The Placer herald. [volume] (Auburn, Placer County, Calif.) 1855-1991, 1868-09-12
-------------------------
Something for Gen. Butler.
The following card appeared in an East
ern paper:
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS,

| ern paper:
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS,
West Virginia, Aug. 3, 1868.
'"To THE EDITOR OF THE NATIONAL INTEL
LIGEsCER:-My attention has been called to
a card from Mr.. Benjamin Z. Butler. pub
lished in the Boston journal, under date of
| July Goth, in which he states with regard
to the suits of Charles w. Wooley and
Kimberly Brothers, brought against him
| in Baltimore city as follows: Both suits
were brought by John Surratts attorney
| This statement is untrue. l was counsel
| for Surratt and am also counsel in the
case of Charles W. Woolcy, but none of
the attorneys of Surratt are III any way con-
cerned in the suit of Kimberly Brothers,
and Mr.. Butler is sufficiently well informed
| in regard to both cases to have known the
fact and doubtless did know it. The man
| ner in which he has referred to these pro-
| fcssional relations renders it proper that
should state certain circumstances that oc-
CURED whilst the case of Surratt was being
prepared for trial. Some of the friends
of Surratt and one Of the members of his
family on two or three occasions informed
Mr.. Bradley and myself that it had been
indicated to them that Mr.. Butler would
assist in the trial of the case, if agreeable.
We eyaded the subject, for We desired to
avoid the necessity of determining the ques-
ton it presented. Some four or five weeks
after these suggestions had been first made
to us, and when l supposed we should hear
no more of them, Mr.. Bradley informed
me that he had an interview with the sister
of John FL. Surratt, in which she stated to
him that proposition to assist in the
trial had been submitted to her by Mr.. But
Ter through mutual friend, gentleman
we'll known in Washington city, and that
she was SO solicitous on the subject tlat it
could be no longer evaded, and n definite
answer was necessary. l replied, that If
compelled to give an answer there was but
one we could give: that if the friends Of
Surratt and the family were willing to ac-
quiesce in Mr.. Buffers desire to try the
case would gladly retire from it in his
favor, but that l could not consent to tho
personal and professional degradation of
being associated with such man. Mr..
Bradley agreed that the manner indicated
was the only manner in which either of us
could with proper self respect treat the
subject, and wrote Miss Su raft accord
inSly. The family of tho accused and his
immediate friends acting in his behalf re-
fused to allow Mr.. Bradley or myself to
withdraw, and Mr.. Butler did not partici-
pate in the trial. cannot perceive what
connection there is between the case of the
United States against John H. Surratt and
the case OF Charles w. Wooley and KIM
berly Brothets against Benjamin F. But
Ter, which can justify reiernce to the for
mer in a card relating exclusively to the
latter. But if Mr.. Butler supposes that
the counsel Of Surratt declined being as
ISOLATED with with him professionally be-
cause of any professional ill-will and
are pursuing him with litigation to crafty
any personal nalignity, he is entirely mis-
taken. We declined the association be-
cause we felt constrained to do so from
proper regard for the honor Of the profess
sion and our own self-respect
9 Respectfully, r. I. MEIRIcK."