Conspiracy trial for the murder of the president
Yüklə 2,75 Mb.
|
[530] Q. Was it an important case? A. Yes, sir. Q. And a great deal of money depended on this man’s testimony? A. Not much money. Q. Was that the same case in which an attempt was made to impeach his testimony? A. Yes, sir. Q. The same case? A. Exactly. Q. And, if this man’s testimony had been successfully impeached you would have lost the case, would you not?
A. I am.
Q. How long have you known him? A. I have known him for nine or ten years. Q. Intimately? A. Intimately for six years. Q. Do you reside in Troy? A. I do.
Q. State if you have knowledge of the reputation which he bears there as a man of integrity and truth. A. I have some knowledge of his integrity. Q. State what that reputation is. A. Good.
Q. And for truth? A. Good.
Q. From the knowledge you have of his reputation, and of his conduct in life, would you or not believe him when upon oath? A. I would, under oath or without. [531] Cross-examined by Mr. Doster: Q. Are you one of the firm that employed Mr. Norton as a lawyer? A. I employed him. Q. How much money was involved in that case? The Witness. In what case? Mr. Doster. In the same case in which you employed Mr. Norton. The Witness. Do you mean my individual case? Mr. Doster. Yes, sir. The Witness. I do not know. Q. Was it a thousand dollars, or a hundred thousand? A. It has not been footed up yet. You speak of my own case? Mr. Doster. I speak of the case in which you employed Mr. Norton: I do not care what the case was. The Witness. It has not been fully decided yet, I think. Q. It involves considerable money? A. Some money. Q. Did you summons Mr. Norton as a witness? A. No, sir; not in my case. Q. He was only your lawyer? A. He was my lawyer. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham: Q. You have employed him in more cases than one? A. Yes, sir: he is engaged in two patent-cases for me. Q. Is Mr. Norton a man of extensive business in his profession, or some departments of it at least? A. Quite so in patent-cases in the United States courts. Q. Extensively employed by the people there? A. Yes, sir; generally. Horatio King, a witness called for the prosecution in rebuttal, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By the Judge Advocate: Q. You reside in Washington City? [532] A. Yes, sir. Q. You have been an assistant postmaster-general and postmaster-general, have you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. While living here, have you made the acquaintance of Marcus P. Norton, a lawyer from Troy? A. I have. Q. How long have you known him? A. Eight or ten years. Q. Have you known him somewhat intimately? A. Quite so. Q. State, if you have knowledge of it, what his reputation as a man of integrity and truth is. A. I saw him at the department frequently, once or twice a year, perhaps oftener, for the last eight or ten years before I left the department. Since I left the department, having had some business with him, I have seen him oftener, and known more of him, than I did while I was in the department. I have always regarded him as scrupulously honest and correct. Q. As a truthful man? A. A truthful man, so far as his business with me is concerned. I never dealt with a man more particular to keep all his engagements. Q. From his character, and from your knowledge of his conduct in life, would you, or not, believe him fully when under oath? A. Unhesitatingly.
A. Never. Q. Then you do not know the reputation of Mr. Norton in Troy? A. No.
Q. What business relations have you had with him? A. I have had connection with him with reference to patent post-rating and cancelling stamps. Q. Has it been a business in which you heard of his reputation for veracity?
Q. You then speak solely of your own judgment? A. I know nothing of him beyond that here. I never heard any one speak otherwise than favorably of him here. Q. But you cannot say what his general reputation is in Troy among the people who knew him? A. I know nothing of it personally. Q. Have you ever heard that his character for veracity was impeached? A. Not until this present time.
A. Frequently. Q. What time in March? A. I used to meet him nearly every day, all the time he was here last winter. Q. State whether or not, in any of those conversations, he mentioned to you the singular manner in which some person had called at his room, asking for Booth.
