Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-08-14

The reader will find something to pom
der upon in the following extracts from
the speech Of Mr.. BRADLEY on the tris
. Of SURRATT, and from the charge Of th
o Judge. The law laid down by the Judge
j Investing the person of President will
the sanctity that hedges round King
q becomes inexpressibly ludierous, whel
q we consider the constant sights and in
suits to which the President is now sug
n gested, his deprivation of all power anC
preEOgatiye, the scandslous abuse Of hin
in both Houses of Congress by the asso,
0 eiates of suborners Of perjury, and the
desperate attempts made TO purchase
testimony connecting him with the as.
sassination of President LINCOLN;
] FROM Mr.. BRADLEYis SPEECH.
| Shall we hear anything more upon the
other side Of the right Of the court NOT
to instruct, not 70 charge, not to advise,
but to control? viii we hear again that
J by the law juror is peTjUred who rem
ders general verdict contrary to the in
stTuetions of the court? viii we hear q
threat held out of q grand jury, before
whom the district attorney sends who
ever be pieases, If you fail TO follow the
mandate Of the court, that you will be
indicted for perjury? 1t is the duty of
the district attorney, If be knows the
fact that perjury is committed, It is his
I bounden duty % send the witness to the
grand jury. And if you commit perjury
by disobeying the orders of the court be
must send your case to the grand Jury, II
the argument of the learned gentleman
on the other side be right. Against this
monstrous doctrine I desire, if it is the
last speech shall ever make to a jury,
to enter my most solemn protest. l de-
sire 10 set upon it the seal OF cOndemna-
ton. do not say this, gentlemen, on
your account. For, as / have said, /
know every man upon that jury person
ally, and every man there knows me. |
say nothing TO fatter you, be-
cause you would despise it if
did. But I say it for the
sake OF the law for the sake OF the law
I Of my country, that / condemn. ! repu
diste, trample under foot any such doc
/ trine as this-thst Juror commits per-
I jury because, according to his conscience,
he renders a general verdict of aequittal
/ or guilty. / said to you, gentlemen, at
| the outset that this case was one within
q small compass. am most happy to
agree, in this, with the learned counsel !
from the city Of New York. 1t is within |
a small compass. And yet, will you tell |
me what all that means, holding mp the |
book of evidence, twO-th!rds OF which is /
the made up evidence Of the prosecution. |
First is the evidence in relation /
to the attempted assassination of |
Secretary Seward. The learned |
Judge says it is evidence in the |
case that you are to look upon it as in
issue in the pleadings, as tn issue en-
abling you to ascertain whether this &C
cused party killed the president himself,
or was in conspiracy to kill, the result
of the conspiracy being that he was killed
byOEe of these cOnspiratOrs. What was
the object Of the Introduction Of this
prOOf7 How did the district attorney
apply it In that long haTangue upon the
assault upon Mr.. Seward? In ALT that he
stated, painting it with prepared study,
reading from his manuscript, endeavOr-
ing to excite the horror of every indi-
vidual on that jury, and endeavoring to
enlist your prejudiees and passions, not
one word did he say connecting it with
this great fact of the murder of Mr.. Lin
coin. ! agree that it vas a very fine
piece of wOOd-painting; but / vet am at
a loss to conceive how the testimony In
respect to the attempted assassination OF
Mr.. Seward is admissible in evidence.
1t must have some effect; but I am ct a
loss to conceive how an attempt to take
the life OF Mr.. BOhrer by one man is
evidence Of q conspiracy to kill Mr..
Berry, who is killed by smother man.
1t is beyond my comprehension.
I am not now talking of this new
scheme, this admirable invention Of the !
enemy. l am talking of the indictment
and the case made in the Indictment.
For what purpose have we that terrible
picture drawn Of the slaughter OF wasted !
union soldiers along the railroad, and I
that terrible fight with q gunboat by the !
little cOckbOat crossing the river. How I
lid they bear upon this question Of the {
killing of an Individual? ? l shall have 9
occasion presently TO talk to you Of the I
)tber branch of the case though / am q
afraid my strength will not enable me to I
10 so. [ speak now of the Indictment I
against John II. Surratt, for killing an e
ndividual. The learned prosecutor who .
