New-York tribune., 1867-06-25
THE SURRATT TRIAL.


1T v,as resumed this morning in the C1mhai Oou'i'
Iudeo Fisher rt siding The attendance was larger '
uuo, any previous occasion The jurors "e'o uO"t'
into Court about 10 o'clock, and a Few mihu'es "'o
rrsorcr was brought IN, looking about the same d"
,otorc Among the visitors IN the Courtroom WAS l''
Gen Giat AS soon as the Court was caIed 10 o'u'''
15oe ,ber read tie following opinion upon the iho'"n
ut,ood on Saturday by the defense asking 'h' r''@"
nf witnesses for the purpose Of cross examinations;
Ibave ioeu called upoo again ny % lh1 ToIle i " ,'
,sor,I .,- tlc Ilr 10 order The reCa Ui WITNESSES tt
'nnr,e la tlc prosecution, after tLt c">S ,
has been endcc and the ~IH'sS' tb me- yiovy Of jn
% .F,. NJ M witness 10 bc recalled as 40 Whe'hcI
son, '-c,i I @ h. de tatqments out of doors prior To
ths tr,al or silce iu conflict win the les'lh"iN u'i
,n9 4, r ana tlus lay The foundation 20 nnl%ayh
iis..rcelt H. is claimed a. tile prisoners right nav
h,ucoforo refused Go order witnesses I" ne a
YET tuo coIse ior tae defense have asaln s P,a,f co
.luesou fol eneariue, aud with SO mncn % t" W
fdcucc of the rightiuhess q inc nehs"u a'' ,i1 ~
10 their appeal, with the sincere SeSHc =" r,s rit
any WDch may have coninc, - , E,o,cn n, m
commission 10 could afford lhe ITO , ~ ~
Jro,,r IA coUrbute by any error Of my judgment 10 me
IT, f " f,, b,inc Is involved, which bat for sucl error
might have been % verdict 0i acuitdl H, %
would De a lasnne cankcr on my c3nSccnee % 3N'n % an
80, yyIcre / know the conviction ien upon thc suy
tcrr iu such sputt have h'aiN te cohs'i lu' tlj
cfrse ir TINS case through documents which n seemed
M ioo wOulG have been better addressed 10 me jury th
10 tho Coii. ana have eIdeaN0red to discover WeTi M
lad moi n0slly erred. 80 far from heihg cNlctu t'
va .5,,ir- 4 r.,ve made i'm The matter the
,in convinced that 7 IN the right IN TINS case
fbcrr have fds far been examined witnesses 'l""A4V
hor, fro, canada from Maine. from Vermont.
foS fn' N.Y. york from Virginia and from Mississippi.
'Thc TRIAL u is conceded, will not close WIN ire pf'tuI
,orUtb The WitusstS are engaged n tHc various iil
s,i,s ~ Ife-souc arc farmers. merchants, some
EWycrs bank officers, railroad conductors ana ptei
ali f vbo or most of whom have necessarily Ia hc away
from their homes and business To attend this tal Ihcl
are OF coarse subject some, and most OF them 10 great
Inconvenience, NOT 10 sly sacrifice M alienhS Court
NH II now demanded 10y ho propoSition0 he counsel
for the prisoner that each OF these witnesses snail alttr
going through he eAunindi ON ara ttoc % i ~
rhcr ordered by the Court 60 remain I'LL the tial Si1u
he ended o. the argued Ia the iy or else shall be
compelled "a return here after Nng gone h9hi', 10 lCS
himself in position fO have his character Tor NecS
attacked 10y other witnesses. ana 10 he procured Tor %
,uruose by the defense tell the pub,c himself that
le Is . criminal without character and not worthy ol pe
jn srhsnrc aIioiuis TO- and new statement o il i'm it,
Fmpo nakcdnes, j. sufficient To show me mm0pn'y ol
granting t. Let us take he case OF me wn9'Si nom
hao sEleu on S'uCH b c y" bs ,' now r gono home" and
tofood aud he has been informed 10y somebody There
mar he las said sumcthmg TO somebody. matter 10
yfon ar how careos,lv. which they supposed may in
soiGe degree conflict with what he teSuhcd 10 "hel ne
fore the Conrt The counsel FOR the defense present thcr
rcCuest 70 hlh recalled from distance oi some 200
miles. He is sent f0r and asked Whetcf ne Ms
not said thus 81 70 John Jones' or Joih Sn' OF Jth
Brown Be denies IT, Jones. Brown and smith are mn
ucd;ely subj euaed and come on fiom MAINE ana Wnrn
lcrr tLey all swear that the witness Tor INC prose- ui m
did say something which WAS inconsistent Wi'i me
testimony he gave These three persons return 10 ll,f
homes and atei ward INC conhseI ot nc s
cover that they have said ater going home that they iu
had falsihed IN their testimony they must all then be
recalled aud he queSt0euOh ue shNtti 'el" 'Iv! "a"
he thns discFeditcd and they brought back to he re-
A TIE prosecution, aiN WIN l'lh
prosecution sumrion at least two more tn diSce1it each
81 tnem and the matter should 20 on each rcCaH
forward Ia gcomeir.cal progression Can auy human
bong ten when tho would end The only solution or
the OacstOn the only termination OF the ease would c
fhc Death OF the prisoner, ur of the Jurors trying NM
but On The Intervention oi death would he difficult 10
SAY which Of would happen 1rst-he end oi
tbs trial the return Of the children OF Abraham To hr
Tolv C their ancient Jerusalem II inSt because all
trials nus have end In some reasonable time, ana be-
cause witnesses must have some protection
from unendinc annoyance and Inconvenience.
