The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1867-06-24

the Arsenal; he was Lewis Payne. The man came
had all retired Witness was night nurse 10 the Sec
rotary The attention Of witness was called TO some
one coming up the stairs, walking very heavy. He
sonysrsstioS for several several MINUTES. M. Frederick
Seward came In and said "father Is asleep, and
Won't dis urb him" Miss Seward then looked out
dTTs .S. y: Snd az wDs
I.n 70 the door. Witnsss saw Mr.. Frederick Seward
bleeding. The man struck At witness with
band behind him he met Miss Fanny and pushed
her out o. the way he then went TO the bed and
made blow at the Secretary Miss Seward cried ont
murder At The door, and Then ran % the widow
recovered his feet and looked for something 10 strike
Payne with could hnd nothing he had then cut one
side q &c sserss.ry neck witness seized him and
A. witness, and struck him with the revolvsrj be
then made an attempt 10 run the knife nto witness
witne., got him By the throat, and tried to pu.h
him over the bansters out ofths door when witness
got 10 the door found Major seward was bshind him.
The room was dark, and Major seward had hold Of
vitae. during The s.unie. Payne succeeded IN
hish, he overlook NJ. Hassu and ,truef him IN the
back. Daring the scum. the Major was struck, bat
ava not know when Payae ran dowa stairs and lsft
the Secretary witness received four biows-oue on
the fotehesd two on the right shoulder, aud one on
the left shoulder blade wine. was eonhusd 10 the
and revolver; did not know II he had other weAp.
ons; II was bowie knife witness saw the man had
on drsb Overcast dark pants, and slouch hat, with
cavalry boots did not remember " he had spurs
on after the had gone, witness found portions
Of reyol,eri afterwards saw them at the trial Of
the conspirat0rs witness had the kuife In his pos
session twas presented TO him by the Secretary Of
War, through Judge Holt. Mr.. Frederick Seward
was cut In various places In the head, and appeared
to be severely hurt he did not seem to have his
senses; saw colonel Seward with various cuts on
the head and forehead found the Secretary on the
floor with lot Of the bed clothing; could not ind
any pulsation In the wrlsti found the heart was
boating. Tho Secretary opened his eyes and said,
Z" am not dead send for q surgeon send for the
police; close tho house, He had bled pTofusely.
Witness put him in bod, assisted by Miss Seward.
The physician arrived In nfteen twenty minutes
three or four were there. The Secretary did not
roll o% IL BED rf nyns SRtd, the Csc ssc ,S
tary four, Ave, or six times. He seemed to strike
with all the energy he had. The Secretary looked
at Payne with The exclamation OH oh witt ,ss
was present when the physician examined the
wounds; they seemed to be very severe. He was
insensble most Of the time. Witness saw the Score.
tary about three weeks from that time. Payne was
a very large man.
No cross examination.
John v. Piles, sworn and examined by Mr.. VIII.
Witness resided In Prince Georges county, Nd
In 1885; was Justice Of tho peace; knew John H.
surrat some years ago. prisoner stood up.) wit
ness replied he knew him we'll enough; In 1854 OF
1865 witness had an interview with surratt thought
II was about three months more before the as e
sAssinatlon surrat came for him 10 sign papers
as = magistrate to make them legal; went TO the
brother Of witness for pen aud Ink on the road Sur
raft said he wanted to go away to avoid the dram
thought he said he was gOiag to C'nadai he said
something about getting money to make his mother
safe or pay the sxpenIes Of his voyage; something
to tba! effect; he aid II he did not return he wanted
his mother to be slfo with her property; thought
he said something about raising money on the prop.
orty.
The court. at IL 80, took. recess for thirty
MINUTES.
Upon reassemblIng at o'clock
Mr.. Bradley asked thst Mr. John Lee be recalled
foe nlnaf lhaW,
tradicti him fatty.
The Court said that he had already decided that
point.
M,ssrs Bra Icy and Merrlck said that they did not
understand that the decision was hnal.
After some discussion on the views Of the Court,
Mr. Bradley said that the question was at tho dsero
ton Of tho Court.
