The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-07-31
T HIRD EDITIO N
Trial of John III. surratt.
Continued from Second EdutoTA

CONtt7lheQ from SECOND Edition
Mr.. Darlington is mistaken in talking OF God as a
COD Of vengeance aud God OF wrath; sssurediy mis-
taSen TAX az ne y In saying tina. peace has returned
Merrck) would seek to excite no prejudice The Jury
all prejudice and stand forth men with unclouded
minds; What is John II. surratt charged with? In
% lost Of the snd Il nsSessay o
ret with tbs hs 9qsr ns babam Seon bs
second count charges him with Assassinating Mr.
The third count untes the prisoner with Booth
Harold Payne and Mrs surratt In the killing OF Mt
The fourth count specifies that the persons named and
& be STT s aa d @eSet sh What is
laid in the Indictment is true It is charged that the
he%S ali fn in wSshngon ps SgS S1 S16 the jury must u
S Te5e Is S hsr 6e5e eaeE Lincoln
then and there Are you not then try Ing Surra for
the indictment and the verdict must be guilty or not
gpilty as indicted The question Is did SnTrs1 XII
for being spy and consplTator, member OF the
@ cf S & s e IS
one thing-to do the act is another II is crime %
for which the conspiracy was formed. When MT.
Indictment as a simple Indictment for murder. and it
was not until they found their original view tnwarted
spiracy. They brought Witnesses TO prove the murder
their feet a mass OF the most offensive corruption,
and thread by thread we broke the strand
the body OF the crime. Losing their case, they had
resort TO other measures The United States should
have mRgnanimously abandoned the case then, but
there others besides the United States standing
as sergeant Dyes. These gentlemen wanted the yeT.
dict OF jury TO the shedding of innocent blood
was not proven that these new doctrines Of law law
9Gs & m have 9 s wIpgs ana 1anss ss
It Is an insult to argue It before the jury They have
shown to be physical mpossbility for Surratt to
have got here. They felt the necessity of meeting
necessary here at the time Of the murder, and the
cson as he desires and od 1p the fear What the
popular y0iGS VIII 90 S T6e Jury dare to do right II
popular voice The Court is responsible alone to God
and at the Court House door the popular voice
hard that II was their duty to follow the instructons
he advised that the Court would do as be wished?
The jury must give true verdict according TO the
is to give verdict according to the evidence aud not
according to the Instruction Of the Court When the
excuse Tor them that they brought verdict that re-
suited in boodshed because the Judge so instructed
them? The law is given you to tighten your path
way In the investigation and is not mandatory upon
Mr.. Merrick cited from 80 Johnsons Gases, page
law as Veil as OF the facts and they determne S
the crime as set forth In the Indictment 1t Is the
must pronounce the prisoner guilty not guilty. 1t
is they and not the Judge Your consclenees must be
tul servants and to do that your verdict must be in
Mr., Merrck said he would now call attention to the
propositions of law and refer TO some authorities In
so his colleague. Even II It is proved that sur
der Il IS but they Sn Gh Chat he
near the scene OF the murder, or at such convenient
of the act Whether surratwas present aiding at the
murder is for the pr secutlon to prove but M is the
Mr. Merrlck denied that each conspirator was liable
ever is done by coconsprstor but this is not Of
stantiye part With regard 70 Mr. Pierreponts fourth
he heard i With az @ and pleasure
enunciate such doctrines aud pleasure, because it
was the ayng strnggie OF an eVlI cause The pr9po-
was enhanced from the fact that the murdered man
was vas, President ofth United States 49,, A. g.
rick, now becoming popular that officers are invested
se SSd % s
ing ing him T. was taking only the life OF man no more
this crime than he Mr Merrickl, yet In the contem-
Individual, and the charge is murder, and nothing
but murder But the gentleman says there are no
are no accessories and that crime is treason and In
nesses against him. II r was meant to call this tTes
son. why not the list of witnesses furnishedP It
dieting him for murder and then trying him for
The sixth proposition forth that the personal
presence not necessary, but that he could per.
% Was az E% R FOR tRo
pose Of performing his part Of the conspiracy The
his part in the conspiracy p and DIV when the defense
doing there, 1t objected and the objection
reputation OF Joseph Holt should not be Vndicsed by
the verdict Of the jury for the shedding of innocent
blood let do justice still. The proposition of law
the counsel on the other side gives rise the quss
tion as to who are the principals and who are access
principals in the different degrees involve different
degrees in crime; ana principal in degree can
not be q principal in another degree.
Mr. Merrick cited from Hales pleas of the Crown,
lsJ VOL page 438 and conended from this authority
that he who stands by assisting is principal In the
second degree but II crime is done he who counsels
but is not present assisting isan accessory In SUP.
port this position Mr. Merrick cited LIST Hale page
6l5 on page 435 OF the book Ii shown who are
accessories, On page GIG IL is shown that that which
makes accessory before the fact is command. The
principles referred to- Mr. Merrlck COntended laid al
the very foundation OF the English law and he did moi
suppose his Honor sat upon the bench to report these
principles.
Russell & RyAns' Crown cases. page 25 were also
cited from, also page lls OF the same book On page
249 is case in which several parties planned the
utterance Of forged order, and the actual utterer
alone held as the principal. The same principle
decided on page $685. where It is held that persons
not near enough TO give aid principals IN 4
crime. On page 42I 1t Is decided that even going
towards place where crime is being Committed
hut not enough 10 aid in the Commission OF the
act does not make principal