The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-08-13

ment. Had the state Of war, and the savagery
of war, nothing to do with this so also we
think he was wrong in excluding evidence
tending to show that Surrat was employees
blythe Rebel Government before tine assaSsl-
nation, at Richmond, upon business Wmch no
was carrying out after its date, AZ MonLeal' al
But there is no question that he was rlght IN
excluding two pieces OF evidence vital 10 tne
defenseEthe entry in the hotel register at
Canandaigua and the copy of an agreement
between Booth and the three remaining con-
spirators The latter document, however, is
before the public and will materially affect
their view as to whether there was an original
conspiracy to abduct, afterwards abandoned,
and a new, original conspiracy ooncocted for
the darker crime.
It is not difficult to follow in imagination the
dubitations through which the Jury probably
wavered towards a settlement upon the fol-
lowing ConClusions:-First,t that there was a
plot to abduct the President by force, in
which the accused probably took an active
part; but that notwithstanding the broad
views pressed by the prosecution, a state of
war deprived this plot of its most heinous
features, and reduced it to a coup de main,
ambitious to become a coup d6tat Next, that
this plan was utterly abandoned, and a new
and more violent project of assassination con-
ceived, the proof of Surratt's completely in
which is inconclusive, while the proof of his
presence at Washington during its execution
is at least disputable. And lastly, even adj
mitting the legal doctrines of the prosecution,
nevertheless, since his part in the murder,
improved az fact only results as deduo-
tion from an artificial rule of law, imputing to
him an intent not shown, the application of
these doctrines to his case would be too stern
for real justice.
Much cannot be said in praise of Judge
Fishers charge to the jury. Though labori-
ously put together, it is at once ditfuse and
turgid. The attention of the lawyer, won by
the lucid eloquence of Mansfield and the weight
and pith Of Marshalls pregnant sentences, or
held by the vigorous sense of Oakley and the
polished erudition of Duer-would that later
models could be oftener citedl-turns YEARLY
away from platitudes enlivened by Sunday
School recitation, or a barbecue TRADE. There
are serious faults too, in its substance. The
defense, deprecating political anger, main
tanned that the killing of the President was no
more heinous than the murder of common
citizen. The Judge elaborately perverts this
into the statement, which he combats with
much fustian, that the killing of an elected
ruler is less enormous than the assassination
of an anointed one. Again, the defense urged
that as the Indictment charged only the kill
ing of an individual, there was no war
rant for deepening the horror of the jury
by dwelling on the crime of treason in killing
a ruler. In commenting upon this the Judge
drags in judicial cognizance OF the fact that
the victim was a President and strangely
jumbles together the legal rules with regard
to accessories in treason and those with regard
to agents in ordinary crimes. On the other
hand, his remarks on the character of abb
proof are just and applicable; and his censure
of the disrepect offered to the Court by the de-
tense in assuring the jury that they were to
! Judge of the law, is richly deserved.
This disagreement and the comparatively
| tame interest with which the community has
followed the course of the trial, are signs OF
the quiet into which the popular temper has
subsided from the passionate agitations of two
years ago. Or, rather, they indicate the re
stored calmness of the great majority of thu
nation, as contrasted with the fury still burn
ing in the bosoms of few extreme men, anC
which inspired one of the most reckless among
them with evil courage to utter, on the foo
of Congress, such dark insinuations agains
the Chief Magistrate as filled all honorable
minds with shuddering disgust.