Conspiracy trial for the murder of the president
Yüklə 2,75 Mb.
|
[405] Q. But you were tried for murder? No answer. Q. In what county? A. Prince George’s. Q. When? A. I do not recollect exactly when it was. Q. Since this Rebellion broke out? A. Yes: I think it was somewhere about the first of the war. James A. McDevitt, a witness for the prosecution, recalled at his own request. The Witness said, I think I made a mistake in giving my testimony in regard to finding the name of John Surratt on the books of the hotel in Montreal. I should have said “John Harrison.” By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham: Q. That was the last entry? A. The first and the last: both were “John Harrison.” Q. “Surratt” was not attached to it at all? A. The name of Surratt was not there. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham: Q. Do you know John Surratt’s handwriting? A. I have three letters in my office of John Surratt’s writing; but they are different handwriting. Q. Are you able, from your knowledge of his handwriting, to say whether the entry on the register of St. Lawrence Hall was his or not? A. No, sir. Q. Did you take with you any one who knew his handwriting? A. No, sir. John Thompson, a witness called for the accused, Mary E. Surratt, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— [406] By Mr. Aiken: Q. State to the Court your residence. A. I live at T. B., Prince George’s County, Md. Q. Are you acquainted with J. Z. Jenkins? A. Yes, sir: I am acquainted with him. Q. How long have you been acquainted with him? A. Since 1860 or 1861. Q. Do you know any thing of his reputation for loyalty and integrity to the cause of the Government and the Union? A. I always considered him a loyal man. Q. What is his reputation for loyalty among his neighbors and acquaintances? A. I do not know that I have heard any one say so, but I have talked with him myself, and he always seemed to be that way. Q. Has he, or not, been called by his friends and neighbors an abolitionist? A. I do not know that I could say whom I heard say so. By Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett. Q. Do you think you yourself are a competent judge of loyalty? A. I do not know: I always considered myself loyal. Q. Do you think your own reputation has been that of a loyal man during this struggle? A. I think so. Q. Are you confident of that? A. I am.
Q. Have you never desired the success of the Southern Rebellion? A. No, sir: I never have. Q. You have all the time been on the side of the Government? A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Aiken: Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Kallenback? A. I know him. Q. Do you know any thing of his reputation for loyalty? A. I do not. [407] Dr. J. H. Blanford recalled for the accused, Mary E. Surratt. By Mr. Aiken: Q. Are you acquainted with J. Z. Jenkins? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know any thing of his general reputation for loyalty to the cause of the Government and the Union? A. I have always regarded Mr. Jenkins as being loyal to the Government of the United States? Q. Have you ever heard him express, on any occasion or at any time, the first disloyal sentiment? A. I never heard Mr. Jenkins express any sentiments disloyal to the Government. Q. Has not he been called by his friends and neighbors, or by some of them, an abolitionist? A. I do not know that I ever heard of Mr. Jenkins being termed an abolitionist; I think to the contrary; but I have always regarded him as being any thing else but in opposition to the Government. He was generally avoided in the beginning of this war by parties who were not thoroughly in favor of the Administration. Q. Was he or not active and zealous in his efforts, at the breaking-out of the Rebellion, to keep the State of Maryland in the Union? A. I know that Mr. Jenkins supported consistently the opposition candidate to the Democracy. I am not in his particular voting precinct; and of what particular efforts he may have made in that respect I am not aware. Q. Are you acquainted with a man by the name of Kallenback, who lives in the neighborhood? A. I do know a Kallenback. Q. Andrew Kallenback? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you acquainted with his reputation for loyalty, &c.? A. I do not know any thing to the contrary of Mr. Kallenback’s loyalty. Q. He has been opposed to Mr. Jenkins in politics, has he not?
