The Portland daily press., 1867-07-08
THE SURRATT TRIAL,
WASHINGTON, July 6.

1 w
The Surratt trial was resumed.
Mr. Darlington said the prosecution had not
| been able to find Duell, although very great
| exertion had been made. The Government
| was willing TO close If the defence would agree
| that Duell should be called at some future
| time.
| Mr.. Bradley said he could not agree to that.
| After discussion between counsel and the
Court Mr.. Darlington said they would close
then but without prejudice to their right to sub
| NIT motion hereafter for the admission of
Duell's testimony.
A long discussion ensued as to an agreement
for a recall of Susan Ann jackson, Rhodes and
Cleaver, the prosecution deny ing that he had
agreed to recall them. Finally Mr. Caring
ton said he had agreed that Rhodes should be
recalled and Mr. Pierrepont said that as there
was some doubt about Jackson. she could be
recalled, and the prosecution would then put
some additional questions to her. Defonce
agreed to this
Mr. Bradley moved to strike out certain Por-
t,ons OF the evidence for the prosecution, but
the Court ruled that this was not the proper
time to make motion.
D. III. Bradley Jr., then opened the case ioT
the defence He said that the time had arrived
when the prisoner could say something in sup
port of his own innocence, and when not only
his innocence may be shown, but that the pure
name of his departed mother might be vindi-
Gated.
The attorney for the defence said he came TO
this trial in full confidence of the innocence OF
the prisoner They had come to this conclu-
sion, no. from sympathy, but after full and
candid investigation OF all the circumstances
surrounding the case. Every prisoner was
presumed to be innocent until proved to be
guilty, and yet in this the Assistant Dis
trlct Attorney, in his opening remarks held
MN up as monster of iniquity. They would
contradict John NJ. Lloyd, a self-proclaimcd,
low, gfovelling drunkard, in many important
particulars. Mrs. Offert would contradict her
statements from sober stand point AS to
Weichman, man who was treated as a son by
the murdered woman-a man whose bastard
heart made him quake for his position; it will
De proven 1t was not one of the conspirators
who called at Mrs. Surratt's door on the npht
OF April l4th; that Mrs. Surratt did not an
-swer the door that night; that she never said
the murder OF MIR. Lincoln was punishment
upon this people for their pride and licentious-
hess; that the conversation detailed by WEIGH
man as having taken place at the breakfast
table on April 18th had no place except in The
brain OF Weichman. 1t will be proven that
Weichman was at all times under arrest; his
statements and confessions will also be shown
and 1T will be proven that he was intimate with
the eonspiratOrs; that information which he
obtained at the War Department which could
be OF benefit to the rebels was communicated
TO blockade runners. The mans character will
be fully shown. As to the testimony of James
NJ Dye, the dreamer, we will produce the man
VINO looked IN the carriage and the man who
called the time ten minutes past ten" in al,-
dible voice. We will further prove the record
OF Dyes lndlctment as counterfeiter, and
that he never had any conversation with Mrs.
Surratt as sworn to. AS to David c. Reed,
gambler of twenty years, if allowed we will
contradict him out of his own mouth and will
prove his indictment for a criminal offence
and that he is unworthy of belief Cooper's
testimony is SO indistinct that it is unnecessary
to contradict him. We will contradict john
Lee by showing that he never saw and never
knew John Surratt till the day before testifyng
a hA 10 moi 1nI
his OATH Another witness is William E.
Cleaver, fresh from iail for the crime of MUIR
der, committed in the vilest manner upon
little girl, who, after manipulation by the vii
est OF criminals, SANFORD Conover, swears he
saw Surratt here on April 14th A worthy
successor to Cleayer is Vanderpool, who will be
shown to be utterly infamous 1t will be PROV
en- that he could not have seen the afternoon
performance at the Metropolitan Hall because
none took place there. AS to the testimony of
Wood, the barber, it will be shown he is mis-
taken. Mr.. Bradley reviewed the testimony
OF other witnesses, and continued We will
trace Surratt from Richmond, in March. 1865,
to Montreal, in April. We will show that he
back in the Swatara. We will show where
Surratt was April 14th and 10Th, and that he
was not within 400 miles of Washington 1t
will be shown that he went to o certain town
and registered his name as John Harrison, and
. that he remained there to attend mission he
was entrusted with, and was there on Aprl
14th. 1t will be shown that the register of that
hotel has mysteriously disappeared. He will
be followed back to Montreal, where he ar
rived on April 18th. Facts and circumstances
will be shown to conclusively demonstrate that
Surratt could not have got to the places named
Tor the purpose of covering up his tracks 1t
will be shown that while Surratt was in Mon
treal, after the assassination, he was not al
lowed to read newspaper in his place of con-
ceaiment, and he was not aware of his moth
er's peril until the event of her execution. and
that he then wanted to hasten to Washington
to give himself up, but was not permitted 1t
will be shown that he first heard that he was
implicated in the assassination in Albany, and
that he then turned back to Montreal He did
not flee because of fear, but because he knew
justice dropped her scales when she entered
that building at the foot of 1-2 street. As to
the handkerchief, of which SO much had been
said, 1t will be shown that it was not dropped
by Surratt. but by an officer of the Govern
ment who was in pursuit, and who carried the
handkerchief with him for purpose. 1t will
be shown that the Government knew the officer
dropped the handkerchief, but did not choose
to divuge it. The defence would also show
the agreement between the conspirators signed
by them, and upon which neither the name of
Mrs. Surratt or Of John Surratt appears. This
agreement will be produced as it came direct
from the chief conspirator, and contains the
genuine signatures, in which they pledge them
selves to commit this act of assassination, and
upon that neither the name of John Surratt or
OF Mrs. Surratt appears. And after these
tlhhgs are SHOWN the jury cannot be asked to
say the prisoner is guilty Of the charge pre-
ferred against him.
The Court then adjourned till Monday morn
ing,