The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-04-07
THE CASE OF MRS. sURRArr.
Johnson's Charge as to the Suppression OF
the Recommendation for Mercy

night, the speech of the evening was de-
livered by Gen. Henry l.. Burnett on ~Mlis
itary "reminiscences Relating 10 the WAL"
General Burnet said in part:
Perhaps no incident connected with the
trial of the aSsaSsins of President Lin
coin created such general interest. was dis
cussed so extensively and commented on by
the public press, or aroused such deep reel
ing of antagonism and bitterness between
two public men. as tie charge made py
President Johnson that Judge Advocate
general, Judge Holt, had withheld or sup
pressed the recommendation to mercy or
Mrs. Surratt, signed by five members of the
commission and sent TO the President
for official sanction. Though this
willie Mr.. johnson still occupied the Presi-
dents Office, he never openly made the
charge until after the expiration of his
term. No grave charge could be made
greater crime was ever committed by aman
in high official position. 1t would be muir
derous in intent and effect. This charge
rested, so far as human testimony went.
upon the solemn assertion of Presldeng
johnson alone. and if untrue was one or
the most cruel wrongs ever perpetrated by
one man against another.
III the Washington Chronicle of Aug. 25s
dressed by him TO the Secretary of War on
the 14th of that month. producing evidence
in refutation of the charge. The petitiou
read:
To the President:
The undersigned, members OF the military
commission appointed TO try the persons charged
with the murder OF Abraham Lincoln, respect
fully represent that the commission have been
constrained TO find Mary +. Surratt guilty, upon
the testimony, OF the assassination OF Abraham
Lincoln, late President OF the United States, and
sentence of death; but in consideration OF her
age and sex, the undersigned pray your Excel
lency. If il is consistent with your sense OF DUTY,
TO commute her sentence 10 imprisonment In the
penitentiary.
IL a letter of Feb. ii, 1873, to Hon.
John A. Bingham, one of the special judge
advocates during the trial, Judge Holt
said: In the discharge OF my duty when
presenting that record to President john
son. / drew his attention TO that recon-
mendation, and he read it in my. presence
and before approving the proceedings ana
sentence. He and l were together alone
when this duty on his part and on mine
was performed. TIL President n myself
having, as already stated, been alone at
the time, i have not been able TO. obtain
any positive proof on the point. although
evidence enough to satisfy any unbiased
mind that the recommendation was seen
and approved by the President when he ex-
amined and approved the proceedings and
deeply affecting my reputation u off,
ciaI honor, / am naturally DESTROYS of hav-
ing the testimony in my possession
strengthened as far as practicable.
In reply to this letter Judge Bingham as
sured Judge Holt that both Secretaries
Seward and Stanton had told him that the
petition for mercy was seen by. the Presi-
dent and discussed in the Cabinet when
they were present, and that the prayer for
communication of sentence was unanimously
denied by President johnson and his adj
visers. James Speed and James Harlan
who were members of President yohnson's
Cabinet, sent letters TO Judge Holt during
1873 bearing testimony TO the same effect.
To the Rev. George Butler, pastor of St
Paurs Church, Washington. ID. g., Presl-
dent Johnson said that, although every
effort had been made to shake his resolu-
tion, neither sex nor sRy. other considera.
ton should save Mrs. Surratt from the mi
penalty, rs she kept the nest that hatched
the eggs"
One of the main points in President
Johnson's response to this evidence was
that in the published volume of the record
of the trial of the assassins. prepared by
Benjamin Pitman, of Cincinnati, under ny
Official supervision, TINS recommenoation 10
mercy does not appear. There is no force
in this, for the following reasons: First.
The petition or recommendation to mercy
constituted properly no part OF the official
record Of the trial. II may be added that
Pitman. in hisapplication for permission to
make this publication, announced spe-
officially that such published record should
comprise the testimony. documents intro.
duced in evidence, discussion OF points or
law raised during the trial, the. addresses
of the counsel for the accused. the reply OF
the special Judge advocate, and the find
ings and sentence.
The commission met with closed doors at
10 A. NJ, on June %. and continued It's
labors with closed doors until the Goth.
From these meetings all the shorthand re-
porters were excluded. The findings and
| sentences, when finally made and recorded.
were handed to me to be attached to tho
record, or to 20 with the recordtothe Judge
| Acknowledgements Office, as was then the
course of procedure. BY their oath; all the
members of the commission, as well as the
Judge advocates, were bound not to reveal
those findings and sentences L therefore
retained them In my possession instead or
passing them to the stenographers. When
the recommendation to mercy was drawn
and signed by five members of the commits
sion, that was also handed me TO accompany
the findings.
/ presume Mr.. Pitman never saw either
the original findings or the recommends
ton to mercy, and the first knowledge he
had of the former was after they were
promulgated by the Acknowledgement ON
| July 3. This is evidenced by the fact that
the Acknowledgement, in promulgating the
proceedings, took Mrs. Surratt's name from
the position it occupie in the records aud
placed il next TO that of Payne, evidently
for the purpose of grouping together the
four persons condemned TO death Mr..
Pitman gives the finding and sentence In
the order promulgated by the Adjutant-gen-
eral, that is TO say, he places the findings
and sentence in Mrs. Surratt's case next
after tina of Lewis Payne, while the court.
in making MP its findings, followed the or
der named in the charge and specifications,
where Mrs. Surratt's name follows that of
Samuel Arnold.
When i reached my Office at the Var
| Department on June 80. or possibly on the
morning of July 1, L attached the petition
for mercy to the findings and sentence. and
at the end of them. i carried the findings
and sentences, and the petition or recon-
mendation, and delivered them to tho
Judge Acknowledgement in person; and L
never saw the record again until many
years after.-I think in 1875 or 1874. After
| Judge Hollis interview with the President,
| on July 5, the former came TO Mr. Stanton,s
Office in the War Department L was with
Mr.. Stanton when Judge Holt came In. He
| said: II have lust come from a conference
with the President over the proceedings OF
| the military commission
well" asked Mr.. Stanton, what has he
donef"
HE has approved the findings and sem
tence of the court" replied Judge Holt.
What did he say about the -recommen-
dation TO mercy of Mrs. Surrattf'
HE said that she must be punished with
the rest; that no reasons We're given for his
interposition by those asking for clemency
in her case. except age and sex"
In view of these and many other circum-
stances, General Burnett said he had come
10 the conclusion that the charge of Presi-
dent johnson. with regard TO the Suppress
ion of the recommendation to mercy. was
entirely false. His motive was TO curry