The Judge Advocate. It is entirely competent for me to corroborate the statement which Mr. Norton made before the assassination of the President, and before there had arisen any possible motive for the fabrication of his testimony, to show that that statement was substantially the same, as far as it went, as that which he has now made before the Court in regard to the call the prisoner Mudd made at his room, asking for Booth. I think it is competent to sustain him, assailed as he has been by the testimony for the defence. The Commission overruled the objection. The question being repeated to the witness, he answered:— A. I recollect perfectly that he mentioned at the time that some [534] person had come into their room very abruptly; so much so as to alarm his sister-in-law, who was with him in an adjoining room. They had rooms adjoining; and, in the course of the day, they were in the same room. Q. Do you remember whether he stated for whom that person made inquiry? A. I do not. Q. Do you remember about the time it occurred? A. I think it was some time in March: I cannot state positively. Q. That was the time you had this conversation with him; but you cannot state precisely when this entrance into his room was made? A. I cannot. I saw him nearly every day when he was here in the course of the winter; and I was engaged with him in a matter of business that I had charge of.
A. No; not while he was here at that time. Q. Did he ever mention it to you until he came into Court the other day? A. I never heard it until he made some allusion to it in a letter that he wrote me, I think, on the 15th of May. That was the first allusion. Q. About the beginning of the trial? A. I think it was on the 15th of May that his letter was dated, in which he made some allusion to his having seen persons there that he would like to speak with me about when he should come here. By Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett: Q. [Submitting to the witness a letter.] Is that the letter to which you refer? A. It is. It was received by me, I presume, on the 17th of May. It bears my indorsement. The letter is dated Troy, N.Y., May 15, 1865, addressed to me, and signed “Marcus P. Norton.” [535] Mr. Doster. I object to the reading of the letter. Assistant Judge Advocate Burnett [To the witness.] Read the passage of it which relates to the matter of which you are now speaking. The Witness. It is, “I believe Johnson was poisoned on the evening of March 3d, or the morning of March 4th last. I know of some things which took place at the National Hotel last winter, between Booth and strangers to me, which, since the death of our good President, have thrown me into alarm and suspicion, and about which I will talk with you when I see you.” By Mr. Doster: Q. What is the date of that letter? A. May 15, 1865. Q. I understand you to say that was the first intimation you had of that language? A. I think so: I have no recollection of his mentioning it before. Q. Did you meet Mr. Norton frequently while he was here? A. Nearly every day last winter. Q. And he never mentioned that conversation to you? A. I do not remember that he did. By Mr. Ewing: Q. What time did Mr. Norton leave here? A. I cannot tell that exactly. It was after the inauguration, I know. I know that he was here at the inauguration, because I procured tickets for him and his friend to go into the Capitol. Q. Did you see him on inauguration-day? A. I do not remember that I did. Q. Did you see him afterwards, before he left? A. I think so. My impression is that he did not leave until several days after the inauguration. Q. You are not certain, though, that you saw him after the inauguration? A. I am quite certain I did, because he spoke of feeling grateful to me for having procured the tickets for himself and friends. [536] Q. When did the conversation occur in which he spoke of a person having entered his room, at the National Hotel, abruptly? A. I cannot state the particular time: it was while he was here last winter. Q. Can you say whether it was before or after the inauguration? A. I cannot state positively. Q. What is your best recollection as to that? A. I should say it was about the time of the inauguration; but I have no means of fixing the exact date. Q. What did he say excited his suspicion as to this person? A. It was the abrupt manner in which he entered the room. He spoke of it as unusual, and of its alarming his sister very much. I think he said that she was unwilling to remain in the room alone after that. Q. How long before your conversation with him did he say that this had occurred? A. I do not remember that he said; but I think it was just at the time, because, as I remarked, I used to see him nearly every day, and was in free intercourse with him nearly every day while he was here. Q. He did not speak to you, then, of the person having made any inquiry for anybody else? A. I do not remember that he did. Q. Did he at that time give you any description of the person who had entered his room? A. I do not remember that he did. Q. Did he say nothing as to the appearance of the man? A. I really cannot say whether he did or not. I merely remember his stating the circumstance of a man having abruptly