Conspiracy trial for the murder of the president
Yüklə 2,75 Mb.
|
[377] cross-examination, I, who have closed no part of my case, and who have the right to impeach the character of Mr. Weichmann, and who was given the witness in chief for examination, propounded them; and I am not open to the censure or reflection that he casts upon me. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. The gentleman will allow me to ask him whether he asked Weichmann at all, on cross-examination, any thing about his giving himself up. I think it is important that the Court should know the fact whether he asked him any such question at all. Mr. Ewing. That is not the ground of the objection. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. I understand that; but still it touches this question. Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett. I wish simply to say one word in reply. If the gentleman takes my statement of the facts as a censure, that censure must rest upon him. The very words of his question were propounded by Mr. Aiken; and he withdrew the question. I saw the same question repeated by Mr. Ewing, and saw the same paper, to the witness the second time. I say, that, having been withdrawn by one counsel, it is not proper to be put at him by another. Now, they can only make this witness their witness, and ask these questions by the consent, by the courtesy, of the opposite party. Whenever, for the justification of the Government, he being our witness, we withdraw that consent, the rule of law says that they shall not make him their witness until they call him in their own behalf. I now withdraw any such courtesy, and say to the counsel, that, when they want this witness as to any matter they have not closed, they must call him. He is now our witness; and I ask this Court to confine them to the rules of law, and to a strict cross-examination. Mr. Ewing. Does the Judge-Advocate General withdraw the consent? The Judge Advocate. The witness was given to the counsel. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. The great trouble about it is, that the counsel has put a question of impeachment that cannot be admissible, because the foundation for it is not laid. Weichmann was never asked any such question. If he was, I am totally [378] at fault about it; but I think he was never asked any such question. Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett. I object to the counsel entering into any new matter with this witness on the cross-examination. Mr. Ewing. The Judge Advocate General, and the Assistant Judge Advocates, will settle between themselves as to whether the witness is my witness or not. I wish to be informed on that point. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. I am not quarrelling with the Judge Advocate General. The Judge Advocate. The Court was distinctly advised that the counsel had taken the witness as his own. The President. I understood that to be the case.
The Judge Advocate. The Court has so announced. Mr. Ewing. Now I will state to the Court that my inquiry in regard to Mr. Weichmann is an inquiry for the purpose of proving acts in regard to him, associated with Booth and other men connected with the conspiracy. I want to show acts of his at that time, tending to show the Court that he was really a guilty party in the plot to kill the President; and if I show that he was, or if I make it appear that he was, the fact that he was not indicted, not charged, but that he appears here, turning State’s evidence, will tend very much, I think, to impair the value of his testimony. It is not the ordinary form of impeachment of a witness by laying the foundation in his examination for contradicting his statements upon [379] the stand. That is not the purpose, but it is to show that he occupied the position of a co-conspirator, and that he comes here clearing himself by being a swift witness against others. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. Now I wish to state to the Court distinctly, without any ceremony about it, that what the gentleman calls the act of Weichmann never can be proved by any human being but by Weichmann himself. He has testified that he was taken into custody: nobody doubts it. He has testified that he was in custody when he was brought on the stand: nobody questions it. It is utterly incompetent for the gentleman to prove any thing he said about that matter, until he has first laid the foundation by a cross-examination of Weichmann; and then it is never competent, except by way of contradiction. There is no such foundation laid; and it is therefore incompetent and illegal at any stage of the case, either now or any other day. The Commission sustained the objection. Q. [By Mr. Ewing.] Did you go with Mr. Weichmann to Canada and back? A. I did. Q. What was his bearing in the discussions about the assassination? Did he exhibit coolness or anxiety? A. He seemed to be a good deal excited about it. Q. Did you see him the morning after the murder? A. I did. Q. What was his bearing then? A. He was a good deal excited. Q. Who were the first persons that entered the Surratt house after the assassination of the President? A. Mr. McDevitt and Mr. Clarvoe, detectives of the Metropolitan Police force. Q. Where was Mr. Weichmann then? A. He was in the house. Q. At what time in the morning? A. About two o’clock in the morning, I should judge. I asked the detectives what time it was, and they told me it was two o’clock. Q. Do you know whether they found him abed, or dressed?
