Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-09-23
THE SURRATT CASE.


l.
Wyle, the case Of Surratt-argument on the
demurrer to the prisoners plea Of the amnesty
proclamation-was resumed by Mr.. Merrick
for the accused. He first said that this court
was not. technically, court OF the United
States and he referred to the case OF Kendall
against the United Statss, (s1s, 1.th Peters,
wherein the Judge held that the Circuit Court
of the District was not on the same foou lg as
The Unltrd States circuit courts, altho ugh the
Judges OF such court were vested with the same
powers. He would submit in view of the
double character of tbs court that to except a
person be must be indiet d for a felony in some
circuit court of the United StIteS. He refer red
TO the bankrupt act, to which il was necessary
for Congress 10 edopt an amend mant giyin :
the court the powers of United States courts.
Judge Wyle said that in Halls case in 1863
applicat on was made to him for warrant for
fugitive from justice, be found that author :
~ was vested IN the Judges of the Upit 4
StH Z, cult Court, but no power vas given
- the Unit d states Court for the Dist-ic. OF
Columbia. Judge DIN concurred with him.
but The other Jucg- did not ayr, with him.
Mr.. Merrick continu ed, cont ,ndi rg that the
accu,ed was not felon ad did not come ur-
der the exception. The procla nation says
under indictment in a .scourt having compe-
tent jurisdiction" and no Circuit or District
Court could have jurisdiction Of the crime
chars d 10 the i7diclment. The proclamation
was for the purpose of pardoaiug a general
class, except GER. in els under indie me VI
for trp. SOL, &c, and without this exception il
would have covered all The exception mean 5
a felony under The laws Of the United States
which would be under the jurisdiction OF tue
Chcuit CouIt OF tue Unit d Stlt's. He spoke
OF the terrible strife which had prevail foo
hye yr7rs, and when peace regnci the Ezecu-
1--we says that he would blot out the cIim,pa-
lions and recriminations and therefore he Is
sued this general pardon. 1t may not have
tsen WISE. but he lMr. NJ thought So I'd It
was the duty OF all TO aCk aowledge il. He TOOK
the bread serse of the amnesty aud the proc,a-
nation VS. 10 pardon all cri nes growing ont
OF that rebellion. He read from the proclaim l.
tIon OF 1-65. and reviewed others, claiming that
each WAS more mercIful than the priced n
one, and the last, July, 1855. was int ended 10
blot out all offences in which the par;ies
We're not under Indictment. He referred 20 the
fourth count of the indie; uenf, cbargtlg cou-
spiTacy ID abduct, and he held thai 1t was
repetition OF the others. and il was an act arts.
ing cut OF aidiDg the rebellion.
MIR. Riddle, for the prosecution, followed,
staling that the first indictment was found
February ith, 1865, the second the 18th OF June,
R57. and he then reviewed what h. transpir d
IN Court. The prisoner pleaded the general
smuesty. but would say that it had not Deen
before The courts. The case Of Garland, who
held special pardon. each power had trel ed
differently. In 1S6l, Congress had given The
PreTident power to issue a proclamation of
general amnesty, which authority had been re-
ferrrd 10 and recognized by Mr.. Lincoln in his
amnesty proclamation. The Thirty min h
Congress had repealed this power expressly
and dir , sly; If me Presidents view was cor
ly issued, but If the views of Congress were
correct II was unauthorized aud could not ne
pleaded. Simply calling the attention OF the
court TO the law, he left the question. He would
be abupdsntiy satisfied If the Executive has
disposed OF this case but he wished the in stru
meats of the Executive to be ratIonally con-
siruFd. He would undertake TO say hat the
defendant IS not within the language or pur-
view Of this act of amufsty, nor is tue
oherce with which he is charged. Ipdiyld-
ually he did not disapprove the procla-
maiion; 1t might have come wear sooner.
