The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-08-06
General Buffers Card--A Reply from
Hon. II. Il. Merrtck.
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, }
WEST VIRGINIA, August 3, 1863.

w
WEST VIRGINIA, August 3, 1868. )
To the Editor Of the National InteUigencer &:
NY attention has been called to q card
from Mr.. Benjamin F. Butler, published in
the Boston Journal under date of July 20,
in which he states, with regard to the suits
of Charles W. Woolley and Kimberly Bro
theirs, brought against him in Baltimore
city, rs follows: Both suits were brought
by John Surratt's attorney"
This statement is untrue. I was counsel
for Surratt, and am also counsel in the case
of Charles w. Woolley, but none Of the
attorneys of Surratt are in 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 manner in which he has referred to
these professional relations renders it pro-
per that l should state certain circum-
stances that occurred whilst the case of
Surratt was being prepared for trial. Some
of the friends Of Surratt, and one of the
me mbers of his family, on two OF three &C.
casions, informed Mr.. Bradley and myself
that it had been indicated to them that MIR.
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 de-
termining the question it presented. Some
four or five weeks after these suggestions
had been first made to us, and when | sup
posed we should hear no more Of them,
Mr.. Bradley Informed me that he had had
an interview with the sister Of John h.
Surratt, in~,which she stated to him
that proposition to assist in the trial
had been submitted to her by Mr..
Butler through mutual friend
q gentleman well known in Washington
City-and that she was so solicitous upon
the subject that it could be no longer evaded,
and definite answer was necessary. re-
piled that if compelled to give On answer,
there was but one we could give that if the
friends of Surratt and the family were will
ling to acquiesce in MIR. Buffers desire to
try the case, would gladly retire from 1t
in his favor, but that could not consent to
the 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
subiect-and wrote Miss Surratt accordingly.
Inc lamliy vi lllc dCCuScu duo lib ihhhSoA
ate friends, acting in his behalf, refused to
allow either Mr.. Bradley or myself to with
draw, and Mr.. Butler did not participate in
the trial. .s.. s. ..... 49,. .
/ cannot perceive what connection there
is between the case of the United States
against John Fl. Surratt and the cases of
Charles w. Woolley and Kimberly Brothers
against Benjamin F. Butler which can
Justify reference to the former in card
relating exclusively to the latter. But if
Mr.. Butler supposes that the counsel of Sur
raft declined being associated with him
professionally because of any personal i'll
will, and are pursuing him with litigation
to crafty any personal malignity, he is en-
tirely mistaken. les.
We declined the association because We
felt constrained to do SO from proper re-
gard for the honor Of the profession and
our own self-respect. Respectfully,
.a..r...: r. 7. MERRICK.