Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-08-15

I mucl OF n same e~NlueDce. Inc para
mount object of this trial was the excul-
patton of the government the life of
the prisoner was deemed necessary TO
the attainment Of that object. A weak
individual thus struggling for his life
against a powerful government bent on
taking il as a means Of rescuing itself
from Odium and infamy, was placed at a
I disadvantage never before encountered
by q prisoner in this country in a court
Of justice.
Judge PIERREPONT, who received a fee
from the Government to prosecute, has
been for years a most close and intimate
friend Of STATION, the most deeply in
terested Of all men to justify the strangu-
lation Of Mrs. SURRATT. before the
trial commenced, - says the World, ait
was announced from Washington that
| Judge PIERREPoNT would not consent to
conduct the case for the Government
until he became convinced, by examina-
ton of the evidence, that the prisoner
was undoubtedly guilty. This was a
trick for causing the testimony to be read
with jaundiced eyes-a trick for procur-
ing a conviction il the public mind in
advance of the trial. There was much
similar triekery in the court, calculated
to impress the public with the idea that
if the prisoner were not promptly con-
demned, it would be the fault of the jury.
The resort to such devices proved, if not
the consciousness of a weak cause, then
most certainly an excessive and nervous
solicitude."
The witnesses for the prosecution were
hurried away as o o as they had testi-
fed, that the counsel for the defence
might not be able to prove that they had
made statements elsewhere, contradic-
tory of those made by them in testifying,
the Judge refusing to compel them to
remain. OF these witnesses, several
were Of a character so ~disreputable
that it was d~isgraceful on the part of the
Government to put them on the stand.
The Judge, FISHER, though not as
coarse and brutal as JEFFREYs and
ScROGas, was equally as unfair. "His
rulings were, throughout, most glsringly
against the prisoner, so much and per-
sistently SO, that the counsel for the
defence noted a hundred and fifty excep-
tons. OF his charge to the Jury, the
New York Herald says with entire
truth:
at would be strange if the jury could
I LII 49, .g,GnFFo lin, Af r,gr,n NTH
Judge Fishers charge, the last thing
| committed TO their memories. That
charge would be difficult to character
ize. 1t began with a harangue en- the
propriety Of capital punishment-which
seemed to assume that it was not the
prisoners guilt that was in question,
but only whether he should be hanged
or whether the "sentimentalism" that
opposes capital punishment should have
its way and save his life. We need not
dwell IN the giaring improperly Of
I moOting such a point to the jury that
had yet to Determine the mans status
before the law. Following this haTan-
que on capital punishment came another
in equally bad taste IN the wickedness
Of the rebellion, the judge evidently de-
string to fortify the unionism as well as
the hanging purposes of the jury before
taking up the prisoners case. The
cnarEe then discussed the supreme court
decision on the Efiligan court martial, in
connection with which Ii took up the
general principles of the constitution of
the United States, and having gone into
some detail closed with these words /:
But with this military commission,
gentlemen, you have 40 CONCERN st this
time Having wakened up to this fact,
the judge next entered on Surratt's case,
and charged the jury as to It's duty if
the evidence had produced on the minds
Of the members "a moral conviction
Of the prisoners participation in the
murder or any OF the acts that led to it,
instructed them as to the legal yalge Of
an abb, etc. AS if the foregoing were
not enough curiosities TO furnish a single
ebar66, some very novel citations Of cases
were made, such 90 2 case from the Book
of Kings-a good book, no iolUt, but not
often quoted as an authority on criminal
jurisprudence"
He declared to the jury, that they were
not the Judges Of the law. That, other
Courts have done, so that he is not 10 be
censured for that. But when be under
took to make law, the jury did have the
right, knowing that his charge was
not law, to refuse to take his dicta as
Law, and upon them hang the prisoner.
They 1Vere the judges Of the law, u rigHs,
and have always been 50, for the express
purpose Of rescuing men from the ven
geance Of the Government when it is
sought to make them the instruments
wherewith to do judicial murder.
STANTON and Holt have signsry
failed, after months Of preparation, and
aided by SANFORD CoNOvER's valuable
information and suggestions, to justify
themselves and the military commission
that hanged Mrs. SURRATF. no n
now believes that she was guilty. Every
one knows, thatif she was, she was Illegal
ly executed. And above all, such a con-
trsst has been presented to the people
between a trial by jury, even before a
partisan judge, and 8 trial by military
commission, that there is no danger of
that instrument Of despotism being used
again, except in the Southern Proviaces,
where the people have no constitutional
or even human rights which q negro or
a Radical is " bound to respect
We see many evil sights in these DAYS
Of the d~eeadence of the Republic, that
affect Us with q profound sadness, when
we contrast these bad times and the
men in power, with 1.-THE times that are
no more" and the men e whose
graves Radicalism ramps and the Name
lukes Of military despotism ride. Every
one who has lived more than a half
century, belongs more to the past than
the present, and consorts with the dead
more than the living. There is nothing
in our present that does not sadden us (;
but it is when the springs OF civll and
criminal justice are poisoned, as they
now are, and the bitter waters of Marah
flow from them, that the Present is dark
est and the Future more hopeless. The
trial OF SURRATFis one OF the mi~le-stones
that mark the progress Of the Republic to
its final resting-plAce Of shame and dis
honour.