New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-09-11
THE SURRA4T CASE ONCE MORE.
A CARD FROM JUDGE ADvOCATE-GENERAL
HOLT.


ANDREW JOHNSON NOT AssAILED.
TO ths EDITOR of TAe Trfbuns.
SIR. In your issue of the ID inst. there appeared
An ANONYMOUS communication. written from this
CITY. under the signature of Truth" to which-it
being grossly calumnious of myself and others-it Is
my duty to reply in view OF the fact that you nave
so far Endorsed the writer as TO anlrm tnat' nc
means tn tell the exact truth" He says that in
the near future. a statement will be prepared and
furnished THE TRIBUNE that will create grave
doubts "a TO tho truth of testimony given under
duress and terror and influenced to some extent by
antecedent threats, telling, at tho same time,
true story of n woman tortured day after day.
before and during trial. with manacies on
her limbs, of an eminent and venerable Jurlst
driven from her defense of willing prosecuting and
involved witnesses, petted and afterward rewarded
and of witnesses for the defense imprisoned and one
handcuffed while in prison." He then prefers an &C
cusation against myself in the following words 1t
would relieve Judge Hollis fair fame much moro just
now if. instead of assailng Andrew Johnson with
questionable political motive as his incentive, he
would show any good reason why in courtroom
located in massive stone prison, guarded by alegon
of soldiers on foot and horseback, and watched by
numerous keepers he kept that feeble, wretched
woman heavily manacled during her trial, and also
virtually deprving her of reputable counsel. while
holding some of her witnesses in prison."
assert as a legal proposition. well known to law
yers at all conversant with the proceedings of mill
tary tribunals that neither the Judge Advocate nor
the court can exercise any control over the prison
ers on trial except while they in the presence OF
the court The Marshal OF ministerial officer detailed
for the duty by the military authority converting
the court has the custody of the prisoners and is
charged with their safe keeping and under this re-
sponsibity he exercises his discretion in imposing
upon them such restraints he deems necessary to
prevent their escape. That no "manacles" OF any
kind were upon Mrs Surratt when in the presence of
the court the multudes who attended her trial can
bear witness. But that she was never "manacled,"
or tortured" or maltreated in any manner, in the
presence of the court or outside Of it, is made fully
to appear by the following letter from Gen. Hart
ranft who was the Marshal of the court, and is now
the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania
EXECUTIVE CHAMBER,
HARRISBURG, Penn. Sept. 4. 1873.
Gen. JOSEPH Holt, washington, d. O-Dear ST MY
attention having peen d TO tnt thar sn
peared In THE NEwYoRK TRIBUNE few days since, l
that its statements 50 far as they relate to
within my observation are absolute falsehoods.
tos We're tried had charge of Mrs surratt before
during and after the time OF her trial. In all period OF
about two months during winch she never had
manacle or manaces either hands or feet and the
Thought OF manacling herswas not, to my knowledge,
ever entertained by any one in authority.
During the tendency Of the trial l made application
to the Secretary OF War for permission to remove her
from the cell comfortably furnished room adjoining
the courtroom and for her daughter Annie TO occupy
with her. that she might attend to her wants
daughter occupied the room her. and Mrs Surratt
fully provided for according TO her needs and
tastes.
few days after her death Miss Annie surratt by
letter. thanked me for the kind treatment her mother
and herself had received from myself and officers
will perhaDS recOlleCt the name OF the young
priest who visited Mrs Surratt frequently, and
treatment and to the fasity OF the statements Of
Truth" have the honor 10 DO your 0Dedient ser
want, j. r. HARrRANFr.
That can eminent and venerable jurist 1.-THE Hon.
Reverdy Johnson) was driven from her defense" and
that VIRTUALLY deprived her of reputable coun-
sell" is an allegation without the shadow Of founda
ton. Mr. johnson appeared on the trial, avowng it
to be his purpose to discuss only the legal question
as to the jurisdiction Of the Commission to try the
prisoners arraigned before it and having done this
in most elaborate argument, he voluntarily with
drew leaving the conduct of the defense on the tes
timony to the two counsel associated with him
CMessrs. Aiken and Clampitt), who discharged the
obligation thus imposed on them with marked zeal.
faithfuness. and ability. Had Mr.. johnson desired
to continue in the case assuredly there was no
power that could have prevented him from doing
No effort was certainly made wish felt to inter
fere with or embarrass him in any manner what
ever That his withdrawal was the result of
an arran cement between himself and his associate
counsel. is shown by his own declarations to the
Court which will be found in his argument as
printed with the proceedings Of the trial. The
first sentence Of that argument s as follows Has
the Commission jurisdiction of the cases before it
is the question which propose to discuss Near the
close of the argument he remarks: A word more,
gentleman and, thanking you for your kind atten-
ton, / shall have done. As you have discovered,
the evidence in the case of Mrs.
Surrstt is ii my purpose" And after referring to
the witnesses who would be produced, he said Of
the particulars of their evidence / say nothing.
They will be brought before you by my associates"
On Mr. Johnsons retiring from thecase Messrs Aiken
& Clampitt remained, and they hardly need that
should defend them from the imputation Of not Boz
ing reputable counsel" Had they not been rep
utable," would Mr.. johnson have associated himself
with themi OF would he, under an arrangement
have trusted them with the arduous and vast re-
sponsibility Of defending the life of his client on
the of testimony to DO thereafter introducedf
And if they were not reputable" why did Mrs.
Surratt her friends select them for the perform
ance of duty so mOmentous in its results to her
self and familyf
That the testimony OF any part Of it, introduced
in support of the prosecution of the assassns, was
given under duress or terror and influenced to
some extent by antecedent threats" is charge so
far as know, made now for the first time. believe
it to be utterly untrue in every particular, and i'm
peaching, as 1t does. the integrity of number Of
men whose regulations arc without reproach, the
public will scarcely give it any credit in tho absence
Of proof to sustain it, II any of the witnesses for
the defense on the trial of the assassns were i'm
prisoned and handcufed," it was unknown to me.
The statement is most improbable. When the
names OF such witnesses are given, 1t will be easy to
ascertain whether they were subjected TO the re-
strants mentioned and if they were, it will no doubt