Q. Was he abed, or dressed? A. He opened the front door, I think, to let them in. Q. Was he dressed then? or do you know? A. I did not see him: I do not know. They were in the entry, outside, in the passage, when my wife woke me up, and told me that men were in the house. I came out of the door, saw Mr. McDevitt and Mr. Clarvoe, and asked them what they wanted; and they told me they were in search of parties who had assassinated the President. Q. Where was Mr. Weichmann then? A. At the steps back of them, or at his room door: I do not know which. Q. Did you see him? A. Not at that time. Q. Had he previously let them in? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where was he when they rang the bell? A. That I do not know, I was asleep when they rang the bell. Q. Did he room on the floor above you? A. No: I had the front room, and he the back room, on the same floor. Q. Was Weichmann then arrested? A. I took Weichmann down myself to Superintendent Richards. Q. When?
A. In the morning after breakfast. Q. When you took him down, did you know he was to be arrested? Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham objected to the question, and it was waived. Q. [By Mr. Ewing.] How did you come to take him down? A. From an expression he made to me. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. You need not state any thing he said. Q. [By Mr. Ewing.] Was that expression the expression of a wish to be delivered up? [381] A. No, sir. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. You need not state any thing about his expressions. The Witness. I was asked the question, and I was not told not to answer it. By the Judge Advocate: Q. You say he was very much excited the morning after the murder? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was not that excitement very general in the city? A. It was, I believe. By Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett: Q. After Mr. Surratt and Mrs. Slater drove away, did you hear Mrs. Surratt say any thing as to where they had gone? A. No, sir. Q. Did you hear her say any thing about the vehicle that he had driven away in? A. No, sir; not at that time. Q. At any subsequent time? A. She told me some weeks afterwards that the team had been sent for, and that he was down in the country. Q. How long did Mr. Howell stay at Mrs. Surratt’s the time he was there? A. Some three or four days, maybe five days,—some days anyhow. Q. That was in what month? A. I cannot designate the time or month; but he was there some three or five weeks after I went to the house. Q. Probably about the first of March, then? A. Possibly it might have been about that time.
A. I think it was near on to two o’clock when I went to Mrs. Surratt’s house in company with my partner, Mr. Clarvoe, and several other officers of our department. Q. State who answered the call at the door. Q. We rang the bell, and one of the upper window-shutters was opened, and a lady put her head out of the window, and asked who was there. We asked if Mrs. Surratt lived there. She said she did. We said we wished to enter the house. She went in; and, as she went in, the door was opened. Mr. Weichmann opened the door. Q. State what was his condition as to dress at the time. A. It appeared to me that he had just gotten out of bed; he was in his shirt, his shirt all open in front, with his pants on, and, I think, in his stocking feet. Q. Had he time, from the time you first approached the house or made a noise, to have dressed himself to that extent? A. Yes, sir. Cross-examined by Mr. Aiken: Q. Did you arrest Mr. Weichmann? A. Not at that time. Q. When did you arrest him? A. He came to the office in company with Mr. Holahan the next morning. I told our superintendent— Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. You need not state any thing he said about it. He came there. That is all about. A. the next day after the assassination, I told Mr. Weichmann— Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. You need not state any thing you said to him, or any thing he said to you. By the Judge Advocate. Q. State under what circumstances Mr. Weichmann went to Canada. [383] A. He went under my charge. I took him with me to identify John H. Surratt. Q. Did he willingly or not willingly associate himself with you in the attempt to pursue the assassins? A. He did, and had every opportunity to leave me in Canada: in fact, I left him in Canada, and returned to New York. Q. Did he seem to be zealous and earnest in performing the part which you allotted to him in this pursuit? A. Yes, sir.
A. I misunderstood the gentleman. I understood him to ask me if I left Weichmann in Canada; and I said yes. Q. Then you did not arrest him? A. Not at that time. Q. You mean, not when you saw him first at Mrs. Surratt’s? A. Yes, sir. Q. But subsequently, when he came to your office, you arrested him? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you afterwards release him? A. I left him in Canada in company with Detective Bigley, and returned to New York. Q. You left him there? A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Aiken: Q. Did Mr. Weichmann make any disclosures to you after his arrest? A. He made no confession in regard to himself. He told me the names of persons— Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. You need not state the names. Q. [By Mr. Aiken.] Did he make disclosures in regard to some persons? Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. You need not state what he told you. [384] Mr. Aiken. I only want to know the fact if he did make disclosures in regard to certain persons. The Witness. I am not at liberty to answer. Q. [By Mr. Aiken.] If you took Mr. Weichmann to Canada under arrest, and for a specific purpose, what were your reasons for leaving him there? A. I sent him to Quebec in company with Mr. Bigley, a detective officer of our corps. Q. If he went there in company with Mr. Bigley, a detective officer of the corps, he was not actually released from arrest, was he? A. I did not say I released him: I said I left him Canada. Q. Had he opportunities to run away if he wished to do so? A. I think he had. Q. Why were any such opportunities given to him? A. He left us in a hotel, and went out with a citizen of Montreal to identify some parties who were in St. Lawrence Hall. The person he went with was not an officer. Q. Was or was not the reason that you left him to roam about the city at his own will owing to the fact that he had given you all the information he possessed?
