New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-07-18
THE SURRATT TRIAL.

OUT-THE BOOTH DIARY-WEICHMANS les
rIMoNY-THE DEFENSE TO CLOSE TO-DAY.
~ TELEGKAPH TO THs TRIBUNE -
WASHINGTON, July 1.-THE trial OF John II.
s,rrat was resumed this morning in the Criminal court
Judge Fisher presiding Mr. Bradley ST. said when the
Court adjourned Yesterday proposition made TO in
troduce an agreement Booth and others in rea
ton TO the conspiracy. lie admitted that the paper
would not be evidence for the prosecution, because
it would show that surratt was not IN the
conspiracy; but it was clearly aumlhsaDie WITH
offered by the defense lie held that it was pertinent to
the ISSUE and when any evidence was onelou was 'o
the Court TO determine ghether the evidence offered Is
pertinent TO the ISSUE and 1t is for the jury 10 deelnhe
the weight Of the evidence II the Court can see 'o na
Jury NAV draft an inference from fact oiefed must
90 TO tile jury II Is exceedingly difficult 70 asctt ,tt
whether any positive rule OF law governs te @ G
of testimony and he had therefore, hunted up no
Authorized What offered in evidence is fact bearing
upon the issue which this jury Is now trying, anu
IN the absence Of any positive RUE Oh eholu sb
1t must go to the jury. Tor 'het fbe prose- rose
might have manufactured the plot but II Is the DECLARE
ton the party made at the very act ana " y 30
moment Of the transaction IL is the concerted pan
signed by the actors Immediately preceding e "eiTJ h
aud they go from the table and confirm the ots mion
the prosecution has shown and proven Inc prosecutor
have shown the execution OF the act ana the ueieHe %
desires TO prove the agreement 10 execute, aT' ~
OF the testimony already given, no one would suppose
that the prisoner assisted in fabncatl9g
this: One Whether he was conspiratOr to murder the
Presidents and the other whether he was an actor IN
charge here attempts TO fix the prisoner as engaging IN
the murder, and the conspiracy Is 10 be SHOW" as RoO
Another question was whether there was conspiracy
to KILL and that is the glst OF the inquiry mere VINO were
tue conspratOrs, and what was the real opSGt Oh o
conspiracy IL question for inquiry. ordinarily con
spiracy is a secret aud it is to be proved 10y Slrcu-
santia evidences for If i were made public theh le
conspiracy would be exploded The prosecution mas nas
attempted to show that there was conspiracy Ihey
say they trace the conspiracy from ls63 until us cur
gagged in conspiracy. This was proven thus by Weien
mans testimony II they have proven anything ey ts
had terminated and failed in March 1860 after that
time they brought the parties charged together y
any witness and 1t is therefore question ior {e
uTy whether there two cOnsplraces, anu what PC
came OF that conspiracy in March They nave oHefed 10
prove that Surratt was here on April 49, anI we must
meet that point They offer evidence from when ney
meet that by Offering the agreement Oh lne Co ~
sprators and showing that SuTratt was NOT party 20
1 Hed erV @ Show that e murder was decided upon
April H. and the defense then be precIudeo rom
offering the agreement to murder in which the maine OF
the party who had done the deed but 1t Is the agreeeht
and he could therefore could conceive
no rule of law why the evidence should not be admitted
clcd that circmstanal proof better than positive
proof but 10 writer ever held that elrcumstan-
Hal evidence was better than positive written
proof Here contract that committed men to the
galows contract that would never nave , DeGn en-
tered into except by men who had lost thelf reason
mad mena contract to commit nuIcer tnat has hu1
its parallel II was not Kept IN ther POssesson an d
es evidence aenst these four men, who boldly offered
themselves sacrifice for what they deemed 20 ne rV
nations wrongs. In that contract the prisoner could not
participate and IL due, not only To the prisoner Du "
others mat nave Dtc bn,,,H ont. and
th paper cannot be excluded except upon the nOstneX
re ~ law II N we're the prisoners own act, 1t
could not be offered in evidence, but Is the act OF the
cOpspratOrs TO the exclusion or the prisoner. lne
oucsiion OF the admssby OF this evidence is for the
court The question whether SuTratt was party to the
