New-York tribune., 1867-06-12
THE SURRATT TRIAL.

TIE MOTION TO QUAsH TIE ARRAY or THE rAHEIl-
ARGUMENTS OF couHsEI~-TnE DECISION 10 BE
ANNOUNCED TO-DAY
Tn,BrHp
WhsIuNGToN, June il.-'Thc trial Of JohnF. Sur
rat indicted for the murder Of President Lin
coin, was resumed IN the Criminal Court this morning,
Judge Fisher presiding. TIE crowd in attendance was
again very large. Among those IN attendance in tho
Courtroom at an early hour three four ladios
The latter however, disappeared. The Court was
formally opered at 10 o'clock and the Of the Jurors
were called MI Bradley senior, said he did not suppose
n necessary TO await the arrival OF the prisoner 70 argue
the pending notion when the motion was submitted
the part OF tho prosecution yesterday quash the
array OF the panel the defense surprsed for II was
the first time such mot ion had been made in This Court
The particular form OF motion did not then attract the
attention OF counse but upon looking NJ IL since it.
pears entirely novel, and precedent De found for
1t IN either English American practice. The object of
The motion should be to present facts whereby the Court
may infer whether or not the jures properly snu
moned and impanncled, ard IL mus therefore, state
facts, and not conclusions Of law. lie would read the
motion ard point ont its effects Mr. Bradley read the
motion fled and, continuing hls remarks said Inc de-
sired have the upon which the relied
had looked carefully through the English preccdcnts;
and through the precedens in this country, and from
them he concluded that the facts upon which tho prose
curion rely must be sent out in he motion, and cannot
be supplied by affidavit only lie had objection 10 the
prosecution completing the motion by inserting the facts,
but in the present shape not admissible to the
Court In support Of his position, Mr. Bradley quoted
pages 5ss and S.7.
brought in and assigned a seat near his counsel.
Mr.. PcrTepont, for the prosecuon conceded the qucs
on for the Court was one 0f fact and the only question
was how best bring these facts before the
1t not necessary To set out all the evidence In order
raise demurrer The mode OF getting at tho facts
should be the mode usual in in the Court but he did not
what difference 1t could make whether the affidavit
Mr. Bradley said suggest the affidavit should
be pinned 10 the notion but should bo incorporated In
stated.
hs,uy Tho I'm
he admitted the Court TO decide upon the facts
Mr.. Wilson, Assistant District Attorney, read from
Archbads criminal practice 10 show that In drawing
the motion the form set forth the matters OF cha
enge with precision and certainty 1t was for the Court
to decide whether this had been done.
Mr.. Bradley said II the prosecution would show how
they could plead TO the affidavit, the defense would bo
relieved IL was to him novel proceeding to aver that
certain things done contrary law when the facts
were not set out IN the motion.
The motion then amended by Incorporating the
ME- Bradley thereupon fled the following demurrer:
United states agt John III. Surratt In tho Criminal
Court Of the District OF Columbia; and therenpon the
stance the facts stated do not constitute any ground in
The prosecution joined In the demurrer.
Mr. aerric proceeded TO address the Court in oppo-
sition 90 the motion. lie coneDdcd that II the motion
GrandJury that had found The bill of indictment against
the accused md II applied 10 the Grand Jury, the de.
mot guilty" and plead specially 70 the indictment and
the motion now pending prevails, the prosecution can
e not material 10 the OF prisoner that this
motion should opposed, for, II tho motion prevails,
this objection should presented for the first time at
ths late day n the assumption Of the prosecution was
correct then since the act OF june 1904 jurors nave
been drawn improperly. and the lists have always been
prepared in the manner which this list was pre-
pared II this jury was Illegally selected then the Court
bias been dealing very inconseraey with the lives and
liberties Of the people OF tins country since the year
the bench, onp has been hung under this system,
have been sentcuced to the Pcnitenary, and
bc Cont Is 10 be graed with he Intelligence that
In all these acts Of taking human HE ne Court was
ats in the Pentcntiary. " guilty of unlawful
and false imprisonment THIS vie" of the case presents
sacli rsnlt would follow from ist construction OF the
statute lie then referred 10 the statute Of june 1892,
Clerk Of Georgetown. aud the Clerk OF The Levy Court
scycray TO act independently IN ther action IN the
tri of which they We're oihcers They must select such
Se s e s s e. ' a sSs xsse ass iss ss
qualified for jnrorsi Ia hs especial JufIsdieuon ,o.
10 be pleading" in the common acceptaion of That
Term bu IL wa, addressed 70 the sound discretion and
ward one way rs well ~ another.
Mr. bradley Insisted that i Was fact for trial
Mr. Peucpont contendcd that IL was Tact only Tor TIE
Judge Fisher after examining authorities referred TO-
decided that ~ accordance with ecedeptS the iacs ana
not the law, must be set oUt in the motion.
r Bradley then suggested that the prosecution ncor
porae In their potion the facts upon which they rely
Mr. Picucpont said he was quite willing To do so.
Mr. Douglass the city Registrar said he wished 10 cor
what had printed TINT thc jurors were drawn IN the
me Of
Clerks OF the Georgetown and the Levy Court There
was nothing In the section that required the ulty o
selecting the Jury 10 he done conformity ~ these oscs
The corporations named in the law are distinct anu the
distinct officer who best knew the character OF thc cor
pora9 Is to % ses lee s INV TS@d 10 os secst na
from Geergctownfor the officer OF one corporation 70
the Jurors from the box ai were together because TIC
Jurors selected for all the corporations. -, =,
extend inanry back as TO what particular individual did
The work when all three were present and partlepal,ng
HST na far each s Soar o oe i Nights @ and
were entitled to the benefit OF legal Prescriptions as
much so as this Court Itself aud 1t was the hist Time nc
had ever known he inquiry to DO made how one OF sew
era parties had acted na qUas judicial capacity Mhan
were present participating. Another point made Dy MI
Merlck that inquiry was not whether Ptcahr@ ~ .ha @ ON
but how far the failure TO comply Th % aii t1G Gon m
ments Of The law yteT hero M SI fanre e TO oompy in all
particulars with the law then the officers were then
act The statute nowhere declared the panel should be
void or the acts OF the officers selecting ihe Jurors snd
be nugatGry IL d simply dsSse ssae and Ssi courts had gone
10 great extent In constituting directory statues ~
order to spS Sm Ts gsS a% pages age
inclusive. and said this decision showed DISPOSITION 70
uphold tho validity ycer i %s@t a g' 6a eSey Ge comply With
the statute. The law upheld the act rs valid, out puu
shed the officer as Gefsc' M h' sseomS seeon Of the
statute I've argued, conclusive that no inquiry eond
paa msen done by another The act done presumed
70 he tle act OF all three In this case 1t was IN proof Oh
that the list signed by all three OF the orces Ihey
nst si.rward and impanneled a jury by drawing the
names from the box and thus ratified what each officer
had DONE and virtually declared the names IN
hs hos had been made up according to law. Mr.; Mor
rick then quoted from the nth volume OF Clark @ sn
Fnnellv I'm the case Of the Queen agt OConneli ana
arSned that that case established precedent when
should prevent the granting Of this moton when IN ts
cas wes not founded upon any alleged incapacy on INC
mart OF the jurors but upon the mode OF seleeting
Them 10 was possible nay u was uhquestohap,!
,na that II the motion had been founded upon the ca,
nacty of the individual Juror IL might be eniertainod
ut The objection not personal against the Jurors pu
Lcanse tley were brought here in the way tat tne
Thinks thcY shOmld have been hronEht lie