The national Republican., 1867-07-18
TRIAL or JOHN II. sunnarr.

TRIAL OF JOHN n. sURnATT.
: PROCEEDINGS OF YESTERDAY.
The trial Of John II. Surratt was resumed yes
terday morning IN the Criminal Court before
Judge Fisher, the room being crowded a. usual
Tho Jurors and prisoner were brought In At II
o'clock, and the Court was opened, and
Mr.. Bradley ssid when the Court adjourned
yesterday, the defence had offered TO give In evi
dence an agreement entered into on the l4th oI
April 1867, By Booth. Payne, Herold, and At.
ierodt for the murder Of President Lincoln, said
agreement bsinE in writing, and signed by thoss
persons. Tbs object Of ali rules governing tho
admissibiiity Of evidence, is to prevent tho In.
troduction Of manufactured testimony, and to
reach the truth. All evidence consisted Of facts,
and for this purpose the opinions Of all experts
were facts. II was the province Of the Court to
determine II any fact to be given in evi.
dencs had any tendency to present the points In
Issue, and the jury could determine the weight
Of the evidence. The rules Of the Supreme Court
Of the United States, the rulings Of tho Supreme
Court OF this District, and statutory provisions
were binding upon this Court; outside Of those
there were no authorities binding on this Court
What they offered In evidence was fact bearing
directly on tho issues which the Jury was sworn
to try. It was for the opposite side to show a
positive rule to exclude from the consideration
Of tho jury hct so important rs this Is to this
trial. This was part Of the res gesta, as though
II were written at the time Of the transaction,
and tho murder followed before the ink was dry.
II was the concerted plan reduced to writing and
signed By the actors. The Government had taken
the trouble to prove that Booth murdered the
President; that Payne attempted the life Of the
Secretary Of State; and AtIerodt was to murder
the then vine Pfesident; and the defiance should
have right to show tho original agreement be-
tween them. With the mass Of overwhelming
proof to show that suuatt was not hero on the
l4th, could he have assisted In manufacturing
proof Of this sort for his defence
Where there was evidence Of q conspiracy and
prima Jaeis proof connecting q prisoner with
that conspiracy, thon the statements Of each
| and evory party were evidence to be taken
against them, but he denied that thero was evil
dence to connect Surratt with tn o conspiracy.
Was there conspiracy to kill, II so, when and
where was that conspiracy formed, aud who were
tho parties to it' II so, was that not proper
subject for inquiry here' A conspiracy must bo
q secret, because Its exposure was Its DEATH and,
Therefore, q conspiracy ordinarily must be proved
by circumstantial evidence, and It was for that
reason that wide field had been taken In this
case. The prosecution say that they have shown
that during 1865 Surratt was engaged with
Booth Payne, Atzorodt, and Herold, In con-
spiracy. II any Of Weichman's testimony was
to be taken II was clearly shown that II any con.
spiracy did exist II was terminated in the month
Of March. They prove by weichmau that in
March they met In surratt's room and declared
Everything had failed. AFTER that time they had
not brought the parties together. These ques.
tions were open TO tho jury. First Was there q
conspiracy in January, February, and March Of
1855, II so, when did that conspiracy terminate ,
Second. Was there another conspiracy subse.
quently formed, and who were tho parties thercto7
We offer the agreement Of the men who com.
mitted the murder, and surratt is not one Of
them, Mr.. b. read from Roscoes Criminal
Evidence, page Ss7, and argued that the paper
and before II was completed. Tho prosecution
had produced Booths diary to prove that the
conspiracy was formed on that day. Was Il
possible that whom the prosecution had given Ii
evidence the declaration In writing Of one Of the
conspirators, the defence should be precluded
from giving In evidence the original agreement
sigued by the conspirators? 1t was not the con.
fession or acknowledgment Of the parties who did
the thing, but the agreement Of thosc parties tc
do II, and for his life be could not see Of any
rule Of law to exclude the same. Circumstan.
tih proof was not equal to the written contrac
: Of the parties to be charged by that contract
Here was the contract signed by the parties Ia
, be charged-a contract to commit q murder that
had not It's parallel In the history OF the times
This contract was signed by these mon and de.
posted In the hands Of third party to be used
a. evidence against them should sceidsnt bsfall
!, them . eoatract saying We four hold ounslvsi
up as infsriatsd madmsn. who offered thsmsslvei
j As sacrifice for what they deemed to be the
, nations wrongs Upon what ground could II b,
rejected That II Is evidence most pertinent tt
the issue, no man could deny. II was evidence
Of the highest importance not only to this poor
prisoner, but to those who sleep in their graves;
murdered, II they were not participants In thi,
crime. II the conspirators reduced their agree
ment to writing at a time and place when the
i al a,Il - k.u
tainly admissible. He would be glad to heal
} how party was to prove that he was not con
nected with conspiracy when proof had beer
offered that he was. When we offered proof the
Ijudge on the other side, (poiuting to Mr.. Pierre
] pont) who has conducted the case his own way
has told us that the proof was not responsive tt
that offered by the prosecution. How was q mar
to provo he was not n conspirator except BY
bringing the original agreement, II he could,
md thus show that he was not one Of the parties
The oon.piracy to abduct had failed on the 18th
: OF March. Hero was new ono for q different
object, and they offer to oomplioato the prisoner
with Il, How could this paper be excluded
! when II plainly showed that he was not con
nected Herewith.
Mr.. Pierrspont said the prosecution had statot
their objection to the paper was that It was MOI
a admissible according to the rules Of law, ant
, that was all they intended to say.
Mr.. Carrington said he felt almost disnciinet
, to say a single word but he would state brief,
his views Of the question submitted to the court
A What was the proposition 1t was to offer Il
, , evidence the contents Of paper purporting Il
u be signed by one Booth, and which paper th
= witness says he has destroyed himself. 1t wa
a an effort to get in the declaration Of thirt
h party, and was inadmisSible. A number Of p,r
" ties may conspire together to commit crime
and one Of them may exculpate all Of them b.
n his written statement. 1t mattered not whethe
the paper was written or verbal, II was hearsa,
l. evidence. In regard to the unjust imputatiol
= upon honorable men who have faithfully serve,
their country, that these conspirators have beei
,. murdered, shall answer at the proper tim
and in the proper manner All who were con
demned by the military commission deserves
t and met felon's doom. The prosecution ex
n pected to show that this prisoner was the armor
N bearer Of Booth. False TO his country, false l.
" his Government, he seeks to save his life b.
Q aight, thus admitting his guilt.
Is Mr.. Merrick. What authority do you cite
j. Mr. Carrington' I thought this was question
Of law. daughter
Mr. Darlington. understand the object Of tn
n pantlemnn IL hv faahle M wit In ar,it