Conspiracy trial for the murder of the president
Yüklə 2,75 Mb.
|
[476] James E. Russell, a witness called for the prosecution, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By the Judge Advocate: Q. Where do you reside? A. In Springfield, Mass. Q. State to the Court whether you are acquainted with Lewis F. Bates. A. I have known him about twenty-five years. Q. Where has he been residing for the last three or four years? A. For the last five years, I have not known any thing of his whereabouts, until I have recently met him here. Q. Did you learn from him that he had been living in the South? A. I learned from him that he had been living in Charlotte, N.C. Q. State what his reputation is, as known to you, as a man of truth and veracity. A. He was in business on the Western Railroad, in Massachusetts, as baggage-master, while I was conductor, for a number of years; and I never heard any thing against his reputation for truth. William L. Crane, a witness called for the prosecution, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By the Judge Advocate: Q. Are you acquainted with Lewis F. Bates? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you known him? A. Since 1848. Q. What is his reputation for as a man of truth and integrity? A. I never heard any thing against it. Q. Do you know the business in which he is engaged, and has been for many years? A. In 1848 and 1849, he was baggage-master on the route [477] between New York and Boston. I was running at the time between New York and Hartford. Q. What position do you occupy now? A. I am the agent of Adams’s Express Company, New York, eastern division.
A. I did reside in Augusta, Ga., until within the last few months. Q. When did you leave the South? A. A year ago last April. Q. Did you know in the South a Mr. L. F. Bates? A. I did. Q. Did you know him well? A. Yes, sir: for the last two or three years, I knew him pretty well. Q. In what business was he engaged? A. Superintendent of the Express Company for the State of North Carolina. Q. State to the Court the reputation he bore as a man of truth and integrity. A. The very best reputation possible, so far as I know. I knew him quite intimately: I know he occupied a position of great trust and responsibility. He was placed there by men who knew their business. Q. His character is without reproach, so far as you know? A. Entirely so. Jules Soule, a witness called for the prosecution, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By the Judge Advocate: Q. Where do you reside? [478] A. At present, in New-York City. Q. Where have you been residing during the past few years? A. At Columbia, S.C. Q. Did you, while South, within the last few years, know L. F. Bates? A. I did. Q. Do you know the business in which he was engaged there? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was it? A. The express-business. Q. State what his reputation was there as a man of truth and integrity. A. He bore the reputation of a truthful and reliable man in every respect, to the best of my knowledge. Q. You never heard his character assailed or reproached in any way? A. I have been intimately acquainted with him: we have been connected in business for the last three or four years, and I never heard any thing against him. Q. Was the position he occupied there one of high responsibility and trust? Q. It was.
A. Only since his arrival in Washington City. Q. State under what circumstances he was brought from North Carolina here. A. By the order of the Secretary of War. Q. Can you state when it appears, by the records of the War Department, that the army of General Butler was ordered to leave New York last November? A. I cannot state now without looking at the record. [479] William Wheeler, a witness called for the prosecution in rebuttal, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By the Judge Advocate: Q. State to the Court whether you are acquainted with Marcus P. Norton, and, if so, how long you have known him, and how intimately. A. I have known him intimately from twelve to fifteen years,—first at school in Vermont; subsequently at Troy, N.Y., —where he now resides. Q. Do you reside there? A. I did reside, until I came to Washington, on the 15th of April, at Lansingsburg, three miles from Troy, I was formerly a resident of Troy, before I lived in Vermont. Q. State to the Court, from this long acquaintance you had with him, what reputation he bears as a man of truth and integrity. A. It is good. Q. You state it to be so from your own personal knowledge? A. I do.
Q. From that knowledge, would you, or not, have any hesitation in believing Mr. Norton when speaking under oath in a court of justice? A. I would not have any. Cross-examined by Mr. Doster: Q. Are you living in Washington? A. I am.