The question was waived. Q. [By Mr. Aiken.] What did you take him to Canada for? A. To identify John H. Surratt. Q. Did you find him there? A. I did not. Q. Did you find on the books of the St. Lawrence Hotel that John H. Surratt left on the 12th of April? A. No: I saw that he was registered there on the 6th of April as John H. Surratt, Washington, D.C.; and, on the 18th of April, John Surratt, without any Washington, D.C. or any other city. [385] Q. Was his name registered again on the 18th? A. I think it was on the 18th, to the best my recollection. Q. At the St. Lawrence Hall? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you find out while you were there whether he left on the 12th or not? A. He left that hotel the day before we arrived in Canada. Q. What day did you arrive? A. We arrived on the Thursday following the assassination,—the 20th of April. Q. Then you did not learn any thing about his leaving the St. Lawrence Hall on the 12th? A. I did not. Q. How long did it take you to go from Washington to Montreal? A. I left Washington in the 11.15 train, on Monday morning. I stopped over one night in Philadelphia, and arrested a man there whom we were told to arrest; and the following night we proceeded to Canada. Q. In returning, did you come directly from Montreal to Washington? A. I did not. Q. Then you are unable to state the number of hours it would take to come from Montreal here? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you get your first information that you would be likely to find Surratt in Montreal? A. I got it from Mr. Weichmann. Q. And that is the reason why you took Weichmann there? A. Yes, sir. I would state, too, that his mother told me that morning that she had received a letter from him that day, dated in Canada. Q. Did you have any difficulty in finding out that fact from Mrs. Surratt? Did she voluntarily tell you? A. We were inquiring for her son. She said she had not seen him for two weeks, but that there was a letter somewhere in the house which she had received from him that day. I asked her [386] where the letter was. She said somewhere about the house. I could not find the letter. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham: Q. Did you ask Mrs. Surratt to find it? A. I did not. Q. She did not give it to you? A. No, sir; she did not. J. Z. Jenkins recalled for the accused, Mary E. Surratt. By Mr. Aiken: Q. Where were you living in 1861? A. I was living a mile and a half this side of Surrattsville. Q. Did you have occasion at any time during that year to personally defend the flag of your country? A. I did. Q. Please state to the Court under what circumstances that was, and how it occurred. A. I think it was about the time of the first Bull-Run fight, or after. I wrote to John Murphy, a butcher on the Navy-Yard Hill here, to send me a United-States flag, which we raised, I and several of our Union neighbors there. There came a report a while after that it was going to be taken down by the secession sympathizers. I went round the neighborhood and collected some twenty or thirty, with our muskets, double-barrelled guns, or whatever we had; and we lay there all night to keep it up. Q. Around the flag? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you stand guard around that flag more than one night? A. One night and a day, I think. Q. State to the Court, the circumstances, if any ever occurred, with reference to your expending your means to get Union voters into Maryland. A. There was but one man in my district at that time that advocated that particular course. They were all Democrats at that time, except myself. I was the only one who had a dollar to expend; and [387] I had not it then to expend indeed, but I used it when my family was in need of it. Q. Did you come to Washington or not to get voters? A. Yes, sir. There was Richard Warner here, of the Navy Yard, who had removed from there not long enough to lose his residence. I made it my business to go to him, and get him to go to the polls to vote. Q. Will you state some other circumstances to the Court, if any there are, where you have expended your means to sustain the Union? A. I do not recollect. Q. Have you not all the time been a firm and consistent loyal supporter of the Government of the United States? A. I have always been a loyal man. I have never had any intercourse, or any thing to do, one way or another, with the enemies of my country. Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Smoot? A. Not long. I have seen him. He married in my neighborhood. Q. How long has he lived there? A. He removed there, I think, about the latter part of December or January; but he married in my neighborhood probably two or three or four years ago,—I do not know how long; and I have seen him pass back and forth. Q. Has Smoot held an office? and, if so, what was that office? A. He never held any, to my knowledge. Q. For whom did you vote for Congress in 1862? A. In 1862, I did not vote at all. I was arrested on the morning of the election, and was not suffered to vote. Q. Did you take the oath of allegiance at the time they were voting on the adoption of the new constitution? A. Yes, sir. Q. And voted that day? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you make any objections to taking the oath that day? A. Not to my knowledge. There was no objection made at the precinct at all, that I remember.
