Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-09-22
LOCAL NEWS.
THE SURRATT CASE.

Presidents Amnesty Proclamation.
CRIMINAL CoURT, JUDGE Wyie This morn
ing. Judge wylie entered the court room
promptly at 10 o'clock, and the Court was
opened by Deputy Marshal Phillips. At this
in short time numbers of those summoned as
witnesses took seats within the bar. About 10
minutes past 10, the accused entered the room
In company with Mr.. Bradley; the District
attorney appearing just previously, and Mr..
Merrick.
Some little commotion was caused in the
menced; man evidently deranged appearing
OUTSIDE the bar, waving his hat and exclaim.
ing "Judge, Judge Wyiie, i beg your pardon,
I never saw the prisoner, and never spoke TO
him bnt once, and he had nothing to do with
it" The bailiffs took HIM out of the room, but
IN lew momeats he attempted to enter again.
There were three ladies present in the room to-
day, one OF whom is a witness.
MT. Merrick Submitted the prisoners plea to
lows:
proper person, comes into court, and having
heard the said Indictments read to him saith thst
the Government Of the United StItes ought not
further prosecute the said indictment or any
one or more OF the several caveats thereof
against him. the said John H. Surrat, because
be saith that heretofore, to wit. on the fourth
day OF July, in the year of our Lord one thou
sand eight hundi ed and sixty .eight, the Presi-
dent of the United States, Andrew johnson,
naNing full power and lawful right SO TO do,
issued MS proclamation, bearing date the day
and year.last aforesaid, and which said procla-
nation Is in the words following. Here fol-
lows the proclamation. As by q duly authen-
hcated copy of the said proclamation hereto
annexed mole fully and at large app -ars.
And the said John H. Surratt in fact further
saith he is not under presentment or indict.
ment In any court Of the United States hlving
competent jurisdiction upon charge Of trea-
son son OF amy other felony. BY reason Of which
prays the Court here that he may be dis
missed and discharged from the said prem lses
In the said indictment specified"
Mr. CarrlngtOn said that the prosecution had
anticipated the plea and had prepared n gene
raj demurrer, but as they wished to traverse one
fact at least they would prepare a special de-
murer. and after q conference he su bmltted n
special demurrer.
Mr.. Merrick remarked that he did not exact
ly understand the nature OF the paper submit
Gd, ior 1t appeared 10 be replication as we'll
After some discussion Mr.. Carrington SUBJ
mitted the following demurrer:
"The United States, bv its Attorney, T. q.
harrington, comes into court and demurs to
the special plea filed by the defendent in the
above entitled case, and says that the same is
insufficient in law, because the proclamation
tnerein set forth, bearing date July, A. ID, 1865
excerpts therefrom all such persons as NAV be
under Indictment or punishment in any court
OF the Z nlted STATES having competent jurisdic-
uon upon charge of treason or other felony.
and because the said plea does not show the
SAID defendent was not under indictment or
punishment as aforesaid at the time said
proclamation was made, aud because the same
is insufficient and for other good and suffici.
ent reasons.
II. And because the proclamation set forth
IN SAID plea does not apply TO or affect the of.
fence and offences charged and set forth in
said indictment
III. And because the same is in other re-
in law"
Mr.. Darlington said the first point they would
make was, that the accused was excepted from
the benefits OF the proclamation; second, that
tle plea was defective because il did not state
that the accused was not under Indictment at
the time OF the issuing OF the proclaim ation;
third, the proclamation was for the benefit OF
those VINO engaged simply in the rebellion, and
not tnose who Were engaged in crime. The
subject OF the proclamation was the insurrac
uon, ana the accused was indicted under the
act OF Ieo2, and not for being an ins urgent
Mr. Riddle followed, questioning various
autborines as TO the pleading of pardons, read.
ing from English as well as American cases
Mr.. Bradley SAID the discussion had taken a
new turn TO them, and he thought the authori.
nes cited admitted OF different construction
han tnat put on them. The Court was bound
70 take cognizance OF general amnesty, aud
tne defence was not bound to set out in their
plea that the accused was or was not of the ex-
eepted class, and it was sufficient for him TO
piead general amnesty, And the burden was on
me Government to show that he was NOT in
cIuded. After reading various authorities he
SAID mat the only issue is whether the defend.
ant is or is not OF the excepted class.
Judge Wylie remarked that that vas the
principal inquiry.
Mr.. Bradley proceeded to argue from the
proclamation that the object was to induce all
persons to submit to the authority Of the Gov.
Judge Wylie called the attention of the conn.
sci to the wording OF the indictment-uadhe.
rents"-and the question is whether the ac.
cused is TO be regarded simply as an adhereut.
treason and adhering to the enemy are the two
offences pardoned. -..- - ..'I
:. Mr.. Bradley argued that the construction
limited the benefits designed to be conferred.
The President doubtless intended to give
tne benefits 10 all except those under indIct.
meht, anC to every class of Offalse. II had
been accepted throughout the country IN its
broadest Interpretation. He also argued that
tne President had the power of granting par.
dons, and he read from 1st Archibald, page IA
ana the case Of e1 pdrte, Garland, page 3SI He
argued at some length that the first Indictment
being out Of the way, there was no felony IN
the remaining indictment, and consequently the
accused was not one Of those excepted He
referred TO the fact that the District Attorney
had the advice Of the Attorney General in
une last to aban don the murder case and thpy
refused TO enter noIie pros. to the first indieI
ment until alother was found; and he would
submit that II Surratt should not legally and
technically be discharged, he was entitled TO his
morally.
Mr.. Merrick followed Mr. Bradley, stating
that the declslon would affect a large class OF
onr citizens. Mr.. Merrlck proceeded at some
length TO argue that the prisoner could not be
held to answer under the second indictment
ana nj the conclusion of his argument the
Court adjourned. r.. -