Conspiracy trial for the murder of the president
Yüklə 2,75 Mb.
|
[543] derangement of it,—a very low order of intellect. His memory appears to be very slow in acting. Q. Did he, or not, seem to have a distinct recollection of his crime, and also of the motives and course of reasoning— Mr. Doster. I object to that question. The Witness. I merely supposed a case to Payne. I did not refer to it as the crime committed by himself: I merely asked him what he would think of such a crime. The Judge Advocate. And he expressed the opinion, that, under such circumstances, assassination would be justified as a belligerent right,—a right of war? The Witness. I asked him what he would think of a man who had done a crime such as he was charged with; and he said he thought he would be right in doing it. Q. Did he, in answer, betray any lack of consciousness of what the crime was, or any lack of recollection of the motive under which he had acted? A. I carefully avoided applying it to himself personally: I merely spoke of it as a supposititious case. I did not think it would be right for me to receive any confession from him; and I rather avoided extorting it. Q. Do you regard atrocious crimes as per se evidence of insanity? A. By no means. Q. Do you regard insensibility under crime, or indifference to the results of crime, as indicating insanity? A. Where a man commits crime habitually, and without any adequate motive or provocation, I should be disposed then to suspect insanity. If there is an absence of motive and an absence of provocation, and if it is done habitually, these are the conditions. A single act I should be very reluctant to form an opinion upon. Q. If a man engaged in arms as a rebel against the Government of his country is found assassinating its Chief Magistrate and the members of his Cabinet, would you, or not, regard those circumstances as indicating sufficiently the presence of motive to save him from the imputation of insanity?
Q. Do I, or not, understand you to say, doctor, that, from the whole examination you have made, you regard the prisoner Payne as sufficiently sane to be a responsible being for his acts? A. I have not altogether made up my mind on that. I do not think that the single examination which I have made would suffice to decide the question. I think there is enough to allow us a suspicion that he may not be a perfectly sane and responsible man. I can give no positive opinion on that point. His intellect is very feeble and inert. Q. The extent, then, to which you go, is, that there is ground for suspicions? You do not express any such opinion? A. I do not express a positive opinion that he is either morally or mentally insane, but that there is sufficient ground, both from his physical condition and his mental development, for a suspicion of insanity. Q. Do you rest that suspicion largely on his course of reasoning on the case which you supposed? A. The reasoning was very brief. He simply assigned as a reason what I mentioned. Q. The conclusion which he drew from your premises? A. Yes, sir: I should think that was the result either of insanity or very badly cultivated mind, and very bad morals. Q. Might it not be wholly the result of very bad morals? A. It might entirely. I attach some importance to his physical condition. It is generally known that persons who are insane, habitually, with few exceptions, have an unusually frequency of pulse. His pulse is thirty odd strokes above the normal standard. Q. He was aware of the purpose for which you had you interview with him, was he not? A. I introduced myself by telling him that I was a physician, and that the Court had directed me to examine into his condition; and I referred to some matters connected with his health. Q. Did he seem to be under any excitement? A. Not the least. He was perfectly calm, and at times smiled.
Q. Do you think that was sincere, or an affectation? A. I think it was sincere. His memory is evidently very deficient. Q. Did you ever in your life before meet a man who was abroad in the community, as a sane and responsible man, who did not know the name of his mother? A. Yes, sir: I have known persons who forgot their own names. Q. Sane persons? A. Yes, sir. I suppose you have heard of the celebrated John Law, of this city, who would go to the post-office, and be unable to call for a letter in his own name. Q. Then you do not consider forgetfulness of names any evidence of insanity? A. No, sir.
A. In Prince George’s County, Md. Q. How long have you resided there? A. For the last forty-five or fifty years; ever since I came from school at Alexandria. Q. Is your residence near Surrattsville? A. Yes, sir; about a mile from there. Q. Have you or not been acquainted with the prisoner at the bar, Mrs. Surratt, for a number of years? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long?
