The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1867-04-05

Withheld the sure means Of Identification
which was his own handwriting in his
own diaryS Why was tho diary not
placcd in evidence as we'll as the tobacco
pipe? Tho gentleman Mr.. Bingham)
accused him mir, Butler) of assailing tho
officers who composed tho court, when
ii was said that Mrs Suryatt was hung
unjustly. lie Mr.. Butler) had done no
such thing. He had in no particular as
asailcd the officers Of the court. They
acted under their oaths upon such tosti-
moDy rs was presented to them by the
Judge Advocate. They did no, and could
not know lac nature of any evidence that
was suppressed or withheld from them
They did not see the diary and could not
know It's contents, but it was the DUTY of
the Judge Advocate to advise them of such
testimony aud that he failed to do. Who
spoliatcd that book !? VINO cut the
leaves from it? Whose knife mutilated
it? Who withheld and suppressed testi
mony, and caused an innocent woman to
DC hung, when he might have saved her
by The simple production Of the diary p
There is a leaf in that diary which was
not cut or spoliatcd. (Mr. Butler here
produced diary from his pocket and laid
it upon the desk before him and then
continued.) That page had been written
over Immediately after the assassination
and while Booth was fugitive, and was
to the effect that he (Booth) had ondeav-
ored to recross the Potomac for tho pur-
pose of going to Washington and giving
himself up, and clearing himself of that
of which he was charged. How could
that page have been in if the book was not
spoliated after it came into possession of
the Government, and why was it that the
other pages were cut out, so that it
could not be ascertainei how Booth ex-
pccted to clear himself of his crime p
Why was not Colonel Conyer, who cap
tured Booth, allowed to 90 on and tell
about the diary? He was examined as to
tho pipe and other articles, but not word
was uttered about the diary ?
Mr. BUTLER here read from the report
of the testimony taken at tho assassina.
ton trials to show that Conyer was ex-
amined upon all the subjects named ex-
cept the diary; and, resuming the thread
of his remarks, said the Judge Advocate
did not even ask Conyer, as is customary,
if that was all he knew. The diary would
have identified Booth in moment and
beyond a question. FIe (Mr. Butler)
could not know what the Judgment Of
the Court would have been if that book
had been produced. He understood that
the speclous excuse given for its non pro.
duction was lest Booths Qualification of
himself and his act should 90 into the
case. 1t was piece of evidence which
he would not say would have conclusiyely
shown Mrs. Surratss innocence, but it
would show that Booth meant capture
of the President before he ever thought
of an assassination. Mrs. Surratt might
have been coguizant of the meditated
abduction, but utterly ignorant of the
scheme of assassination. He did not find
fault with the action Of the Court with
the evidence they had before them, but
he did object that the evidence was not
brought to their attention by the Judge
Advocate, SO that ii it had been discover
ed that she was not cognizant of the as,
sassination her life might have been
spared, and it was for that reason he felt
glad that his hands had not been imbrued
; in the blood of an innocent woman. lie
brought no charge against the military
officers comprising the commission. They
relied upon beJudgo Advocate to produce
the evidence, and to she'd all possible
light upon the case. Bat the fact is that
all the testimony was not laid before that
tribunal. BY the production of the diary
before it had been loutilated Booths ac-
completes could have been ascertained.-
1t would have been known why it was the
plan to kidnap had been changed to as
sasslnation, aud who it was that instigated
the assassination, and who it was that
would be specially benefited by the
change in the succession of Mr. Lincoln
after tho knife had done its work, and
the same book would have explained
how Booth expected to clear himself by
coming to Washington and giving him
self up but it was never even 50 much
as attempted 10 ascertain who had cut the
leaves from the book. He (Mr. Butler)
was only speaking from hcarsay as to the
diary, but the members of the Judiciary
Committee should correct him if he was
wrong. lie was not, however, speaking
from any knowledge that he had derived
from that committee or any member of it.
He would not have pursued the matter
it the gentleman had net charged him that
he had no evidence of the statement he
had heretofore made. The gentleman
(Mr Biugham) brought the whole sub.
ject here, and he Mr.. Butler) revived it
because he desired the fullest investiga-
ton.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Buffers re-
marks he replaced in his pocket the diary
which he had taken from it while speak,
ing.
Mr.. BIN CHAM asked Mr.. Butler to let
him have the book.
Mr.. BUTLER declined.