Q. How long have you been living here? A. Since the 15th of April. Q. Of this year? A. Of this year. Q. Were you, or not, a witness in a case in which the testimony of Mr. Norton was impeached? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever heard Mr. Norton’s reputation for veracity questioned? A. I have heard of cases of impeachment, but know nothing [480] about them except by general rumor that they were failures. There have been one or two, as I have understood, but they essentially failed. Q. What have been your personal relations with Mr. Norton? A. He was at school in Vermont from 1850 to 1853, in the village where I then lived. Q. What village was that? A. West Poultney. He was an active, persevering scholar. From that he was a joiner a while—, Q. I want to know your own relations to him, not his history. Were they of a friendly character? A. Yes, sir; always. Q. Were they specially friendly? A. Not any thing more than with other neighbors. Q. Have you been in Troy since you moved here in April? A. No, sir; not since. Q. You are not prepared, then, to swear what his reputation now is in Troy? A. I might give an opinion. Q. Do you know what his reputation at present is in Troy? A. I have heard nothing against him. Q. Have you heard any thing for him since? A. Nor in his favor till questions arose here. He is a man in large business there, employed by first-class houses. Q. I understand you to say, then, that all you know about Mr. Norton is what you learned and knew of him as a schoolboy? A. No, sir: I have been familiarly acquainted with him since the period he went to school there. Q. Where? A. In Poultney; as I was back and forth from Poultney to Troy, and formerly a resident there, and well acquainted in Troy; and, when I came to Washington on the 15th of April last, I came from the village of Lansingsburg, three miles north of Troy. Q. Then you were not living in Troy at that time? A. No, sir: I was not living in Troy at that time; but I was down there several times a week on business. Q. How long have you lived in Troy? [481] A. I lived there five years formerly. Q. When was that? A. From 1845 to 1850. Q. That was about fourteen or fifteen years ago? A. From fifteen to twenty years ago. Q. Since then you have not lived in Troy? A. No: I have not been a resident of there since.
A. He was back and forward into Rutland County, having business there; and I used to see him on the way, and see him also at Troy, where I was frequently. Q. And where you were intimate and well acquainted? A. I have been intimately acquainted with him, as much so as with any man. Q. And with the people of Troy also? A. Yes, sir: I have had an intimate acquaintance with Troy for thirty years. Q. I understand you to say that he is a man of large practice, and employed by first-class houses there? A. Yes, sir. Q. What knowledge have you as to that fact? A. I was called a year ago last March or April to give testimony in a case in which he was employed as counsel,—in the case of P. P. Stewart’s stove, that was litigated here,—in which the interests of Fuller, Warren, and Morrison, who make those stoves, were largely involved; a very reputable, wealthy house. Q. Was he employed by that house? A. He was. Q. You know the fact that he is employed by large firms there, and has an extensive business? A. I do.
Q. You stated that you were a witness in a case in which Mr. Norton was counsel: was that a very large case? [482] A. It was a case between Atwood and Fuller, Warren, and Morrison, relative to the right of a stove. Q. Did it involve a great deal of money? A. I cannot answer that question, other than by stating what Atwood himself said, that it subjected him to a loss of about eight thousand dollars. Q. Where were you living, then, when you were a witness? A. In Lansingsburg. Q. And were brought here? A. No, sir. Q. Was it at home? A. That testimony was taken before a commission in Troy, at Mr. Norton’s office. Q. You were a witness called by Mr. Norton? A. Called by Fuller, Warren, and Morrison. Q. But Norton was counsel in the case? A. Yes, sir.
