Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-01-01
sURRATT.
The Question Of the Guilt or lH10JslCs Of
the Murdered woman.

From the Chicago Tines
A Washington telegram makes
public the subjOined statement con-
corning the man John II. Surratt:
"Surratt's temperance to public
notice has brought out a fact concern
ing him which has never heretofore
been published. 1t is stated, on the
most responsible authority, that,
when SUrratt's mother was on trial
here. Judge Advocate Holt consented
to release her, if the former would
give himself up to trial. SurFatt was
informed of this by friends who were
In communication with him, and, in
stead OF at once complying, thereby
securing the release of his mother, he
Immediately absc0nded, leaving her
to herfate."
This statement is either true or not
true. If true,th unavoidable deduc-
tons from it are:
I. That Judge Advocate Holt had
such serious doubts OF the guilt Of
Mrs. Surratt as amounted to a cOuviC-
ton Of her innocence. II Judge Ad-
vOcate Holt had believed Mrs. Sur
raft to be the guilty creature that
Radical clamOr pretended, would he
have consented to release her upon
the condition OF the surrender Of a
person who certainly was not proven
guilty? Judge Advocate Holt was a
Clear-headed lawyer, capable Of ana
lying evidence and of bringing his
mind to a Judicial conclusion in spite
Of popular frenzy. If the fore
going statement is true, the con-
clusiOn is irresistible that he, at least,
found more evidence of guilt against
the son than against the mother.
The son, il is now judicially estab-
lished, was innocent Of any partici-
patton in the assassination Of Mr..
Lincoln. Yet Judge Advocate Holt
sacrificed the mother, against whom
the circumstances indicating guilt
were weaker thal against the son, not
because ne thought her guilty, but
because the son did not come forward
to take her place! By what name
shall history describe Judge Advocate
HOlt-that of demon. OF Of fend?
.. That If Judge Advocate Holt
consented TO release Mrs. Surratt up
on the condition stated, that fact was
itself q Circumstance tending to estab-
Ish her innocence, which it was
proper that the court should know
and consider in making up its judg-
ment, and which it was the sacred
duty Of the judge advocate, as the
officer standing between Justice and
the rights Of the accused, 10 bring to
the knowledge of the court. 10 omit
ting to do 50, Judge Advocate Holt
did not literally draw the dagger of
an assassin and plunge il into the
heart Of an innocent woman, but he
did that which was more wicked and
more cOW8rdiy.
3. The consent OF Judge Advocate
Holt 10 release Mrs. Surratt, upon the
condition stated, was such an evil
dence Of his belief in her innocence as
would warrant John II. Surratt, or
any person, ia believing that iu a land
governed by law she could not and
would not be found guilty.
4. The COucealment Of this fact to
the present time is still a further evil
dence OF the consciousness, not only
of Judge Advocate Holt, but of all 10
whom the fact was known, of the in
uOcence Of Mrs. Surratt.
IT the statement is false. then its
publication is a circumstance tending
70 show a guilty conscience that is an /
nOyed by the revival Of unpleasant
memories by the recent proceedings
Of John ii. Surratt. II the c-Ouscieuces
Of the participants in that bloody work
are clear, why should they exhibit an
uOyanCe az the mOuthings Of a HOt
very gifted individual who chooses, |
with rather questionable taste, TO ap-
naur a. u nrrhffu fnaHwurn TF NhnTr 100 [
no sense Of guilt, why invent q false
hood that, even II believed, only tends
20 prove that they have committed a
terrible crime,-a crime no less hOrri-
bic than the deliberate killing Of an in
n0cent woman
There is yet more circumstantial
evidence against the Radical hOmi-
Ii appears that the managers
Of a public hall in Washington, called
Hall, have refused 20 permit
the man Surratt to deliver his lecture
therein. Why this refusal2 Is this
man Surratt more important than his
tory? Is it possible that the son OF
the woman whom Stanton, and Holt,
and Bingham, and their creatures
hanged, can make history record what 4
not true? is the feeble voice Of
his ueW-hedged lecturer able to re-
verse tins Fat of the whole Radical
party? If Mrs. Surratt died a guilty
woman, can anything that John III.
5urratt may say make it appear that
she was |innOcentg If not, then what
the Washington Radicals afraid
Of? Why do they shudder, and shut
the doOss Of their public places, when
this person makes his appearance, if
II be not that Ia him they recognize
the shadow Of that Nemesis WHICH
haunts a guilty conscience?