Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-07-25

Mr.. Pierrepoist said thatit would show that
Surra was not in Elmira on the 18th il BIS.
sell did say so. IL
Mr.. Bradley said he did not care what Dr
Bissell testified to- the defence bad proved that
fact by four other respectable witnesses whom
the prosecution could notimpeach. The prose.
cution conId not introduce testimony to cor
ronoraie their testimony in chief.
Mr.. Pierrepoint said an abb had been It.
tempted, and any fact to show that Surratt
WAS Mas NOT , IN am,ra was proper to 60 to ths
Mr.. Bradley said he would show the Court
auihorites On this point. and show that the
prosecution could not introduce testimony as
corroborauve OF their testimony in chief, but
defense.
Al 1215 the Court took recess for half an
hour.
The court reassembled At one O'Clock.
MIR. Merrick said much OF the evidence
which had been given in was not as rebuttal.
As to the proof in regard to various telegraphs,
he knew of nothing on the part OF the defense
10 which that was in reply. II 1t was to cor
roborate what Mcmillan said as to Surratt
telegraphing 10 Booth from Elmira, 1t should
have been offered on their examination in
chief. The defense were not willing, by
any means. to acknowledge or believe what
Mcmillan said. On their examination in
chief. the prosecution had attempted to
from Montreal to Washington and now in
their rebutting testimony they attempt to prove
him on the other end Of the route. The prose
cution say the defense have attempted to prove
an abb. Unless he was present wherethe crime
was committed he could not nave committed
the crime. The counsel for the prosec ution
have recognized the principle, for they have
spent much time and much labor with bad in
straments, In attempting to prove that the
prisoner was here. Whether he was in New
York, Elnira, or elsewhere at the time Of the
commission OF this offence, he was in q posi-.
ton where he could not have participated,
and 1t makes NO difference whether we
prove 1t or they prove it, the fact is
follow. Mr.. NJ. read from English Common
Law Reports in support Of his argument, and
argued that whatever was q confirmation of
The original case could not be gwen in reply.
The prosecution had attempted to prove Sur
ratr was here on the night OF the murder, and
his flight to Canada, and now they could not
take him up on his flight Mr.. Merrick next
read from the notes OF the late Judge Craw.
ford, OF the Criminal Court Of this District.
Their case was the commission of a murder
here; the flight was part OF their proof They
examination IN chief, and could they now
come back and again take him up on the
flight?
Mr.. Pierrepolnt said he though, the defense
had attempted since the beginning OF the case
to draw the prosecution into general discus.
sion OF the case He thought the proper time
was when all the testimony was in. There was
much evidence always In rebuttal which did
tend to confirm the original case, but the ques-s
ZION las ii the evidence in rebuttal was leeit.
innate. and the test was not to see if il con-
fTmed any OF the evidence in chief. The
prosecution did not propose to offer rebuilt
tai testimony to show where he was on
the 14th, but did propose to show that
he was not in Elmra on the 18TH and thus
Iehut the testimony of defense, ANYTHING
going TO show that he was not in Elmlra on
the 18th, was legitimate rebuttng evidence
and 1t was absurd to say that 1t was not
From the beginning the gentlemen on the
other side had treated this case as il it was one
where party Of persons had banded together
and murdered some poor old farmer down
here in the country, for the purpose of steal
ing $50 from his chest, but when the case
came 10 be argued and presented to the Jury,
it would be seen that 1t was quite different
one. He intended to demonstrate that ne was
in this city of Washington, on the 18th of
April, and not in Elmira, and if he did not
fully demonstrate this he would never try
another case. They (the defense) admit that
he was in Elmira, engaged in plot ing for the
release of the rebel prisoners there, which
would aid in the spread Of anarchy.
Mr. Darlington followed, claiming that it
was no part Of the original case to show where
he was on the 18th Of April, but they had of.
tered evidence tending to show that ne was in
Eimira the 18th, and they claimed that it was
proper to introduce evidence to rebut their
position and show that he was not there
Mr.. Bradley said that the prosecution had
ofered evidence to show that the prisoner left
Washington on the 18th, was in Burlington on
the night of the 18th, and reached Montreal on
the 18th and this was by their evidence in
chief. On the other side they had offered eyi-
cence TO show that he was not here at that time.
They now endeavor to prove other crimes
upon him. He was guilty OF m urder or inno-
cent, and not Of another crime 1t was not now
for the Government to introduce evidenc
which they should have given in chief II
was warm, and had right to be- so, for he had
young mans life in his hands, and from tn
admissions OF the other side he was innocent
He INT could not see what the fact Of
telegraph being open at that time was in
tened to rebut. RECRUITING evidence is such
as will contradict some new fact brought ont
by the other side; but this offer not for that
purpose. They proposed TO prove that he was
engaged in another offense, and ii was high
crime-not homicide. Was it treason. WHY
then did you lndict him tor murder! He chai-
leDged him to show the iron chain which
linked the prisoner with this city, and he
would close his case here, and not offer
surIebutting testimony. They could not show
from the evidence offered that Surratt could
have lett Montreal, and arrived in Elmira on
The 18th in time to take the 1890 train He
knew it was impossible, for he knew the time
tables He did not know what they proposed
to do with the telegraph: it was the only means
they had to get him hereby making a
telegram OF him. They say that Surratr
was in Elmira on the 18th, and they were
bound to show that he could have reached
here before night, and was here TO aid and abet
IN the crime, or to give assistan ce, from con.
venient distance, to the parties who committed
the crime. They have shown that he was not
here, and could not have aided in committing
the crime, or aided the party who committed
II; and, he asked, cou Id the prosecution now
introduce evidence which should have oeen
given In chief. The defence shows that he was
in Elmira, and now the prosecution proposes
to show that he was not in Elmira, by sho wing
ttat he was in New York. which they should
have shown in chief. He read various authori-
ties in support Of his position, including the
late Judge Crawford, OF this District
Mr.. Pierrepoint said the counsel had offered
challenge 20 close the case; and he desired,
for the prosecution, to accept the challenge
Mr.. Bradiey.-Agreed; the case is closed
Mr.. Bradley, jr., desired to vindicate the
character ct MIR. Magic, which he considered
bad been unprofessionally assaiIed, and pro-
ceeded to explain his connection with Mr.
Nagle, whom he had found valuable man.
1t had devolved on him to go to Montreal and
10 get the witnesses here he had deposited with
abroker there money to pay their xpenses here,
directing the broker to honor Mr.. Nagle's CT ATS
on him. 1t was necessary that some arrange
mest should be made about the funds, as the
witnesses would not come on unless paid in
advance. He thought the attack was unneces-
sary, and he only made this statement in iust.
tication OF Mr. Nagles character.
MI. Merrick.-We will now agree to submit
the case without argument.
Mr.. Darlington said, in q case OF such i'm.
portance, he could not consent to that course
Judge Fisher asked what became OF the
points which had been discussed.
Mr. Merrick suggested that it went over with
all the rest.
Judge Fisher said it was a case OF some i'm
portance, and minated that he was not now
prepared to decide.
Mr.. Merrick asked what rule prevailed in
relation TO the arguments before the Jury:
whether each side was entitled to 'wo speeches
bad Nat h y -