The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-07-10

honest administration OF lustlce, should be
quite as keenly aroused as during the
famous trial by the tools and appointees of
the War Department. The accused, whether
innocent or guilty, has not the ordinary and
equitable chances Of an accused person In A
criminal court II is necessary TO convict
him in order to vindicate the Government In
the extraordinary proceedings by which Il
procured the condemnation of the other
alleged conspirators. II Surratt should be
acquitted, the War Department would be con
vioted of murder and the subornation of per-
jury. 1t is perhaps to gain time for preoau-
tions against such contingency that the
trial has been, on one pretense and another, so
long deferred. We know not whether wit
nesses for the Government have trained in
rehearsal, but it is certain that time enough
has elapsed for a training and rehearsal We
have no direct evidence that Secretary Stanton
has taken an active part in the preparations
for this trial, but II is certain that the emf
nent criminal lawyer employed by the Govern
ment to conduct it is one OF Mr.. Stanton's
closest and most intimate friends. We have
no proof that improper influences have been
brought to bear upon witnesses, but it has
come out that female witness from Montreal
is paid twenty dollars day, besides her ex-
penses, to come to Washington to testify. We
repeat that the prisoner, whether innocent or
guilty, has not the ordinary chances for his
life when his conviction is necessary for clear
ing powerful Government from odium. 1t
is not merely this man Surratt that is on
trial; the War Department and its infamous
Military Commission are on trial. They are
powerful and the prisoner is helpless. While
the public can have no desire to clear him If
guilty, it is bound in the interest of justice
to watch the progress of the trial, and COM
pare 1t, in all its parts, with the proceedings
before the Military Commission.
The most important witness for the
prosecution yet examined is Weichmau,
and it comes out, in his cross-examination,
that he has gone through studied and
elaborate rehearsal for the occasion. In
answering the questions by which this
fact was ELECTED he shufled and evaded,
and the evidence was fairly extorted.
Since it is true that he studied and got
up his part with SO much elaboration,
why, if he be an honest witness, was he
unwilling when questioned on the point to
frankly acknowledge the facts Why did
he shuttle and squirm and resort to subter-
fuges Has he modified the evidence he gave
in the conspiracy trial because he was con-
soious that the parts he had altered would
not stand the test of rigid -examina-
tion? He pretends that his recollection is
clearer and more precise after the lapse of
two years than it was when the facts were
fresh after the interval of a month"; The rea-
son he gives for his confusion and msrecol-
loOtlOu az tuo COusplIdCy IIldl Is, JndI WHeu
the facts were recent his memory of them was
disturbed by excitement. But if nearness to
the events confused him after the lapse of a
month, what reliance can be placed upon the
GOODNESS of his observation while the facts
were transpiring? Are not the discrepancies
more naturally accounted for by supposing
him dishonest witness? There are many
points in the testimony he has given on cross
examination that look suspicious; but as these
will be noticed in the summing up of the
prisoners counsel, it is not necessary to par
ticularize them here.
If the evidence which has thus far been
given is not shaken by counter-evidence, and
is believed by the jury, it will go hard with
the prisoner. We have no desire that our
readers should PREJUDICE the case, mnch less
that Surratt should escape if he is guilty;
but the case is so peculiar, and the influences
arrayed against the prisoner so powerful, that
it seems due to justice that the public should
attend to and scrutinize the evidence, and
lend an attentive ear to the testimony for the
defense.