A. I voted for Harris the last time. I voted the Democratic ticket then for the first time in my life. Q. You had been on Old-Line Whig? A. Yes, sir; and Mr. Roby voted the Democratic ticket. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. You need not state about the votes of your neighbors. Q. [By Mr. Aiken.] Did Mr. Roby vote for Harris? A. No, sir. He voted for McClellan, though. Q. Have you suffered since the war in your property to a considerable extent on account of the war? A. I have only suffered by the loss of my negroes. Q. Did you ever make any complaint about that? A. Not to my knowledge. When the State declared her new constitution, I was willing for them to go. Cross-examined by Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett: Q. I understood you to say the other day that you had used no threats against Mr. Kallenback? A. Not to my knowledge, I said. Q. And did not threaten to whip or kill him if he testified against you or any of your relatives? A. No, sir. Andrew Kallenback, a witness called for the prosecution in rebuttal, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett: Q. State to the Court where you reside. A. Near Surrattsville, Prince George’s County, Md. Q. Have you, since the assassination, had any conversation with Mr. Jenkins, who has just left the stand, in reference to testifying in this case? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where and what was that conversation?
Q. In the evening, or daytime? A. In the evening. Q. State to the Court what that conversation was, and especially whether he used any threats against you. A. On the 17th, he arrived from Washington at Mr. Lloyd’s Hotel; and, after he had got there about fifteen minutes, he said that I was a liar; that he understood I had been telling some lies on him; and if so, if he found it out to be the truth, he would give me the damnedest whipping I ever had. Q. What else? A. After that, he said that if I testified against him, or any one connected with him, he would still give me a damned whipping. That was in the presence of Mr. Cottingham and Mr. Joshua Lloyd. Q. Did he mention Mrs. Surratt’s name in that conversation? A. He did not mention her name. Q. He simply said himself, or any one connected with him? A. He said that if I testified against him, or any one connected with him, he would give me the damnedest whipping I ever had. Q. How long have you known Mr. Jenkins? A. About ten years, I think. Q. What has been in his reputation in that neighborhood for loyalty during this struggle? A. I have never heard him express any disloyal sentiments. He has always said that he was a Union man, in my presence. Q. What was his reputation as a matter of fact through the neighborhood? A. That I do not know. Q. He claimed to be a Union man all the time? A. Always in my presence. I have never heard him express any other sentiments.
A. He was not very sober; and I cannot say that he was very drunk, either. [390] Q. Had he been drinking? A. Yes.
Q. You state that Mr. Jenkins had been drinking that day. Did you see him drink? A. No, sir: I did not see him drink until that night. Q. You state that the quarrel commenced by his calling you a liar? A. Yes, sir. Q. What had you been saying that induced him to make that remark to you? A. Nothing at all. Q. Were you at Alexandria at any time about the breaking-out of the war? A. I used to deal at Alexandria all the time before the war broke out; and, since the war broke out, I have been always dealing in Washington. Q. Have you a grown son? A. Yes, sir: I have two. Q. What is the name of the one that you put in the rebel army at Alexandria? A. I did not put any in the rebel army. Q. Have you not had a son in the rebel army? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he not go there with you full and free consent? A. He went there with his own consent; without mine. Q. Did you place any restrictions in the way of his going? A. No, sir. Q. Have you lived neighbor to Mrs. Surratt for years? A. Yes, sir. Q. Has she or not been exceedingly kind to your family? A. Nothing more than neighborly. Q. Has she or not given them very much in the way of food and clothes? A. No, sir. Q. Has she not, on all occasions and at all times, been a great friend to your family? Yüklə 2,75 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|