Q. What has been her reputation in her neighborhood, among her friends, as a truthful, Christian, kind lady? A. Very good, I believe: I never heard any thing to the contrary. Q. Have you or not, since the Rebellion, met her frequently? A. Yes, sir: I have met her occasionally, not very frequently. I have not visited her house very often of late years: in fact, I have gone very little from home myself, and, when I have gone there, I have staid but a very short time generally. Q. Have you, in all those conversations that you have had with Mrs. Surratt, ever heard her make use of a disloyal expression? A. No, sir: I never had any conversation with Mrs. Surratt on political subjects. Q. Are you acquainted with J. Z. Jenkins? A. Yes, sir; very well. Q. What is his reputation in your neighborhood for loyalty? A. He was a good Union man up to 1862, I think. At the election in 1862, he was arrested. Since then I have understood he had secession proclivities. Q. Did you take any part in his arrest that day at all? A. No, sir; I did not: I got to the polls between nine and ten o’clock.
A. My impression was that he was a good Union Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. You need not state any thing more about y our impressions. Q. [By Mr. Aiken.] Do you know any thing of the circum- [547] stances of his defending the Union of the Union with arms in his hands? A. Not to my own knowledge. I understand that he did. Q. Are you acquainted with the Rev. W. A. Evans? A. I have seen him. Q. Is there a Presbyterian church in Prince George’s County? A. Not that I know of. Q. What is the reputation of the Rev. Mr. Evans, in that community, for veracity? A. I cannot exactly tell you. Mr. Evans was impeached some years ago— Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. You need not state that. Q. [By Mr. Aiken.] From your knowledge of his character and his reputation, would you believe him on oath where any of his interests were involved? Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham objected to the question. The witness should first state whether he knew the general reputation of Mr. Evans for truth among his neighbors. Q. [By Mr. Aiken.] Are you acquainted with the reputation of the Rev. Mr. Evans in your community, in your neighborhood? A. Not except by rumor. By Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham: Q. In Evans’s neighborhood? A. Evans kept school, in the neighborhood where I live, some ten or twelve years ago. Q. The questions is as to his reputation now. A. I know nothing of his reputation now. By Mr. Aiken: Q. Has his reputation in his neighborhood, and where he has taught school, been notoriously bad? Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham. I object to any such question. This witness has already disclosed to the counsel, that, some ten or twelve years ago, Mr. Evans taught a school somewhere [548] in his neighborhood. He has also disclosed the fact that he does not know what the present reputation of Mr. Evans among his own neighbors for truth and veracity is. The law, in its humanity and in its justice, has said that no man called into a court as a witness shall be put upon trial for every act of his life; but the question is as to his general reputation at the time he appears as a witness. Now it is proposed to go back ten years. It is supposed in law, that, in ten years, a man can live down a slander, at least. The question was waived. By Mr. Clampitt. Q. Do you or do you not believe Mr. Jenkins to be a consistent Union man at the present time? A. I cannot positively state that he is now: he was some two years ago. I only met him occasionally, and then but for a short time; and had no political conversation with him. The report in the neighborhood is that Mr. Jenkins is not at this time a very loyal man. By Mr. Aiken: Q. Have you ever known or heard of Mr. Jenkins committing a disloyal act? A. No, sir: I never have. Q. You have never heard of his committing any overt act against the Government? A. No, sir; never. Q. Have you ever heard any expression, unfriendly to the Government, coming from him during the last two years? A. No, sir. William W. Hoxton, a witness called for the accused, Mary E. Surratt, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By Mr. Aiken: Q. Where do you reside? A. In Prince George’s County, Md. Q. Near Surrattsville?
Q. Are you acquainted with the prisoner at the bar, Mrs. Surratt? A. Yes, sir: I have known her for about twelve years. Q. What has been her reputation in that community, during that time, as a Christian lady? A. She has always been looked upon as a very kind lady, very kind to the sick especially; a church-going woman. Q. Have you met her frequently during the last two or three years? A. Yes, sir: I have seen her very often during the last four or five years. Q. Have you ever heard from Mrs. Surratt during that time any disloyal expression? A. No, sir: I have never heard her say a disloyal word. Q. Are you acquainted with J. Z. Jenkins? A. Yes, sir: he lives about a mile and a half from me. Q. What is his reputation, in your community, for loyalty? A. He was the strongest Union man I ever saw when the war first broke out. I have heard that he has changed recently when he lost his negroes; but I have never heard him say any thing disloyal.