A. I am now a resident of Washington, holding the appointment of Examiner-in-chief in the Patent Office. Q. Where did you formerly reside? A. For twenty odd years past, in Rutland, Vt. Q. Did you ever know Mr. Marcus P. Norton? A. Very well. Q. How long have you known him? A. I am sure I have known him for eleven years past, perhaps longer. Q. Do you know his reputation for truth and veracity? A. Some years since, Mr. Norton moved to Troy; and I do not know how he stands there so well. I can only speak of his reputation in Rutland and that vicinity, where I resided. [483] Q. So far as you know, what is that reputation in those places where you have known him? A. Until within two or three years past, I do not know that I ever heard any thing against him. Q. Has any thing you have heard against his reputation in the last two or three years grown out of the litigations in which he was engaged? A. Entirely: out of litigation in which he was engaged, or in which he was a witness who was very intimately acquainted with the circumstances. Q. Outside of those cases, have you ever heard Mr. Norton’s reputation for truth and veracity questioned? A. No, sir, I have not; only in this way (as I was going to qualify it): I have been employed as Mr. Norton’s counsel in cases where a good deal of angry feeling was elicited, and remarks were made by counsel and parties. Further than that, I do not know that I ever heard his reputation impeached, until, as I said before, two or three years ago. Q. When you say “impeached,” you mean “attempted to be impeached”? A. I never heard of any such attempt until within the last two or three years. Q. In these litigations? A. In consequence of these litigations where he was counsel or witness. Cross-examined by Mr. Doster: Q. Have you ever, in the course of your experience, heard any one speak of Mr. Norton as a man distinguished for veracity? A. I do not now recall any such observation. Q. Did you ever hear any man say that he usually spoke the truth? A. I do not remember that question ever being raised, as I said before, until within two or three years ago? Q. How long is it since you knew Mr. Norton at home? A. I know him now at Troy; but I am not acquainted at Troy sufficiently to speak of his reputation there. [484] Q. How long is it since you lived in the same town with him? A. I do not remember the time he left Rutland. Q. How many years about? A. It must be as much as five years since he left Rutland. By Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett: Q. You have known him personally ever since? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Ewing, by the consent of the Judge Advocate, presented the following agreement entered into between him and the Judge Advocate:— “It is admitted by the prosecution that John F. Watson, John R. Richardson, and Thomas B. Smith, loyal citizens, will testify they are acquainted with the reputation of Daniel J. Thomas where he lives, and that it is bad; and that, from their knowledge of it, they would not believe him on oath. “And, further, that John R. Richardson above named will testify that Daniel J. Thomas (the witness for the prosecution) made the statement on the 1st of June (the National Fast Day) as sworn to by William J. Watson before this Court this day. “And the prosecution agree that this statement be put upon the record, and received and weighed by the Court as though said witnesses had actually so testified before it.”
A. Yes, sir. Q. And I asked you what he said then about the persons being at his house. Go on now, and state what he said. A. I heard on Saturday evening that the assassination had taken place; but I heard it in such a way that I did not believe it. Our church generally commences about ten o’clock, or thereabouts, on Sunday. As I got to the church, I saw the people collected together, talking, and apparently in earnest conversation. It turned out to be respecting the assassination of the President of the United States. As I advanced towards the church, I happened to go to where Dr. Samuel Mudd was. I walked up to where he was, and spoke to him, and he spoke to me. I asked him was such the fact that the President had been assassinated. He then turned around to me from the crowd, and said, “Yes, such seems to be the fact;” and he added, “Sir, we ought to raise immediately a home guard, and to hunt up all suspicious persons through our section of country, and arrest them and deliver them up to the proper authorities; for there were two suspicious persons at my house yesterday morning.” I paid no attention to what he said about suspicious persons, because, since the war commenced, we have always had in our neighborhood deserted soldiers constantly, and detectives, and soldiers of the United States; and we could hardly tell who they were. Q. State the whole conversation. A. I have given all the conversation I recollect that I had with him on that occasion. Q. Did he say any thing about the assassination itself? A. Nothing that I recollect after that. There were so many persons talking about it, that I can hardly tell who did say any thing respecting the assassination after the conversation between me and him; for everybody in church was talking about it until church commenced, and I cannot tell whether he said any thing more, or whether anybody else did. [486] Q. You do not recollect whether he said any thing characterizing the act of the assassination? A. It seems to me—but I will not be certain about that—that he seemed to be concerned that we should raise a home guard, and arrest suspicious persons passing through the neighborhood. I do not recollect that he said any thing more. I cannot recollect that he did, because there was so much talk at the church about the assassination. It seemed to take up the whole thoughts of the people. I do not recollect any thing more; but this was the first conversation that took place between him and me at church that day. George D. Mudd recalled for the accused, Samuel A. Mudd. The