He spoke of the enormity OF the offenses of the
lelcer>, aud dis used the question as 20 whom
The Preside AT intended TO pardon, claiming that
the prisoner was not in the purvIew of the
pIooIamauon. he read from Coventry and
Houghes, English Digest I'd vol, page 1,Ol6, %
show how lar exceptions We're allowed TO GEM
eral pardons. He claimed that this was
UntSd STATES court, although it was not
and that the crime of murder, when commi it d
where the General Government mas lurisdrc.
ton, can be tried by United Suites Circpit
Court. The plea does not allege that al the
time OF the issuing of the proclamation he was
not under such an indictment, but at the time of
pleading there was not such an indictment
CoGoeoing that he was under indictment pre-
vlously. The Pre- 'ident doubtless " ended ID
except Mr.. Davis ard Mr.. Surratt, Tor the r,r.
mer was under Indictment for treason and TIE
the latter for mrrde-, the words reason or
other felony being used and beng apnIi able
to no one else. The term felon means nat the
party Is guilty. of grave offence. Formerly
the crime OF felony was one which worked q
forfeiture OF life, limb. or property, aud he re-
ie1red 70 tne deh"ition IN various S1'e-. 1t
was true that the rule was 70 construe d. rdols
literally toward the subject, bot there were
60 Where the courts we've exact, and he
referred TO several cas- in Eagland.
He OoEiend6d that IL was not the purpo~e Of
the President 10 pardon crime agaiust he Ii e
OF Abra ha N Lircoln. II can't be, and it on ght
not 20 De, contsndcd that such was his inten-
I on. The sccu-cd is within the exception and
al n dom in thah a de- ,k,o
law. He would leave the question with the
Corr. and If II WIS found that he me within
the saving claose, in Gods name let hi n 90 rs
Mr. Bradley here referred the Court to sew.
eral au; horities. among others Federalst disc.
IA. on, 20, by Alex. Hamilton, and The CouIl
look the papers.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Judge Wylie remarked that the indictment
five counts, all of which charge con-
spiracy on The pat OF the defendant. Asto re
n mist three there were some doub's as to whether
they charged conspiracy TO murde-, abducs,
&e-, or aiding the rebellion. The fourth 2 ID
nth counts were little different, aud the la
ter charged a conspiracy 70 commit al assault
and battery on the late President, Abraham
Lincoln. 1t appears TO the Court that the Of
fence in each count is q misdemeanor. FELONY
Is an offence at common law, and Is followed
by forfeiture OF lands and goods, and oftan-
times by capital punishment according to old
English authority, and in the days of Coke
there were 100 capital punishmepts. that
being the penalty for every crime above
the larceny Of twelve shilIings. He held that
under the law all offences for which the pun.
Ishment is imprisonment in the peniten ary
are not felonies. Whether the ofence charged
is conspiracy to murder, or to ssSault and 0It-
ter II Is misdemeanor. The act OF Congress
Of July, 1-62, under which the indictment is
found, does not declare giving aid and com fort
to the rebellion felony, and il is, Therefore, a
m isdemeanor. The defendant put in a special
plea, (when the ind ctment was found the proc
lamatIon was not out,) and he asks permission
which was granted) to withdraw the plea of not
guilty, then enter ed. and put In a special pleI
and avels that by the Presidents proclamation
OF July ith, 1-6S, he is pardoned: that at the
Time the plea was put in (September 22d) ne
was not under indictment tor treason or other
felony IN court of the United States having
competent jurisdiction. The demurrer admits
the facts set mp in the plea. A plea which pro-
fesseS 10 answer onei OF the counts should
answer all, and If defective as 10 one is defective
as 10 all, according to the rates Of pleading
One count Is conspiracy 10 assault and batter,
and II Is certainly not contendcd that this
crime Is embr1ced in the provisions of
the proclamation OF amnesty there
fore the plea is insufficient as 10 oil
II Is object d 10 by the Government that tn
plea Is defective because the defendant AYERS
that he was not under indictment at the time
OF the pleading. The proclamation of the Pres
ident, issued on the 4th Of July, excerpts from
lts benefits persons under indictment for treI-
SON or other felony. Surratt admits that he
was not unde- indictment on the I'D, and,
taking the strict rules Of pleading, he admits
that he was under indictment July 4th. He