American citizen. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1864-1890, 1867-07-20
THE TRIAL OF SURF ATT.

THE TRIAL OF SURRATT.
This, which might more properly
be called the trial of Mrs. Surratt
and others and the attempt to justify
her murder by military commission.
was still, at latest accounts. dragging
is slow length along. 1t will hereaf-
ter be one of the nOuUel(es causes Gel.
ebreS for its outrages on law and
common Justice and its prostitution
of judicial procedure 70 wicked ends.
Mr.. Pierpont, the principal prosecu-
tor, is especially gaining a notoriety
that will prove very unenviable.
We Il TX that Surratt uas the
accomrlice of Booth. The testimony
for the prosecution seemed pretty
conclusively to prove that he was in
Washington on the day and evening
of the assassination, and that he es-
capped into Canada after it, But his
counsel aver, and seem likely to
prove, that he was in Canada at the
time Of the killing. If they should,
the prosecution signally fails.
Several things that have marked
the progress OF the trial haze caused
III our mind unpleasant suspicious as
to the unfairneSS of the prosecution,
which is being conducted by the gov
ernment.
III the first place, several of the
witnesses seem TO have been persons
OF very indifferent character anu not
remarkably credible. 1t was not
known to the counsel FOR the defence
who these witnesses We're, and the
prosecution refused to furnish the de-
fence with list of their witnesses
This looks very mach rs if the cnu0.
81 were lrprrhenH.ye that some or
chem might be i'nNeached by prOof
tnaa that they had elsewhere and at
Other times mace statements conflict
ing with their testimony given or the
stand; and as if they were, Therefore,
resolute not to permit the counsel
for the defence to know who were to
be examined.
1t is settled law that il, in q crimi-
nal case, a party wishes TO prove
such conflicting statements, he must
first lay foundation for it by asking
the witness If he has made such state
ments, so that 1T may be fairly dealt !
with, by having an opportunity to
explain ANY, any real or apparent |
discrepancy.
Also, it is principle that you may
diScredit ia" Y tueSs Of thc opposite
paltN, out cannot diScredIt YOUR own
by proof OF >uch statements; and if
Won subpoena a witness who has been
already examined on the other side,
you make him your own.
Therefore, as we cannot but sup
pose, it was carefully concealed from
the defense who the witnesses for
the prosecution were; and, as the
most suspicious witnesses. as tor ex-
ample, Sergeant Dye, came from
distance, the precaltiOn was taken
to cause them to set out of the way
as soon rs the cross examination Of
each was concluded. The counsel
fo@the defense afterwards moved that
they m. sat be retained or recalled,
in order 10 examine them as to the
statements made by them elsewhere;
but the prosecution StrenuOusly OBJ
posed this, and the Judge sustained
:cir objections. TIL" prosecution
probably had, in law. this t." bnical
advantage; but before an inteiliceni
and fair jury, their insisting upon it
in case of life and death ought to
have, and we think has, prejudioed
heir case. We know some Of the
urymen, and arc sure that then sense
IF justice and love Of fair play revolt:
ID at it.
This, however, was perhaps no.
positively diSgracrfUl, but we are
;OrTy to say that other things are.
hat they would prove Il CONSPIRACY
o assassinate President Lincoln. aud
mon that pretcnse were permitted
" the facile Judge to fish with a
Irag-net IN all sorts Of waters Cor the
words Of persons not Indicted, and
ghich prove! - I've nn testimony
rha'cv.r ,.insf - .a.t, hrwso"rrr
much they might miawfully prejud-
20 he Jury Gpr.. Grant, for instance.
..tb Jacob Thnrrs p, VickSl .r-
nd Wriohmaa was permitted :,
re w,at NJ. S.,~.g.+ mid ard