Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-07-11
Another .Jearies I'm the Field.

Another Je1fries I'm the Field.
The trial of SURRATr has. brought to the
surface another OF those beauties of Radical
ism who pattern after the immortal JET
FRIES. If SURRATT is guilty, convict and
execute him. But this detestable practice
of partisan Judge forcing conviction is
a national disgrace and an end to justice.
The old craven hearted beast, FISHER,
who during the trial of this criminal has
officiated as Judge, has been continually
using his official power to force a convic-
ton and is growing more detestable daily
as the trial progresses. During the trial
on the I'd ult. he made use of this remark
able language:
'Judge Fisher said that when the testi-
mony Immediately preceding the object
iona6le remark was being given yesterday,
he did not hear all OF it, and when the
witness made the remark he did. He
(Judge Fisher) supposed that counsel had
offered some provOcation and had worried
the witness, but upon hearing the notes
read, he could not see that any provocation
had been offered. He could see no
justification for the remark of the witness,
although Mr.. Merrick may have said on a
former occasion that some of the witnesses
were deserving of the Penitentiary. 1t is
not the place of witnesses to take eXcep-
tion to the remarks of counsel, and no wit
ness must make remarks insulting to coun-
sci. He had neuer seen q case in Ioitch there
t0dS so much truth and so much bitterness of
feeling; and he never saw witnesses cross
examined in such a way as they had been
| in this case, and it W as nor to be wondered at
that they sometimes felt insulted, especial
ly at such remarks as had been made by
counsel, that all in the witness room should
l.. - a.
| spectacle witnesses as Gen. Grant, Mr..
Fred Seward and others, had been placed
upon the stand, aud the remark might be
understood to apply equally to all, and the
Court could not help it if witnesses helped
themselves; but he would endeavor TO stop
such proceedings i'll future. II the wit
nesses feel aggrieved they can appeal to
the Court and their rights will be re-
spected."
The defense are not even permitted to
have fair cross-examination OF the wit
nesses, and the old croaker has been con-
tinually croaking over remark Mr.. MER-
RICK should have made several days pre-
viously about some desperadoes that were
produced as witnesses deserving to be sent
to the penitentiary, but which remark was
fully explained by counsel and to the sat-
isfaction of all, until the prosecution assail-
ed the counsel and claimed it to be an in
suit to witnesses, when Mr.. MERRICK and
BRADLEY gave them to understand it they
insisted upon having it that way they could
construe it as they pleased.
FISHER has used every possible pretext to
deny to SURRATT fair and impartial trial.
The witnesses being called at the time of
this remark, for instance, were persons
either charged with crime or those who had
been convicted. But this is not all. This
creature, clothed with judicial power, takes
the liberty before the case is concluded of
declaring that she had neuer seen case in
aofich there aods so much truth" Now this
question belongs exclusively to the jury.
The Judge has no right to even intimate as
to the truth or falsity of evidence. Yet we
End this modern JEFFREYs resorting to the
most dictatorial and degrading means to
forestall the defense before the Govern
ment has closed its evidence.
If they thirst for the blood of SUR
RAFT, be he innocent or guilty, in Gods
name murder him outright and do not de-
grade the judiciary and forever destroy the
character of the right to an impartial trial
by jury. If SURRATT's conviction was a
toregone conclusion, to be effected by such
means, why subject the nation to the hu-
initiation of such farcical trial?
Murder him at once, as they did his
mother. and save at least the character of
an already lowered judiciary. Such is
Radicalism.
1t is true SURRATT's counsel displayed
much bad temper after this inexcusable
conduct of FISHER. But this in no way
justifies him. And however guilty SUR
RAFT may be, this trial is but mockery
and his conviction, if he is convicted at all,
will be the result of judicial Interference
more degrading and corrupt than was ever
resorted to in England in the darkest days
of the kingdom.