Judge Advocate. The statement which this witness is about to make is of the same character with the former, and I admit it in the same way. By Mr. Ewing: Q. You spoke, in your testimony before, of a conversation between you and Dr. Samuel Mudd at and directly after church, on Sunday, the 16th of April last. I wish you to state to the Court now the whole of that conversation in reference to the assassination. A. I had very little conversation with Dr. Mudd at church. He remarked that he regarded the assassination of the President, to use his own expression, as a most damnable act. That, I think, was about the whole of what I heard him state at church. Q. State to the Court what he said to you after you left the church, on the road. A. On the road, he overtook me, and stated to me that two suspicious persons had been at his house; that they came there on Saturday morning a little while before daybreak; that one of them had a broken leg, or a broken bone in the leg, which he bandaged; that they got, whilst there, something to eat; that they seemed laboring under some degree, or probably quite a degree, of excitement,—more excitement than, probably, should necessarily result from the injury received; that they said they came from Bryan- [487] town, and were inquiring the way to Parson Wilmer’s; that, whilst there, one of them called for a razor, and shaved himself (I do not remember whether he shaved his whiskers or mustache, but altered somewhat, or probably materially altered, his features); that he himself, in company with the younger one, or the smaller one, of the two, went down the road towards Bryantown in search of a vehicle to take them away from his house; that he arranged or had fixed for them a crutch or crutches (I do not remember which) for the broken-legged man, and that they went away from his house on horseback in the direction of Parson Wilmer’s. Q. Did he say what time they went? A. No, sir; I do not think he did. Q. State what was said between you as to communicating with the military authorities on the subject. A. When I was about leaving, he turning into his house, I told him that I would state it to the military authorities, and see if any thing could be made of it. He told me that he would be glad I would, or that he particularly wished me to do it. I think he said he would be glad I would, or that he particularly wished me to do it. I think he said he would be glad I would, but he would much prefer if I could make the arrangement for him to be sent for, and he would give every information in his power relative to the matter; that, if suspicions were warrantable, he feared for his life on account of guerillas that were or might be in the neighborhood. Q. Did you say to him then, when you left, any thing further as to communicating it to the military authorities? A. When I left there? No, sir; I did not. Q. You parted with him with the understanding you would communicate it? A. Yes, sir. Q. About what time on Sunday was that? A. I guess it was about half-past eleven o’clock in the forenoon. Q. Was you then near Dr. Mudd’s house? A. Yes, sir: when I said to him that I would communicate it to the military authorities then in Bryantown, I was within fifty yards of his house, I suppose.
A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you go to Bryantown? A. I did not go to Bryantown directly. I dined at his father’s house that day. Q. At what time did you go to Bryantown? A. On my way to Bryantown, I stopped to see a patient near Bryantown; and I think it was nightfall before I got to the village at Bryantown. Q. Do you recollect, since you were upon the stand before, certainly whether you communicated the information to the authorities on that night or the next morning? A. I think it was not until the next morning. Q. Do you recollect the cause of your not communicating it that night?
The question was waived. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham: Q. The prisoner, I suppose, informed you in some way which of the two men did shave off his whiskers or his mustache? A. I do not remember. I simply remember the general facts that he stated to me; but I did not inquire, nor do I think he informed me, which one did that. Q. He informed you anyhow that one of them shaved off either his mustache or whiskers? A. Yes, sir. Q. And thereby made a change in his personal appearance? That is what he said? A. Yes, sir. [489] By Mr. Ewing: Q. Did he say which of them it was that had shaved off the whiskers or mustache? A. I do not remember. Charles A. Dana recalled for the prosecution. By Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett: Q. [Submitting to the witness two letters found and identified by Mrs. Hudspeth.] State to the Court whether you have ever seen these papers before, and how they came into your hands. A. These letters came to me by mail at the War Department, enclosed in one from General Dix. I see that the letter of General Dix is dated the 17th of November, 1864. I suppose I got it the next day. I know it was about that time. Q. You remember receiving it about that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember what you did with those papers at the time? A. I took them to the President, Mr. Lincoln. Q. Have you seen them since you took them to the President, at that time? A. After the murder of the President, the Secretary of War sent for me to go and get them back, to see if I could find them; and I went over, and searched in the President’s private desk, and there I found them, and brought them back. Q. That was since the assassination? A. Two or three days after the assassination. Q. Do you remember to whom you delivered them after you brought them back? A. I kept them for some time; and I think I delivered them to Judge Bingham. Q. You identify the two letter shown to you as the two which were enclosed in the letter of General Dix that you received? A. Those are the letters and the envelope. Yüklə 2,75 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|