A. It was said so. I have never seen any change in him myself. I have never heard him express any disloyal sentiments. By Mr. Aiken: Q. You have never seen any change in Mr. Jenkins yourself, you state? A. No, sir. Q. You have never heard of any disloyal or overt act of his against the Government? A. No, indeed; I never have. Q. At the time Mr. Jenkins lost his negroes, did he say any thing against the Government? A. I never heard him say any thing against the Government when he lost his negroes. [550] Henry Hawkins (colored), a witness called for the accused, Mary E. Surratt, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By Mr. Aiken: Q. Where do you live? A. In Prince George’s County, Md. Q. Have you lived at Surrattsville? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long? A. Ever since I have been there. Q. How many years have you lived there? A. About eleven years. Q. Where you formerly a slave of Mrs. Surratt? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was her treatment towards her servants? A. Very good, sir. Q. Did she, or not, always treat you kindly? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recollect, about the time the horses broke away from Giesboro’, of any horses coming to Mrs. Surratt’s stables? A. Yes, sir: we had seven there. Q. Do you know, or not, whether Mrs. Surratt purchased from her own means, with her own money, hay and grain with which to feed those horses? A. Yes, sir; she did. Q. How long were the horses there? A. They were there a fortnight, if not longer. Q. And then were returned to the Government by her? A. The Government sent for them. Q. Do you know, or not, whether she received a receipt? A. No, sir; not that I know of. Q. Have you since the war ever heard Mrs. Surratt talk in favor of the South? A. No, sir; I have not. Q. Have the expressions that you have heard while at her house been in favor of the Government, loyal ones, or not?
Q. You were at the house a good deal of the time? A. A part of the time I was; but, since I got free, I have not been there. I work out at a place. Q. Did you ever hear disloyal expressions and sentiments from Mrs. Surratt while you were there? A. No, sir; I did not. Q. Can you state to the Court whether it was, or was not, her habit, to feed, at her own expense, Union soldiers that passed her house? A. Yes, sir: she has done so frequently. Q. Did she always give them the best she had in the house? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was she in the habit of taking pay for it? A. Not that I know of. I do not think she did. Q. Do you recollect any occasion of bad eyesight on the part of Mrs. Surratt? A. Yes, sir. I heard she could not see some time back, and that she had to wear specs. Q. Do you recollect of something occurring before your own eyes; any particular instance? A. No, sir; I do not. I heard them say she did.
A. Yes, sir. Rachel Semus (colored) a witness called for the accused, Mary E. Surratt, being duly sworn, testified as follows:— By Mr. Aiken: Q. How long have you lived at Mrs. Surratt’s? A. I have lived there for six years. Q. Were you formerly her slave? A. No, sir: I was hired to her by Mr. Williams. Q. What has been her treatment of her servants at her house? A. She treated her servants very well all the time I was with her. [552] Q. Did you, or not, ever have any reason to complain of any hardship? A. No, indeed: I never had any reason to complain at all. Q. Do you recollect any instances since the war broke out, of Union soldiers having been fed at Mrs. Surratt’s? A. Yes, sir: they have. Q. What was her habit in regard to that? A. I know she always tried to do the best she could for them, because I always cooked in the kitchen. Q. Did she entertain many of them there? A. Yes, sir: sometimes a good many of them. Q. Did she always give them the best she had in the house? A. Yes, sir; she did so. She always gave them the best she had; and very often, indeed, she would give them all she had in the house, because so many of them came. Q. Do you, or not, recollect on one occasion of her cutting up the last ham in the house to give it to the soldiers? A. Yes, sir; she did so; and she had not any more until she sent to the city. She sent to the store first, and could not get any hams there, and then sent to the city. Q. Do you know whether or not Mrs. Surratt was in the habit of taking pay for such things? A. If she took any pay, I never saw her. She always said she never took any thing. END OF VOL. III Press of Geo. C. Rand & Avery, 3 Cornhill. * Name shown as James R. O’Brien in the official record. * Name shown as John F. Hardy in the official record. * Name shown as Honora Fitzpatrick in official record. Yüklə 2,75 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|