Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-07-17

Judge Fisher, the room being crowded as
usual The jurors and prisoner were brought
an al ten o'clock, and the court was opened,
and -s..
Mr. BRADLEY said when the court ad jonrned
Yesterday, the defense mad onered to give in
evidence an agreement entered into on the 14th
of April, 1865, by Booth. Payne, Herold and
Atzerodt for the murder OF President Lincoln.
said agreement being in writing and signed
nv those persons. The object of all rules GOV
arping the admissibiltty Of evidence, is to pre-.
vent the introduction OF manufactured testl-
many and TO reach the truth All evidence
consisted OF facts, and for this purpose the
opinions OF all experts were facts 1t was the
province of the Court TO determine il any fact
TO be given in evidence had any tendency
20 present he points in issue, aud the jury
could determine the weight of the evidence.
The rules of the Supreme Court Of the United
States, the rulings of the Supreme Court of
this District, and statutory provisions
those there were no authorities binding on this
Court What they offered ia evidence was a
fact bearing directly on the issues which the
Jury was sworn to try. 1t was for the oppo-
site side TO show a positive rule to exclude
from the consideration of the Jury a fact so
important as this is TO this trial. This was q
part of the geSta, as though it were written
At the time of the transaction, and the murder
followed before the ink was dry. 1t was the
con certed plan reduced to writing and signed
by the actors. The Government had taken the
trouble 10 prove that Booth murdered the
President that Payne attempted the life OF the
Secretary of State, and AtZerodt was to muir
der the then Fice-President, and the defense
should have a rig ht to show the original agree
ment between them. With the mass OF over
whelming proof 10 show shat Surratt was not
here on the 1ifh, could he have assisted in
manufacturing proof of this sort for his defense.
Where there was evidence OF q conspiracy and
Ja-imG fdcie proof connecting prisoner with
that conspiracy, then the statements OF ach
and every party were evidence to be taken
against them, but he denied that there was
evidence TO connect Surratt with this eonspir-
aCy. Was there a conspiracy to kill. if SOC
when and where was that conspiracy formed
and who were the parties to it? If so, was
thai not a proper subject for quiry here! A
conspiracy must be a secret because its ex-
posture was its death, and, therefore, a con-
spiracy ordinarily must be proved by cir
cumstantial 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 Sur.
Tatt was engaged with Booth. Payne. At
Zerodt and Herold, in q conspiracy. If any
CT Weicnman's testimony was to be taken it
was clearly shown that If any conspiracy did
exist 1T was terminated in the month Of March
They prove by Weichman thar in March thew
met in Surratt,s room and declared everything
had failed After that time they had not
brought the parties together. These questions
were open TO the jury First, Was there a
conspiracy In January, February. and March.
OF 1-65, il so. when did that conspiracy termi-
nate! Second, Was there another conspiracy
subsequently, formed. and who were the par
ties thereto2 We offer the agreement of the men
who committed the murder, and Surratt is not
one of them. Mr. b., read from Roscoe's Grim
lnal Evidence, page 49,, and argued that the
paper was written while the conspiracy was
in action and before it was completed The
prosecution bad produced Booths diary to
prove that the conspiracy was formed on that
day. Was il possible that when the prosecution
had given in evidence the declaration in
writing of one of the conspirators the defen Sc
should be precluded from giving in evidence
the original agreement signed by the conspira.
tors! 1t was not the confession or acknowledg-
ment of the parties who did the thing, but
Tho agreement of those parties to do it, and for
his life be could pots Of any rule Of law TO
exclude the same. Clrcumstantial proof was
not equal to the written contract OF the
parties to be charged by that contract
Here was the contract signed by the parties to
be charged-a contract to commit murder
that had not Its parallel in the history of the
and deposited IN the hands of third party. to
be used as evidence against them should acct
dent berall them; contract saying we four
hold ourselves up as Infatuated madmen, who
offered themselves Is q sacrifice for what they
deemed to be the nations wrongs. Upon what
ground could it be rejected? That it is evil
dence most pertinent to the issue, no man
could deny. 1t was evidence OF the highes
importance not only TO this poor prisoner, ba
TO those who sleep in their graves muir.
dered, if they were not participants In this
crime. If the conspirators reduced their
agreement to writing at time and place
when the accused could not have been
present it was certainly admissible. He
would be glad TO bear how party was to
prove that he was not connected with a con.
spiracy when proof had been offered that he
was. When we offered proof, the learned
Judge on the other side, (pointing to Mr.
Pisrrepoint,) who has conducted the case his
own way, has told US that the proof was not
responsive to that offered by the prosecution
How was man to prove he was not q con-
spIrator, except by bringing the original agree
ment. il he could, and thus show that he was
not one OF the parties. The conspiracy to
abduct had failed en- the 10th Of March Here
was new one for different object, and they
offer 10 comphcate the prisoner with it. How
could this paper be excluded, when 1t plainly
showed mat he was not connected Herewith.
Mr.. Pierrepoint said the prosecution had
staVed their objection to the paper was that it
was not admissible according to the rules
OF law. and that W as all they intended to saw
Mr.. Darlington said he felt almost dlsin-
cIinsd TO say single word, but he would state
briefly his views of the question submitted TO
TIE court What was the proposition ! Itwss
10 offer IN evidence the tents of q paper pur-
porting TO be signed by one Booth, and which
paper the witness says he has destroyed him.
self TWAS an effort to get In the declaration
cl third party. and was inadmissable.
lumber OF parties may censpsre together to
commit crime, and one OF them
may exculpate all of them by his
written statement. 1t mattered not
Nhefner the paper was written or verbal it
was hearsay evidence. In regard 10 the un-
Just imputation upon honorable men who have
faithfully served their country, that these CEN
spTators nave been murdered. i shall answer
ii the proper time and in the proper manner
All who We're condemned by the military COM
mission deserved and met a felon's doom. The
prosecution expected 10 show that this prts-
CHer was the armor- bearer of Booth. False to
his country. false to his Government. he seeks
TO save his life by flight, thus admitting his
guilt.
Mr.. Merrick-What authority do You cite,
Mr- Darlington! / thought this was a cues
ton Of law. Laughter.
Mr. CarrinRton.-l understand the object OF
The gentleman is, by feeble attempts at wit to
excite laughter from certain persons, who il
they dared would raise a mob in this Court of
justice. Such persons he would speak Of at a
The paper was not admissible, and asked that
II be excluded.
Judge Usher said he could not see that this
paper was legal evidence to establish any facts
except two, one was that there were four fools
as well as knaves who signed that contract, and
another was that il there were others con Germ
ed In the conspiracy they had more sense tnan
10 sign TINS paper. 1t might have been that
this paper was very part and parcel of the
conspiracy, as 1t may have been the Ian for
those four TO sign the paper TO screen the others
He could see nothing like admissa BE eviaancs
IN this paper at all, and therefore ruled IL ant
John Matthews recalled. aud cross-examined
by Mr.. Pierrepoint. Witness was horn in
Ohio, and educated in Cumberland ma
Witness during the rebellion sympathized
with the Union SIDE. Witness had been ey
amined on the 3lst OF April, by Col Foster
witness was here shown paper and test ed
mat Dis testimony was taken down by a
Photographic reporter but he had not seen 1t
"itef II was written out, and the questions
and answers in the paper were read to Wit
- al