Q. Do you know any thing of his taking his son to Alexandria to enlist him in the rebel army? A. I do not.
A. Yes, sir: I recognize it. Q. Is it yours? A. Yes, sir. It was given to me by a lady about two years and a half ago. I asked her for it. She at first refused to give it to me: but I told her I wanted it; and then she left it in the book, and said she did not care whether I took it or not; and I took it, and it has remained among my papers ever since. It remained there ever since until I saw it now. By Mr. Ewing: Q. How long have your family been living in the house you have been occupying on H Street, between Sixth and Seventh Streets? A. We commenced moving there, I think, about the 1st of October. I came there myself the first week in November; I think, about the sixth day. Q. Have your family occupied any other house in the city of Washington than that? A. No other. Q. Did you ever see Judson Jarboe at your house? A. No, sir: he never visited our house at all. I never saw him there. Q. Did you ever see him at all prior to the 14th of April? A. I have seen him pass in his buggy in the country; but I never saw him before to speak to him. I saw him at distance. [409] Q. That was when you living in the country? A. Yes, sir: I saw him pass in his buggy. Q. Are you the only daughter of Mrs. Surratt? A. Yes, sir; the only daughter. Q. Did you ever see or hear of Dr. Samuel Mudd being at your mother’s house in this city? A. No, sir. The Commission then adjourned until to-morrow (Thursday, June 8, 1865), at eleven o’clock, A.M. ——————— Thursday, June 8, 1865. Mr. Ewing offered in evidence a copy of General Orders, No. 26, War Department, Adjutant-General’s Office, Washington, Feb. 2, 1863, as follows, viz.:— War Department, Adjutant-General’s Office, Washington, Feb. 2, 1863. General Orders, No. 26.—The district of country north of the Potomac River, from Piscataway Creek to Annapolis Junction and the mouth of the Monocacy, and south by Goose Creek and Bull Run Mountain to the mouth of the Occoquan, will constitute the Department of Washington; and troops in that department will constitute the Twenty-second Army Corps, to be commanded by Major-General Heintzelman. By order of the Secretary of War. L. Thomas, Adjutant-General. A copy of the foregoing orders was received in evidence without objection. The Judge Advocate offered in evidence, without objection, the following proclamation of the President of the United States, dated Sept. 25, 1862, with the accompanying certificate of the Secretary of War, dated May 30, 1865, as follows, viz.:— War Department, Adjutant-General’s Office, Washington, Sept. 25, 1862. General Orders. No. 141.—The following proclamation by [410] the President is published for the information and government, of the army and all concerned:— By the President of the United States of America. A PROCLAMATION. Whereas it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers, but also portions of the militia of the States by draft, in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the order processes of law from hindering this measure, and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection:— Now, therefore, be it ordered,— First, That during the existing insurrection, and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors, within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law, and liable to trial and punishment by courts-martial or military commissions. Second, That the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the Rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement, by any military authority, or by the sentence of any court-martial or military commission. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, this twenty-fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred [?] and sixty-two, and of the independence of the United States, the eighty-seventh. Abraham Lincoln.
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original order on file in the War Department; and that the same is in full force, and not revoked. E. D. Townsend, Assistant Adjutant-General. Be it known that Edward D. Townsend, who has signed the foregoing certificate, is the Assistant Adjutant-General of the Army of the United States, and that to his attestation as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given. In testimony whereof, I, Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the Department of War of the United States of America to be hereunto affixed, on this thirtieth of May, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five. Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War. The Judge Advocate also offered in evidence, without objection, General Orders, No. 100, Adjutant-General’s Office, Washington, April 24, 1863, containing “Instructions for the government of the armies of the United States in the field,” prepared by Francis Leiber, LL.D., and revised by a board of officers of which Major-General E.A. Hitchcock was president. Mr. Aiken proposed to offer in evidence a telegraphic despatch from Montreal, Canada, containing an affidavit of John McCullough, made before the Vice-Consul of the United States in Montreal, for the purpose of contradicting a statement made by Louis J. Weichmann, a witness for the prosecution, that he had seen McCullough at Booth’s room in the National Hotel on the second day of April last. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham objected to the introduction of the paper. It was a wholly immaterial question whether McCullough ever met Weichmann or not. That point being immaterial, Weichmann could not be contradicted about it. The witness (Weichmann) was not to be treated in that way. He could only be impeached on material points. Such was the rule of law. [412] Mr. Aiken stated that he had no desire to offer any thing which was not strictly legal; but the proposition now made was of considerable importance to the accused. Mr. Weichmann had sworn to certain statements which were contradicted in the sworn affidavit of Mr. McCullough. If he was mistaken in such small matters, might he not also be mistaken in the greater matter of the guilt or innocence of some of the accused? Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham replied, that this was an illegal mode of attacking a witness. If, on cross-examination, a witness is asked an immaterial question, his answer concludes the party asking the question. How was this point material? The only material matter connected with that visit of Weichmann was, that he went, at the request of Mrs. Surratt, to see Booth. For what purpose? That Booth should come to see her. Her own daughter had confirmed the statement of Weichmann, and sworn that Booth did go to see Mrs. Surratt that day, and at the hour named by Weichmann. Were they both to be discredited by an ex parte statement of McCullough? It was not testimony at all for any purpose, because it was wholly immaterial. Mr. Aiken inquired if Weichmann was on the stand, and the question put to him, whether he had met Mr. McCullough at the National Hotel on the second day of April last, and he were to swear that he did meet McCullough there, would it not be competent to prove that he was mistaken? Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. No: you would have no right to prove any thing about it, because John McCullough is not involved in the issue before the Court. Mr. Aiken claimed that it was competent to disprove any statement made by Weichmann which was not true. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham would yield the point if any authority whatever could be adduced to support the counsel’s position. If that were allowed, there would be no end to judicial proceedings. The Judge Advocate proposed to read to the Court an authority on this point, as it was raised so often, and might be again; and he wished the authority borne in mind; namely:— “Irrelevant questions will not be allowed to put to a witness
“Evidence to contradict the opponent witnesses.—This may always be given on points relevant to the issue; but if any opponent witness be asked questions on cross-examination which are not relevant to the issue, which, as we shall hereafter see, may be done (p. 146), the answer must be taken, and he cannot be contradicted by other evidence. – Spenceley v. De Willott, 7 East, 108; R. v. Yewin, 2 Camp. 638; where a witness was asked whether he had not been charged with robbing the prisoner, his master, which he denied, and Lawrence, J., refused to allow him to be contradicted on this point.”—Roscoe’s Criminal Evidence, p. 87. Mr. Aiken. It was considered by the Government material to show that Dr. Mudd was at Booth’s room. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. That is a very different matter. Mudd is one of the accused; McCullough is not. It would be just as material to ask whether McCullough had on a silver spur, and then contradict him on that. John C. Holland, a witness called for the accused, Samuel A. Mudd, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By Mr. Ewing. Q. State where you live, and what, if any, official position you hold. A. I hold the position of provost-marshal of the draft for the Fifth [414] Congressional District of Maryland. My office, or headquarters, is at Ellicott’s Mills, Howard County. Q. That is your post-office address? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you acquainted with Daniel J. Thomas, of Charles County? A. I just know him from the fact of his having been a drafted man; and I examined him at Benedict, Charles County, I know him thus far. Q. State whether, at any time during last spring or winter, you received a letter from him stating that Dr. Samuel Mudd, one of the accused, had said to him (Daniel J. Thomas) that the President (Mr. Lincoln) and his whole Cabinet, and every Union man in the State of Maryland, would be killed within six or seven weeks. A. I never received any such letter. Q. Did you ever receive a letter from Daniel J. Thomas mentioning any thing to the effect of that statement, in whole or in part? A. No, sir. Q. Or any letter from him mentioning the name of Dr. Samuel Mudd? A. No, sir. Q. Did you receive any letter from Mr. Thomas about that time? A. I had received a letter from him dated the 9th of February, 1865. Q. Had it any relation whatever, direct or indirect, to the subject I have inquired of you in regard to? A. No, sir. Q. Or in relation to Dr. Samuel Mudd? A. It had no relation to Dr. Samuel Mudd. Q. Was Mr. Thomas a detective under you? A. I believe he was commissioned as what we call an independ-
Q. Were such commissions given to anybody who applied? A. Yes, sir.
A. There was a reference in the letter to Dr. George Mudd, a gentleman with whom I am acquainted. I was not acquainted with Dr. Samuel Mudd. I do not know him. Alexander Brawner, a witness called for the accused, George A. Atzerodt, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By Mr. Doster: Q. State to the Court where you live. A. I live in Port Tobacco, Md. Q. Do you know the prisoner Atzerodt? A. I do.