; to follow will make il all plain. I i
I'M not now talking about the attempted {
Of the secretary Of d
tate. I want to know upon what prin- .
iple they can apply this evidence to a
how that John 81. Surratt was COM b
lined with Booth in a conspiracy to kill z
N individual It is Gone to excite pas n
ion and prejudice. l wish ! had here, e
S | had yesterday, the life of Julius Cas- il
ar, written by Napoleon. | would like z
o read from that heather writer pss- p
age or two as to what men shall do d.
rho have to pass upon the lives OF indi- a.
iduals; the opinion, not OF q christian v
nan, but of heather. Not of one look d'
lg for his reward behind the grave; but "
one who, in a former speech, says ''we ol
D, Ah.g,T III
hen Weighing matters which are to be o'
onsidered affecting q mans life, there
lOuld be no other passion, nor prejudice, | I
or feeling. This is done to invoke pas
on, prejudice and feeling in the mind
the jury, and to eXtOrt from their dis
,rted judgment a verdict which their In
Doler Judgment would reprobste. 10
The evidence must be applied to the
roof OF the overt acts, and not to the
roof Of the principal treason, for the H'
vert act Is the charge 10 which the pris-
ler must apply his defence. And wheth- trt
the overt act proved be a sufficient re
vert act of the principal treason laid in te
le indictment, is matter Of law to be N
stermined by the court" m
" Where conspiracy is laid as an overt tif
It, the act of any of the cODspirators in lei
rthersnce Of the common design may in
given in evidence against ali. (R. v. Isl
arday east P. c. &c. r. V. Stone 81. ev
529, and see Kel. 49, 20, and ante p. W;
J In such ease, the first thing to be
owed is the conspiracy; secondly, evil
nee must be given 10 connect the de-
ndant with it; and lastly, if intended sa.
give in evidence against the defendant cr'
e acts of any other person, you must as
Ow that such person was also men, an
r of the same conspiracy, and that the sll
t done was in furtherance of the COM sio
on design.u (See r. V. Sidney, 3 st. be-
;. 79S, etc. r. V. Lord Loyat, 9 st. Tr. lde
D, etc. ST
Again: lde
81 But if any one overt act be proved Ih
IdiT1St The defendant IN the proper Stt
unity, acts of treason tending to prove thl
ch overt act laid, though done in a reT
'eign country, may be given in evil Inc
nee; and this was done in nearly all eX!
e trials of the rebels in the year l746. ]
ost 8, 22'f tbs
And, again, now, if the court please, she
lat are the dlieQettQ here? 1t is not ma
2 composing or effecting the death Of car
2 president Of the United States. No, pei
neither your honor the Judge, WI
r you the Jury, can take any official or 100
licial notice Of that, because il is not JUG
d in the indictment that the party in /
5 case was the president of the United int
lte or that it was done in the time of ten
at civil war, or that it was done to dist
troy tie effective force of the nation, pro
that it was blow st the life of the chu
ton. We are to be tried according to j
allegation in the Indictment, and not She
'Ording to fancy springing up after con
rds Gel
he allegation IN the indictment is a ind
lple case, as l said at the outset-as l ven
ierstood my learned brother from New recS
rk to say at one time-a simple case raj
jch everybody can understand. It is I
case of the murder of private indi- tha
ual. Is snotthe punishment the same Stei
! you do anything more than hang a G
L? Is not the mode Of trial the same? der'
} not the rules of evidence the same? con
! If another rule is to prevail, then, / ID
your attention to the tenth page Of whC
bOOk-Archibold's Criminal Plead outl
trea
But where the person indicted has a G
ne or dignity as peer, a baronet, or frig
ght, he should be described by it, and brir
lould seem if he be described as a mill
ght, when in fact he is q baronet, or b