Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-05-16
Trial of the Assnssins.

minutes of the military court thatyesterday
Samuel Arnold, through his counsel, Thos.
Ewing, put up the plea that this military
court has no power to try him Oh the
charges preferred for the reason that in
these times of peace resort should be had to
the civil tribunals. The court, after delib-
Grafton, overruled the plea. Arnold then
asked to be tried separately from the others;
but this request was also denied.
| O'Laughln has procured counsel and is
represented by Mr.. Walter Cox, and Col.
VIM. e. Doster appeared for Aircraft and
Payne. The charge against the prisoners
| is in substance as follows:
For, between the 9th of March and 18th of
April, 1865, conspiring with John II. Sur
ratt, John Wilkes Booth, Jefferson Davis,
George n. Sanders, Beverly Tucker, Jacob
Thompson, William G. Cleary, Clement G.
Clay, George Harper, George Coung, and
others unknown, to murder Abraham Lin
coin, President of the United States, An
drew johnson, Vice President, VIM. II.
Seward, Secretary of State, and Ulysses S.
Grant, Lieutenant-General.
WAsHINGToN, May 15.-Mr. johnson, the
senior counsel of Mrs. Surratt, this morn
ing, when the whole of the testimony ren-
dered by Mr.. Welchman had been read from
the records, applied to be permitted to ask
of him some questions before he retired.
This was objected to by Maj. Gen. Wallace.
The President then remarked that the
witness had been already examined by
counsel and fair opportunity afforded.
The Judge Advocate General then asked
whether it was to be a cross-eXamination
and being told that it was, the court, under
the Advocates suggestion, determined that
as he could call up the witnesses hereafter
of the defendant, it would be an economy
of time.
General Wallace withdrew his objection,
adding, however, that he did so only for
this time. lie had placed no objection on
the ground that these objections would
prove interminable unless stopped by
some rule. Counsel have once had full
opportunity for cross-eXamination.
EXAMINATION BY HON. REvERDY JOHNSON.
Question l understand you to say on
Saturday that you went with Mrs. Surratt
the first time on the Tuesday before the
assassination, in a buggy. Do you recol-
lect whether you stopped on the way to
Surrattsville?
| Answer. Yes, sir.
! Ques. Where?
Ans. She stopped on two or three occa-
sions.
Ques. Did you stop at Unontown?
Ans. DO not know the particular point,
whether it was Uniontown or not.
Ques. Did you stop at a village?
Ans. Stopped on the road, at no partic-
ular village that remember.
Ques. Now, do you know Mr.. Lloyd?
Ans. have met him three times.
| Ques. Did you know him as the keeper
of the hotel? .- -..-
Ans. knew him as the man that rented
Mrs. Surratt's house from her, because 1
copied off the instrument.
| Ques. Do you recollect seeing him by q
buggy on the way from Surrattsville on
Tuesday?
Ans. Yes, sir, we met his carriage. Mrs.
Surratt called to Mr.. Lloyd. Mr.. Lloyd got
out and approached the buggy. Mrs. Sur
rattput her head out and had conversation
with him.
Ques. Did you hear it?
Ans. No. sir
Ques. Did you hear aranything said about
shooting irons?
Question objected to by Assistant Judge
Advocate Bingham. The question was
then withdrawn.
about shooting irons. Mrs. Surratt spoke
to Mrs. Atfutt about having this man How
ell take the oath of allegiance and get re-
leased, and said she was going to apply to
Gen. Augur or Judge Sumner for that pur-
pose.
| Ques. How long was that conversation
between MIR. Lloyd and Mrs. Surratt on that
occasion?
Ans. That could not say exactly. I do
not think it was more than five or eight
minutes. do not carry watch and l have
no precise means of knowing.
BY Judge Holt: Ques. understood you
to say you did not hear the whole of this
conversation?
Ans. did not hear the conversation be-
tween Mr.. Lloyd and Mrs. Surratt. Mrs.
| Surratt spoke to Mr.Lloyd atsome distance
| from the buggy and could not hear it.
whether it was raining at that time q
o'clock?
Ans. Do not think it was raining at that
| particular time. 1t was cloudy ,murky
| day. | cannot say whether it was raining
| or not. don't remember.
The reading of the record was resumed,
and being finished by half-past one the
court took a recess. .a. ..s'.. ..
After recess Mr.. John M. LLOYD was re-
called and asked if he could identify the
carbines shown him as the ones referred to
IN his previous testimony?
| Witness. The one without the cover on
| do not recognize. / don't think the COW
er looks the same; it was kind of gray
cloth, The other looks like one l saw. L
recognize the fixture for breachloading,
which arrested my attention and which
examined. If the court will allow wish
| ined before stated that it was on Monday
when met Mrs. Surratt at Uniontown.-
l was confused by my being summoned to
court on two Mondays-the first Monday l
was summoned l did not 60. l met Mrs.
| Surratt at Uniontown next day, after
went to court, and consequently it must
| have been on Tuesday after the second Mon
day was summoned. Another statement:
| testified in my last examination, that l
was not certain whether carried the bun
die given me by Mrs. Surratt up stairs or
not. l cannot now recollect distinctly, but
think it likely L laid it on the stove in the
dining room.G .. nos r ll. .s.. ..rg
BY Judge Holt: Ques. You are sure that
it was the same bundle that you examined
here? .--
Ans. Yes, sir; am sure it was the same
bundle.
By Mr.. Aiken: Ques. Did 1 understand
you to say that you were in liquor at
the time you had this conversation with Mrs.
| Surratt. r.as .|.. m-m
! Ans. | was somewhat in liquor, as
think told you on Saturday. ar
l. Ques. And on that account is it that you
are at fault in your testimony, and wish to
make an apology?
Ans. l was not positive whether 1 car
ried the bundle up the stairs or not. The
question was unexpected. If l had ex-
pected it / might have recollected more
distinctly in my former examination.