Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-08-11
Gen. Buffers Card-A Reply from Hon.
X. z, MPrrick.
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, WEST VIRGINIA,
Anpnst B ISl,S

WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, WEST VIRGINIA.
August 3, 1865. )
To the Editor OF the National Intelngencer:
My attention has been called to a card
from Mr.. Benjamin f. Butler, published
in the Boston Journal under date Of July
29lh, in which he states, with regard to
the suits of Charles w. Woolley and
Kimberly Brothers, brought against him
in Baltimore city, IS follows: Both
suits were brought by John Surratt's at
tOrney"
This statement ia untrue. 1 was coun-
sci for Surratt, and am also counsel in
the case of Charles w. WOOlIey, but
none Of the attorneys of Surratt are in
any way concerned in the suit of Kim
berly Brothers; and Mr.. Butler is suffi-
GENTLY well informed in regard to both
cases to have known the fact, and doubt
less did know it.
The manner in which he has referred
10 these professional relations renders it
proper that ! should state certain cir
cumstances that occurred 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 Il had been indicated to
them that Mr.. Butler would assist in the
trial of the case If agreeable to US. We
evaded the subject for we desired to
avoid the necessity of determining the
question it presented. Some four or five
weeks after these suggestions had been
first made to us, and when / supposed we
should hear no more OF them, Mr.. Brad
ley informed me that he had had an in
terview with the sister of John II. Sur
raft, in which she stated to him that
-.
submitted to her by Butler, through q
mutual fIieDd-s gentleman well known
in Washington city-Gnd that she was
so sOlicit0Us upon the subject, that 1t
could be no longer evaded, aud a definite
answer was necessary. [ replied that il
Compelled to give an answer, there was
but one we could give; that If the friends
of Surratt and the family were willing
to acquiesce in Mr.. Buffers desire to
try the case, l would gladly retire
from it in his favor, but that /
could not consent to the personal
and professional degradation Of being
associated with such man. Mr. Brad
ley agreed that the manner indicated
was the only manner in which either of
US could, with proper self-respect treat
the subject-Gnd wrote Miss Surratt ac-
cordingly. The family of the accused
and his Immediate friends, acting in his
behalf, refused to allow either Mr.. Brad
ley or myself to withdraw, and MIR. But
Ter did not participate ia the trial.
l cannot perceive what connection
there is between the case of the United
States against John H. Surratt and the
cases OF Charles w. Woolley and KIM
terly Brothers against Benjamin F. But
Ter, which can justify reference to the
fnrn N a rail- 70
the latter. But if Mr.. Butler suppOses
that the counsel of Surratt declined be-
ing associated with him professionally,
because Of any personal ill-will, and are
pursuing him with litigation to crafty
any personal malignity, he is entirely
mistaken.
We declined the association because
we felt constrained to do so from proper
regard for the honor of the profession
and our own self respect.
Respectfully, X. 7. MERRICK.