Q. How long have you known him? A. I have known him for the last six or eight years. I have known him well for the last five years. Q. State whether, about the last day of February or the beginning of March of this year, you saw Atzerodt at Port Tobacco. A. He was down in Port Tobacco some time in the spring. It was in February or March,—somewhere along there,—I do not know exactly what time. Q. How do you associate it with the time? A. He came down, and I was going into the country. He was down on horseback; and I told him I had to go out to the country, and had not seen him— Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. You need not state any thing that was said between you and him at all. [416] Q. [By Mr. Doster.] Just state how you associate the visit with that time. A. I was going out into the country, and he went along with me. I had some business out in the country, and he went along with me. Q. Is that associated in your mind with the end of February? A. It was some time in the latter part of February or March. I do not know exactly. I do not remember dates at all. I never took any account of it at all. Q. Did you know whether on that occasion he had just come down from Barnestown? A. I do not. Q. Or that he had come from Bryantown? A. I think he had come from Bryantown. Q. Was he riding a horse? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the color of the horse? A. It was a sorrel horse. Q. Do you know any thing about the prisoner’s reputation for courage? A. Well, I never considered him a very courageous man, by a long streak. Q. What is his general reputation down there as a man of courage? A. I never knew him to get into a difficulty at all. I have known him for the last five years. I have seen him in scrapes, and I have seen him get out of them very fast. Q. Is he not rather celebrated for being a notorious coward? A. He is. Q. Have any instances of his cowardice fallen under your observation? A. I have seen him in little scrapes,—bar-room scrapes, &c. Q. State any instances you may have seen of his want of courage. A. I have seen him in little difficulties and bar-room scrapes, where there were pistols drawn, &c.; and he generally got out of the way. [417] Q. Was he particularly fast in getting out of the way? A. Well, sir, he made pretty good time. John H. Baden, a witness called for the accused, Samuel A. Mudd, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By Mr. Ewing: Q. State where you live. A. I live in Anacostia District, Prince George’s County, Md. Q. Are you acquainted with Daniel J. Thomas, who has been a witness on the stand here? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know what his general reputation is, in the community in which he lives, for veracity? A. I have heard very few persons speak high of it. Q. Do you know what his general reputation is? A. It is rather bad. He is counted a very untruthful man. I do not believe but a very few place any confidence in him and what he says. Q. From your knowledge of his reputation for veracity, would you believe him under oath? A. I do not think I could if any thing was at stake. Cross-examined by the Judge Advocate: Q. Have you ever heard him charged with swearing falsely? A. No, sir: I never have. Q. Has he any reputation to that effect, that he would swear falsely? A. I do not know: I never heard of the man swearing falsely. I have known him to tell a great deal that was not so; but I never heard him swear to it. Q. From your knowledge of human character, do you not think there are many men who talk idly and extravagantly, and sometimes untruthfully, who would nevertheless, when under the obligations of an oath, speak the truth? A. I do not know, sir. I do not place any confidence myself in [418] what I hear him say. I have nothing against Mr. Thomas. I have known him a good while; but I do not put any confidence in what I hear him say. Q. That is not an answer to my question. Could you not give me answer to that? The Witness. What was that? Q. Do I understand you to hold that a man who will sometimes speak untruthfully will necessarily swear to an untruth in a court of justice? Is that your judgment of human character and conduct? A. Not at all. Q. That is what I wish to ascertain. A. Not all.
A. In Charles County, Md., near Bryantown. Q. Are you acquainted with Dr. Samuel A. Mudd? A. I am.
Q. Well acquainted with him? A. Yes, sir. Q. State whether or not you fell in company with him on Saturday, April 15, the day following the assassination of the President. A. I did. Q. State where, and under what circumstances, you fell in company with the prisoner Dr. Mudd. A. Dr. Samuel A. Mudd came to my house on Easter Saturday evening last. Q. That was the day following the assassination of the President? Yüklə 2,75 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|