A. Something of that sort; or it might have been made by a penknife, and the roughness might have been caused by the back of the knife.
A. I live in Prince George’s County, Md. Q. How near to Surrattsville? A. About a mile. Q. Are you acquainted with a man who resides there by the name of Jenkins, a brother of Mrs. Surratt? A. Yes, sir; I know two of her brothers. Q. I speak of the one who testified here the other day, and who is under arrest. A. Yes, sir; John Zadock Jenkins. Q. State to the Court what position he has occupied towards the Government during this Rebellion,—whether friendly or otherwise. A. In the beginning of the war, he was represented as a Union man,—the first year. Q. After that, how was it? A. He was looked upon by a good many as a Southern sympathizer. Q. Were there any exceptions to that among the undoubtedly loyal men? How was he regarded in that respect?
Q. Did you know any exception to that among the Union men? A. I do not. Q. Was he, or not, a friend to the South, and an enemy to the Government, during the struggle? A. I think he was, from what I heard him say. Q. What was his reputation throughout the neighborhood in that regard? A. I never heard many say any thing about it. I have talked with him myself. Q. From you own knowledge of him, what was he? A. I think he was a Southern sympathizer. Q. Do you know a man by the name of Nott who resided there? A. I know Joseph T. Nott. Q. Had you any conversation with him on the Saturday succeeding the President’s murder? A. I had. Q. State to the Court what that conversation was. A. I met two young men connected with General Augur’s department, one of whom told me that John H. Surratt was supposed to be the man who had cut Mr. Seward. I asked Mr. Nott if he could tell where John Surratt was. He said he reckoned he was in New York by that time. That was on Saturday evening, after the assassination. Q. Was there any conversation preceding that? A. I saw Mr. Nott in the morning, and do not think he mentioned the subject to me at all. Q. Give all the conversation that occurred at that time. A. Mr. Nott told me that he reckoned John was in New York by that time. I asked him why he thought so. “My God,” said he, “John knows all about this murder: do you suppose he is going to stay in Washington, and let them catch him?” I pretended to be very much surprised, and said, “Is that so?” He replied, “It is so, by God! I could have told you this thing was going to happen six months ago.” Then he put his hand on my shoulder
Q. Is that the Mr. Nott who was here a few moments ago on the witness stand? A. Yes; the gentleman who was here a few minutes ago. Q. What has been Nott’s attitude towards the Government during this struggle,—friendly or otherwise? A. I have heard him speak frequently against the Government; denounce the Administration in every manner and form. Q. And how in reference to the rebels and the Rebellion? A. I heard him say that if the South did not succeed he did not want to live another day.
A. In Prince George’s County, Md. Q. Who are some of your immediate neighbors? A. Mr. David Barry, Mr. Dangerfield, Mr. George Tenally, and Mr. Lloyd, who has been arrested. Q. Have you a brother-in-law of the name of William Ward? A. I have. Q. Was he in the Southern army? A. He was. Q. What did you say to Mr. Ward when he came back from the South. A. I do not recollect what I said to him. He was brought borne under a guard of soldiers. Q. Did you not tell him on that occasion that he done just right, and that you wished you had been there to help him? A. I did not. Q. Did you not on that occasion express sentiments against the Government, and friendly to the South? A. I did not. Q. Where were you in 1861, at the breaking-out of the Rebellion? A. I resided in Charles County. Q. Were you a member of any military company at that time?
Q. When did that company disband? A. It disbanded in the spring of 1861. Q. What was that company brought together for? A. I do not know; more for show than any thing else, I suppose. As soon as they had a rebel flag there, I withdrew. Q. The company had a rebel flag? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you were a member of it? A. I withdrew as soon as that flag was brought and presented to the company. Q. How long have you been acquainted with Mr. Jenkins? A. About five years, I think. Q. When did you have any conversation with him of a political character? A. Really I do not recollect exactly when. Q. What was the time when you speak of his having made remarks unfriendly to the Government? A. The last time I talked with Mr. Jenkins was about the first of April last, in Upper Marlboro’. Q. What did you say to Mr. Jenkins? A. Mr. Jenkins came to me, and said that Mr. Roby was applying for a position in the county as a constable, which was given by the county commissioners. Mr. Jenkins asked me why I did not go and apply for it myself. I told him I did not wish it. He said, “You ought to take it to keep Roby from getting it;” and he said, also, that he had told the county commissioners, that if they appointed Mr. Roby, or any other man who belonged to his party, he would spend every dollar he had against them to defeat them if they should ever become candidates for any other office. Q. For whom did you vote at the last Congressional election? A. I did not vote at all. Q. Which of the Congressional candidates in your district did you favor? A. I did not know either of the gentlemen: I did not know any thing about either one.
A. I have not. I have never meddled either way. Q. Where did this conversation with Mr. Nott occur? A. At Surrattsville, in the bar-room. Q. What day was that? A. The 15th of April, the day after the assassination. Q. What conversation had you with him, previously, in reference to any thing? A. I do not recollect: I have talked with him a good many times on different subjects. Q. Was this all the conversation you had? A. It was, at that time. Q. You do not recollect expressing to Mr. Nott, at that time, any other sentiments? A. I do not. Q. Did you not tell him, on that occasion, that you were glad Mr. Lincoln had been murdered? A. I did not, I assure you. Q. What was the exact language Mr. Nott used to you? A. I asked Mr. Nott if he knew where John Surratt was. He smiled and said, “John is in New York by this time, I reckon.” I asked him why he thought so. “Why, my God!” said he. “John knows all about this thing: do you suppose he is going to stay in Washington, and let them catch him?” Q. Did he state to you when he last saw John Surratt? A. He did not. I do not recollect asking him that question. Q. Did he give you any reason for believing that Surratt had any connection with the affair? A. No, sir; he did not. He was busy: some gentlemen came in while he was talking with me, and he had to wait on the bar. He was standing on one side of the counter and I on the other when he told me this. Q. When did you first communicate this remark to the Government? A. The next day,—Sunday, April 16. Q. To whom? A. To General Augur and Colonel Wells. Yüklə 2,75 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|