and
UOt expected 10 spend q eEhtlItl"h
irsS facilities are not tObc afforded have witnesses
hunted down and wr0ngtuIy ronocd q. their far stand
ing n the community their r6nta0ns ATTACKED without
chance Of defending them. The rule OF law, n have
btretoiore ruled it, was established IN England many
generations since ana accepted a. the law cVely"het u
tis country whore the law Is rghfuly understood Lord
tJanwOrt thcn Baron Rolfe IN The case Of the Attorney
General at Hitchcock E1 g9, very properly remarked,
in reference to the law OF evidence tins subject that
nust be considered az founded on sort OF comparative
ss.sSeIsSn :" Gss ti9e IN 70 ee % ScSSsd @ ~ m
hsCSd o sixty seventy, and every case were OF sJi
bent Importance, il might be desirable 10 throw hight
might he suggested for the purpose Of seeing
tytnch means whether the whole was wiounded or
What portion OF il was not aud 70 raise every possible
Nccdcn as g ihe truth Of the Statements made Rut
do not see how Thai could be- III fact mankind find I'M
possible am, however very doubtful OF his IOrdsbiPs
riod In Which 10 conclude case of great
magnitude and extensive ramfcatons II Wo once throw
aside The rules Of evidence and embark on wide
0f inquiry aud raise every possible question TO the
iruth of statements made by witness The rule for con
duCtiEc the examination Of witnesses Is, as have be
fofo stated be- first The party desiring the testi
iGony Of the calls hun, and after he is sworn,
txaniDes him N chief putting no leading questions to
Inn except shall be manifest to the Court that he Is a
unwilling witness unless it be apparent that the
ury Of the witness ~ fault. aud may be SCI right By
EUcgesvc QUESTION Or when the mind Oi The witness
rounot be- directed 10 the subject matter Of inquiry with
out having it particularly pointed ont TO him After the
direct examination concluded the witness il handed
over for cUsScXamnatiOn. during which he may be
ssked whether ne has NOT made statement contradictory
" something sd ny MN IN the drec examination; nut
inch questions must he put during The crosse 1amna
GOn, al all events, before the party producing
inc witness has dismissed him, and he has
E0se away. II witness Tor one party he
1Be party who calls him second time makes him his
wtIess, just he makes lin his witness when he
circumstances not detailed in the direct examination
But IL is said hat the rne j. sid down differently by the
Judges OF England in the OF Queen Caroline, 1920
resolving the following questions 10 the learned
Judges Of the House Of Lords First: Whether when
witness IN support 0f prosecution has been examined n
thief, and has not been asked IN crOsseXamnat0n 10
any declarations made by hin or aets done by hn 10
procure persons cOupty tO give evidence in support Of
Tie prosecution would be competent toI the accused 10
examine witnesses 10 prove such declarations acts
without first calling back such witness examined in chief
30 be examined or examined as 10 the fact whether
Le made such declarations did such actsl And
hcord: Whether IL witness u called the part Of the
prosecution and gives evidence against the defendant
and IT, after the II s discovered that
she witness examined corrupted or endeaVO 10
corrupt another person TO give false testimony the
" The iris the counsel for the defendant NAV not
be permitted To give evidence OF such corrupt
set, without calling back such witness
bOth these questions were answered in the
Negative unanimously 80 that the decision that even
should be discovered
that witness fOr the prosecution had been guilty OF sun
posed declarations acts in cDeavOIiDg "a ubon other
witnesses his conduct IN that respect could not be m
ured into from other witnesses until he had first been
allowed the opportunity Of explaining such supposed
acts decaTatiOns and the given that. II
such course eOnld I've pursued without previous utims
ton to the witness great injustice might be done both 10
The witness and tae party calling him. II will he Oh
that the question only had reference decara
tOns or made done 20 corrupt the fountains of
Justice, TO procure persons 10 commit perjury This
all that decided. and nothing more. II u true tha
81 delivering the opinion Of The learned Judges Chief
Justice Abbott said: We think the only effect Of