The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-09-23
LOCAL DEPARTMENT.

oial term for the trial Of John II. Surratt, re-
suned It's session session ye,ste,rSdsy , morning;
pearcd with his counsel. No larger number
of spectators attended than arc usually pres
Ont At trials OF general intel est.
At the opening OF the case, Mr.. Bradley
ment;
proper person comes Into court here, and hav.
lug heard the said indictment read saith that
the Uovctntnent OF tho United States ought
or any one or more Of the several counts
thereof against him, the said John II. Surratt,
because he saith that heretofore, to wit: On
United States, Andrew johnson, having full
power and lawful right SO to do, issued his
prociamstion, bearing date tho day and year
the words follow ing, to wit: 1Iere follows the
Presidents proclamat ionl as by duly authcn-
Heated copy Of said proclamation hereto an. an:
said John II. SIrratt In fact further saith that
he Ia not under presentment or Indictment In
any court of the United States having COM
potent Jurisdiction upon . charge OF treason
BY reason q which said proclamation the
that he may be discharged from the said prem.
ises in tho said Indictment specified"
sGGs Darlington for the pTo Sc @S there.
upon prepared and filed tho following demur.
"Ths III United States, by Its attorney E. q.
tho special plea filed by the defendant in tho
j. in;Sieent IN LAW because .ho rr1sSla,s.
day OF July, A. ID. 1868, excerpts therefrom such
borson or persons as may be under present.
Sn, Of 81 the limited
charge OF treason or other felony, and because
said plea does not show that said defendant
aforesaid At the time said pr6oia@s,ion was
made, and because the proclamation sets forth
In said plea docs not apply to or affect the Of
fence and offences charged and set forth In
said indietmentj and because the same Is In
other respects insufficient, Informal, and OF
no effect In law"
United States District Attorney.
Mr.. Mcrrick said that the paper seemed to
he a special demurrer as also areplication.
When the Government elected whether they
would proceed either under the demurrer or
under the replication, he would make up an
Issue OF law or fact: But evidently the Gov
ernmcnt could not do both-reply and demur.
The plea claimed that the defendant WAS re-
licved of all responsibility for the acts charged
should be held that the defendant should have
been free from Indictment for 'elony at tho
date Of the proclamation, he would contend
was not charged as a Felony, but as a ststu.
tory offence to be considered In reference to
the recent rebellion, and that therefore such
Indictment did not prevent the amnesty from
Tho court thought the facts set forth In tho
paper proper reasons for sustaining the de-
Mr.. Wilson said that these matters were
stated as facts. demurrer must state all tho
MT. Riddle explained that tho reason OF tho
additional ALLEGATIONS was to set forth the
whole cnno. 1hc prosecution claimed that
the present indictment WAS an Indictment for
felony.
MIR. Merrlck. Ibid not know that you claimed
this to be an Indictment for felony. IL II Is,
then we pleaded badly. For If this is felony
ga convict Surratt for haIa
charged 1t az felony.
Mr.. Wilson drew 4 distinction between q
was not under indictment at the offer of am
ncsty and this plea, which alleged that the dc.
fcndant ais not now under Indictment"
The Court thought that the offences charged
In the Indictment were charged as offences
generally, but as committed for the purpose OF
aiding the rebellion. The last clause charged
Mr.. Darlington opening for the demurrer,
contended that the plea claimed only that
the defendant ais not now" under indictment.
To answer tho indictment 1t WAS necessary for
the plea to allcSe that "he was not at the date
of the proclamation, 4th of July, $685." How
lawn I'm hS sen net n9 9naes a
nation which gave amnesty to those only
who were not under indictment on the 4th day
this would be to contend that the noile prOsCgUi
had q retroactive effect, and thus to give the
District Attorney the power OF making that
choose. lie contcndod that the President did
not intend to pardon persons who had vio-
lated special act OF Congress and committed
those who had engaged in the rebellion me rely,
and not to those who, like the defendant, had
committed offence at common law In conspir-
Ing to murder, so, Mr.. y. said he would FUR
nish the defence n list Of authorities.
Mr. Merriok; cannot reply to q mere clta:
ton OF anthoTitios The counsel should read
Mr. Riddle then, iu support OF the position
taken BY Mr.. USirinston, quoted Afehboid,
Cokc's cases In times of Elizabeth, and
Crokc,s cases In time OF Charles, to show
that the English authorities held that the
and unless 1t was so shown tho party claim!
lug the benefit OF general amnesty did not
come under any exception. The 10th Uustis,
Wilson case, was quoted to show Chic! JUS
tico MsrAhall's concurrence In the English
doctrine, and 18th Howard, 3O1, case of WIN.
Wells, to show Justice Waync's affirming the
MIR. Bradley examined tho cases quoted by
Mr.. Riddle, and oontended that they fell far
die, that Il IL there be an amnesty to 4 general
class of Individuals, with certain exceptions
thereto, the defendant is bound only to show
that he belongs to the iavOrite class, and the
prosecution to show that he 10 not amnestled
because ho comes within some of the oNccp-
tIons.
The court said that Ro thought that tho
burden OF showing that the defendant came
within some exception to the general rule WAS
%p2n the bpro.eSation ,Sr !. we're upon. tho
lug the record of every court In the United
Staten
Mr.. Merrlck made some suggestions as to
simplifying the method by which all the QueA.
tion might be reached.
The court thought that all the questions
might DO reached In the present method. The
question now had reached this point: The de.
fence had plead that he was under the amnesty
because no was not now under Indictment
The prosecution had demurred to this rs not
sufficient, because tho amnesty affected those
only who were not under indictment on the
Ith OF July last.
MIR. Mcfrick said that the bulk OF that WAS
tho question whether, on the ith of July
last, tho defendant was under Indictment for
felony.
The court understood that to be admitted
by tho plesdings.
Mr.. Merrick said 1t WAS intended to mako no
such admission.
Mr.. Bradley urged that tho whole prccc-
dents OF tho proclamation, Its preLmble, and
evident intent showed that 1t was intended to
Include Gases like those OF the defendant In
this case.
The Court thought that the amnesty granted
was confined to those who had "Adhered" to
the rebellion, !. g, gone to the armed forces OF
the enemy, and those who "gave aid aud com
fort" not adhering to the enemy, but remain
Ing hero aud assisting the operations OF tho
enemy.
Mr.. Bradley continued his argument, urging,
upon the authority OF Spellman, that "iel,
ony," which was derived from "iee" and
"lohn" price or value, the word denOting
those offences only which In fcudal times for.
ioltcd the estate OF the offender, and hence
were "thc price OF the fec" At common law
those which were punished with = loss of life
or member were designated as felonies.
MIR. Riddle quoted Archbold, as declaring
a.llR