entered his room. Q. Did he say what he did when the man left? A. I think he did. I am quite sure that he said he followed him. Q. How far? A. Down stairs. He expected the man to go up stairs; but, instead of doing that, he went down stairs, and he followed him down. [537] Q. Did he follow him down into the office? A. I do not remember whether he said he went clear down or not. Q. Did he speak of having any conversation with this man after he left the room? A. I do not remember that he did. Q. Or of the man having said any thing to him, either in the room or after he left? A. My impression is that he said the man made some excuse for his abrupt entrance. I cannot say what he said. Q. Are you sure whether it was, or was not, before your last interview with Mr. Norton that he mentioned it? Fix the time at which he mentioned it,—whether it was on inauguration-day, or before that day, or after it. Q. I think it was about that time. I really cannot say whether it was immediately before or immediately after; because I was with him, as I remarked, nearly every day while he was here. Q. And he mentioned nothing at the time of the conversation to which he alludes in the letter, a passage from which you have read? A. Not to my knowledge. William H. Rohrer, a witness called by the prosecution, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By the Judge Advocate: Q. State to the Court whether or not you are acquainted with Clement C. Clay, jun., of Alabama, formerly of the United States Senate. A. I am.
Q. Are you acquainted with his handwriting? A. I have had opportunities for becoming well acquainted with his writing. Q. [Submitting to the witness the original letter testified to by Richard Montgomery.] Look at that paper, and see whether it is his handwriting.
Q. You spoke both from your own recollection of his handwriting, and from having compared it with some of his writing which you have in your possession? A. Yes, sir.
I cannot now put my hand on the letter referred to; but my recollection is that it was a letter addressed to “J. W. B.,” and found in the clerk’s office at the National Hotel, and dated, I think, in March. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. No; dated the 6th of April last; and it bears unequivocal signs on its face that the writer of that letter was a party to the conspiracy to murder the President of the United States. [539] Mr. Cox. If the fact be stated as in this paper, it is a fact of which the Government has possession; and, if it is supposed that the letter has any bearing on the case of the accused, they may justly claim that the truth of the matter be disclosed. The Judge Advocate. The matter is now undergoing investigation by the Government. Mr. Cox. But the very possibility of such a transaction as this shows the danger of admitting letters in this way, picked up as waifs floating on the water, or found in hotel-offices, without any identification, or any proof connecting them with anybody implicated in the alleged conspiracy; but if the letter has any weight, and the fact be as stated, I think, as a matter of justice, it ought to be admitted on the part of the prosecution. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. I do not think any thing of that sort ought to go upon this record at all. If the parties desire to have Purdy or anybody else here, let him be brought; but it does seem to me that this is no way to dispose of a record, to bring in here newspaper paragraphs for which nobody is responsible particularly, and read them about a matter of this sort. There is nothing in it, of course, of any consequence, except the statement of these individuals that the letter is a fraud. It is no answer for a man who wrote that letter on the 6th of April to say that it is a fraud. I undertake to say that that letter is sufficient to cost the writer his life. He cannot explain it: it bears on the face of it evidence that the man who wrote it was guilty of the murder of the President. How could he know all the facts he details in that letter if he was not? Touching the competency of the letter as evidence, it will be time enough to talk about that when the question comes up. I say, upon all authority, that a letter addressed through the mail to one proved to be a conspirator and an assassin, acting in the interest of this conspiracy, although it never reached his hand, is evidence against him and everybody else that conspired with him. The Judge Advocate. I suppose the gentleman has accomplished his object by bringing the matter to the notice of the Court. It is undergoing investigation; and the result of that investigation [540] I certainly do not intend to conceal in any way; but I think it ought not to go upon the record. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. I object to loose newspaper articles going upon the record: I have no objection to any application counsel may make going upon record. Mr. Ewing. It is undoubtedly very loose, but no looser than that cipher letter picked up on the water at Morehead City. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. Yes; a good deal looser. Mr. Ewing. It has just as much relevancy to the case as that; and that was admitted in evidence. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. It was stated that that letter was not evidence against those accused, but might be evidence against other parties named in the record. Mr. Aiken. Mr. Wallach, the editor of the “Star,” is well known to the Court and to the public as a careful, truthful editor; one who endeavors to be exact in all his news items; and one who would not, under any circumstances whatever, admit a paragraph of that kind into the “Star” unless there was foundation for it. The Judge Advocate. I certainly commend the gentleman [Mr. Cox] for his zeal in bringing the matter to the notice of the Government. I only insist that it shall have no place upon the record. The Commission took a recess until two o’clock, P.M., to allow a scientific examination of Payne in reference to his sanity or insanity. On reassembling, the examination of the witnesses was continued as follows:— Dr. James C. Hall, a witness called for the accused, Lewis Payne, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By Mr. Doster: Q. Please state whether you have examined the prisoner Payne. A. I have examined him this morning. Q. How long did the examination last? A. About three-quarters of an hour. [541] Q. Will you please give in detail the result of your examination? A. I first examined him, so far as I could, with regard to his physical condition. His eye appeared to be perfectly natural, except that it appeared to have very little intellectual expression; but it was capable of showing a great deal of passion and feeling. I discovered a remarkable want of symmetry in the two sides of his head. The left side is much more developed than the right. His pulse I counted carefully at two several times. I found it to be a hundred and eight, which is about thirty strokes above a natural, healthy pulse. In other respects, his health seemed to be good, with the exception of another habit, which, I believe, the Court is informed of,—constipation. His general muscular development is perfectly healthy. I questioned him first with regard to testing his memory. I found that it acted very slowly. He appeared to answer my questions willingly, but his mind appeared to be very inert; and it took some time before he would give me an answer to a very simple question, though he did not seem to be at all reluctant in giving me the information I was seeking for. I should take it that his intellect was of a very low order; and yet I could not discover that there was any sign of insanity. His mind is dull and feeble naturally, and, I presume, has not been cultivated by education. Q. Did you examine him in reference to his moral nature or moral character? A. I asked him certain questions, which, I think, would draw out his opinion or feeling on that subject; and the conclusion to which I came is, that he would perform acts, and think himself justified in performing them, which a man of better moral nature, and of a better mind, would condemn. Q. Did you, or not, state the case to him of a person committing the crime with which he is charged, and ask his opinion in reference to the moral right to commit it? A. I did. I mentioned it as a supposed case; and he said he thought a person performing such an act as I described would be justified. “Well,” said I, “I wish you would give some reason why you think he would be justified; why you think an act [542] which I think wrong, and which everybody else thinks wrong, could be justified.” His answer amounted to this, that he thought, in war, a person was entitled to take life. That was the reason he assigned why he thought such an act could be justified. Q. Did he use the word “war”? A. Yes, sir. Q. Upon your whole examination, are you, or note, of opinion that there is reasonable ground for suspicion of insanity? A. I should say that there was. It seems to me that no man could, if he were perfectly sane, exhibit the utter insensibility that he does, and did in my presence. I do not think there was any attempt at deception. He answered the questions, so far as his mind would permit him, plainly and clearly, without any attempt at deceiving me or misleading me. I cannot give a positive opinion that he is laboring under either moral or mental insanity. Q. What time would it require to enable you to give a decided opinion? A. In the first place, I am not an expert in examinations of this kind. In the course of a long practice, I have, of course, seen a good many insane persons, but never have made it a subject of special study or practice. To decide on a case of that kind, one ought to see the person at various times, and under various circumstances. I never saw this man before. Q. Would it be necessary to see the prisoner under different circumstances? A. I think it would be very well that either I, or some person who had much more experience, and was much more competent to form a judgment, should see him. I think that is the proper course. It should be some one who is known to be an expert in examinations of this kind, to see him.
A. I cannot discover any positive signs of mental insanity, but of a very feeble, inert mind; a deficiency of mind rather than a Yüklə 2,75 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|