Judge Fisher said that he had already decided the
question, and that II this privilege to rocall wit.
ness after he had been sworn, gave his testimony,
aad had been cross examined aud re.examned and
dismissed by the party calling Tim, given to
side, he pri, II &c VOL are to be givea Ia
tue other SIDE and In cause like this II mi ht re-
quire year
Mr.. Bradley said that thore was no Ingenuity
whereby the counsel might know what witnesses
woud be called, aud facts which would tend TO dis
credit them were not therefore. known until after
they had been examined II was true that the trial
might be thus protraeted but justice should be doue
Mr.. Merrck argued on the sans side, and quoted
from sharswood's staTkey, on evidence, page 2i2
and ID Rhoderlck and Bingham $40, to show that II
IL competent to recall witness to ask HIM 10
on Wblch II pTOpOse1 10 dlHCTedlt MIN
M. NJ rdck aPpealsd to show that witnesses who
supposed to be clothed in the spotless parity oil
truth, were masses Of corruption.
hr. Pisrrepont, for the prose ,utlon. replied and
claimed that the decision quoted was 10 the effect
that witness could not be recalled to discTedit
less the foundation had been laid, and that witness
could not DO recalled, even II the facts tending &c
diseredit him did come to the knowledge OF the
party uutil aftsr he was examined. He remarked
that in his practice he had never heard Of one side
advising the other side as to who their witnesse'
were.
MT. Darlington, on the same side. argued that the
defence had failed TO lay the fou ndatOn which TO
they should charge the prosecution with = want o.
liberAlity There was proper tlmo for contradict
Ing wtness, and even II ho was not recalled they
might bring testimony to impeAeh his character fol
Mr. f.srrePont road from dresnleaf on evidence,
Sd vol sec ST.
for residing that sscion It had saved him the labor
He thought It remarkable that not one single au.
thority or dictum had been submitted by the gentle
men on the other side.
Mr.. wilson. We thought the question settled.
Mr., Bradley did not so uuderstaud It, II they
could md the action OF any little one. horse county
court he would like to see II. This court would bt
governed In ib decision by reason and the rulings
the Supreme Court OF this District and the 6u pTsm
Court Of the United States tn: questcnis can theJ
out calling him back. The parties were expected /.
come with proof relevant to the Issue, aud nothing
more. BE read from English Common Law Reports
I'd BrOd aud Bling, p. 800, the unanimous opinion
Of the fifteen judges OF England, and argued TIL,
was the way for the eourtto fseertain truth and
crush falsehood. Could there be conceived a case
Of more surprise than the Que now presented How
It possible for the defendant to GENE with evi.
dencs except that relevant to the issusi How was
he to know about LeeY The great object was Il
preyoht proceedings Of injustice towards any party
10 the tauss Henext read from Sd drsenleaf. and
said: "suPPoss Witness goes out Of this court,
house add says, Il have made good thing OF it,
SAID what ! was not certain Of could not he be
Mr.. D. said he had proof In regard to John Loe Ia
show that three days after the assassination, while
he was searching for the perpetrators Of this crime
seen him. The defence had had no opportunity /,
know who were to be called, or the character o
those to be called by tho prosecution against tn,
prisoner Had the defence known anything abou
| the witness then there might have been some goOt
ground for opposition by the gentlemen on the 9th OF
side. Neither the prisoner VI his counsel knew thai
| this man was to be examined until he was on tn
stand they could not therefore, be prepared to i'm
| peach that character. After witness had left tn
stand, and 1t was discovered that he had made Ger
tain statements contradictory to those made on th,
stand, all law, all Justice, and all authority WA Il
the effect that the witness could be recalled II wa
essential to the ends that the witness DO recalled Il
show whether he was the witness Of truth or OF cor
ruption. He referred to another witness, who's
| name he would not mention now, who made state
ments In less than half an hour after he left III,
| court. house which showed that he was the witness
OF corruption aud net wltness OF truth. They eoulC
show thAt'two other witnesses were under iudlot
ments for penitentiaTy offences Was possible tina
man life was nothngi that few dollars ex pend %
by the United States should DO weighed against /
mans lifeR Would the court for moment listen /,
that II the defence introduced one siugle witnes
against whom there should he the least suspicion
they would assist the prosecution to seek truthful
testimony to show Of their truth or corruption
Mr.. heTrick. We will call them back at YOU
M, Bradley. We will.