conspiracy question for the jury HOW u Nc 10 prove
maj he not coconspirator except by the agreement
Cd ryba he " "a there u,
which was 70 abduct the President eliminated ON tne
10th Of March, ard the prosecution nave never
the parties together again. and the effort now to fix the
PsTor N G aJ mon in writing TO this writing the
prisoner was party, but it was In evidence that he
was Invited after tho failure OF the first conspiracy to
come 10 Washington and into another Here that
other conspiracy agreed upon but 10 which Suratt Is not
a party and he (Mr. Bradley could see no RUE that
Mr. Darlington said ne did not deem necessary TO say
much against the admission OF this testimony Tor the SUD
cct too plain IL was an attempt 10 oher paper
Booth who was not a witness 10 was noteyen an orig
nal paper; Tor the wltess saIs nc uo ~ tI - n
third party and lie did not suppose that the Court IOr
mutation cast upon honorable men, that the copirators
tired al the arsenal had been murdered he would answer
tht ot thc nroper time and i'm the proper manner. All
Who were CONDEMNED by the military commission met
W a. o,i,'irv that surrott was the armOrbearer OF
Booth-a man false to the country and also TO his
government, who deserted his mother ana VINO oy ISht
Mr. Merrck dnierrupting) asked Mr.. Darlington what
authority he quoting. lie supposed this was ques-
Mr. Darlington said he understood these feeble at
temps at riot IL TO create laughter ana the same
spirit would create n mob. II possible In conclusion Mt
frnfon argued that the testimony should be excluded
Judge Fisher ruled that the testimony was ihadhls
spraors to thus Of the parties 10 the con-
spracy by getting up this excitement. 4, ~, NJ.
Mr. MaiteoS recalled md eroSSerdn,ned by hr Pierre
f0l-Wtness was born in the United States during the
rebellion witnesses sympathies were with the 9hlon sue;
preferred that the rebellion should be put down other
a
latiOn, but have not much confidence IN war rs n
measure of reunimg the country paper exhibited) WIT
urss was examined by Col Foster and the examination
was taken down. at that examination witness ala NOT
say thing about the letter. possibly might have said
witness him; witness testified theh that Boom hau
presented witness with box but that was several days
before interview alluded to witness might nave been
asked when he Booth, and might have replied day
or two assassination witness saw Booth last
on heage Of the theater the night Of the assassination
saw him last before that on horseback on the avenue;
don't remember that witness said on the examination al
luded 10 that the last time he had seen Booth was day
or two before witness didn't want TO tell at that exam
nation that he had seen Booth that day as he was AFRAID
he might become involved in the matter
by ir. MerTiek-Tel the jury why you destroyed that
nr Pierrepont-You need not answer that question
The witness explaining his testimony Of yesterday said
that Of the papers had stated that he had said
Booth had handed the witness the letter with air OF
great secresy he wished 10 say that 1t was not so there
air Of secresy about the manner IN when Boom
handed witness the paper.
GEN. Thomas Eckert, scorn-Witness was shown me
Booth diary and SAID he had IL before had seen the
letter on the loose leaf witness don't think that the one
exhibited the original thinks it the original Is IN the
War Department.; the original, witness Deeved 10 De
part OF the book thinks the counsel for the prosecution
has the original in his possession ,
Cr0sS-eIdDned-I don't remember the DAY witness saw
1t last in the War Department. witness don't know
i'm whose hand writing the letter was witness ad not get
the original from Dr. stewart thinks ne s9t II rom ue
Baker: witness don't know where Gen. Baker is now;
witness believes the letter was printed, but don't reme
Der TO have seen IL in print.
MIR Mcrrick said that the paper the witness had first
seen the the prosecution had proved TO De the
ORIGINAL paper. He going now 70 prove that II was
NOT lie thought that inasmuch as the counsel for the
prosecution had the original in his possession he ought
Mr. Perrepont said he had not seen since the day the
witness had alluded TO- but it possibly might be IN his
possession among his papers.